The article argues that the Federal Reserve's recent rate hike decision, while justifiable on inflation grounds, highlights a critical lack of an underlying, transparent policy framework. The core problem is that the Fed's decisions appear discretionary, leading to market uncertainty because the committee's judgment, rather than clear data, dictates policy shifts. The author proposes that the Fed adopt a formal monetary policy rule—an algebraic formula linking the target rate to indicators like inflation and unemployment—to replace subjective guidance. Implementing such a rule would provide market predictability, enhance transparency, and shield the Fed from political attacks by making deviations from the standard easily quantifiable.
Integration or deregulation? Europe’s split over how to achieve sovereignty
English Summary
The article argues that Europe’s sovereignty debate is increasingly split between an integrationist strategy (more EU-level coordination, financing, and industrial policy) and a deregulatory growth strategy (less bureaucracy, stronger national competitiveness). It supports this by contrasting leaders and policy preferences: Macron and Draghi push pooled instruments such as joint procurement and common financing, while De Wever, Merz, and Meloni prioritize regulatory simplification and nationally driven industrial revival. The piece warns that the main danger is not institutional rupture but policy incoherence, where parallel national and EU initiatives in defense and energy create duplication and underpowered outcomes. Strategically, it suggests the most viable path is a calibrated hybrid: selective integration in scale-dependent sectors (defense, tech, energy infrastructure) combined with targeted deregulation to restore growth, with Germany’s choices likely to determine whether that synthesis holds.
中文摘要
該文主張，歐洲的主權辯論正日益分裂為兩條路線：一是整合主義策略（加強歐盟層級的協調、融資與產業政策），二是去監管成長策略（減少官僚負擔、強化國家競爭力）。文章透過對比領導人及其政策偏好加以論證：馬克宏與德拉吉推動聯合採購、共同融資等共享工具；德韋弗、梅爾茨與梅洛尼則優先推進法規簡化與國家主導的產業復興。文中警告，主要風險不在制度性斷裂，而在政策不一致：國家與歐盟在國防與能源領域並行推進的倡議，可能導致重複投入與力度不足的結果。從戰略上看，最可行的路徑是經過校準的混合模式：在依賴規模效應的部門（國防、科技、能源基礎設施）採取選擇性整合，同時配合定向去監管以恢復成長，而德國的政策選擇很可能決定此一綜合方案能否維持。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC serves as a critical warning that the global health security system is fundamentally unprepared for future biological threats. The difficulty in containing this outbreak is compounded by the rising risk of emerging pathogens and the growing potential for AI misuse in bioweapon development. Policy must therefore shift from reactive, crisis-driven funding to sustained, proactive investment in resilient public health infrastructure, particularly in conflict zones. Addressing this requires strengthening global surveillance, ensuring consistent international cooperation, and mitigating the intersection of conflict, climate change, and disease spread.
-
3.A Design Lab Pilot to Inform Strategies for Expanding Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Community Mental Health Centers (RAND)
Despite MOUD being the standard of care for opioid use disorder, access remains severely limited in Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs), which serve the primary population with co-occurring disorders. A Design Lab pilot identified payment limitations and regulatory complexity as the chief barriers to implementation. The most feasible and high-impact strategy identified was establishing a structured learning exchange between CMHC leaders and insurers to improve reimbursement understanding. Policymakers and payers are therefore advised to pilot this learning exchange model to initiate broader payment reform and expand evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.
-
4.
The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
-
5.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.