The White House (via OMB) strongly protests Congressional efforts within the FY 2027 NDAA to prohibit the purchase of warships from foreign shipyards. The Administration argues that these restrictions undermine national security by limiting flexibility and hindering its strategy of leveraging allied yards, such as in the 'Finland model,' to drive investment into U.S. shipbuilding capacity. This signals a significant policy shift toward integrating international partners into advanced naval construction, suggesting the Pentagon is prepared to bypass traditional domestic build requirements for future combat vessels.
Trump’s repeal of landmark climate ruling is a strategic own goal
English Summary
Chatham House argues that repealing the 2009 EPA endangerment finding is a strategic own goal: it may reduce near-term regulatory pressure, but it undermines US long-term economic and technological power. The paper cites estimates that rollbacks could add 7.9-15.3 billion metric tons of emissions by 2055, while also locking US automakers into legacy internal-combustion technologies as global EV adoption accelerates. It contends that lower regulation does not solve competitiveness because EVs often have lower lifetime operating costs, and global demand is shifting toward cleaner vehicles, with EV sales reaching 20.7 million in 2025. Strategically, the implication is that US policy should treat emissions and efficiency standards as industrial policy, sustaining investment in batteries, electrification, and clean-tech supply chains to avoid ceding market share and influence to China.
中文摘要
研究所主張，撤銷美國環保署（EPA）2009年「危害認定」（endangerment finding）是一種戰略性自傷：此舉或可在短期內減輕監管壓力，卻會削弱美國長期的經濟與科技實力。該文援引估算指出，相關鬆綁措施到2055年可能額外增加79億至153億公噸排放，同時在全球電動車加速普及之際，將美國汽車製造商鎖定於傳統內燃機技術路徑。文章認為，放寬監管無法解決競爭力問題，因為電動車在全生命週期營運成本上往往更低，且全球需求正轉向更潔淨車輛；2025年電動車銷量已達2,070萬輛。從戰略角度看，美國政策應將排放與能效標準視為產業政策工具，持續投入電池、電氣化與潔淨科技供應鏈，以避免將市場份額與影響力讓渡給中國。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The Western Pacific remains a highly active theater defined by sustained U.S.-led military exercises and escalating great power competition. Key evidence includes continuous joint operations, such as RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii and the deployment of CSGs into the South China Sea, juxtaposed with increased naval activity from both China (PLAN task groups) and Russia near Japan's critical straits. These movements underscore a strategic push by non-allied powers to assert presence and challenge regional norms. Policy implications dictate that allied nations must maintain robust multilateral cooperation and interoperability to safeguard freedom of navigation and manage escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
-
3.
The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
-
4.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
5.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.