Podcasts about public policy research

A new report on Medicaid fraud starts from the ground up, built with input from the people who depend on those services every day. It lays out ways to tighten oversight while preserving access to home and community‑based care. Here to walk us through the problem and the solutions is Leslie Ford, Senior Fellow with the Able Americans program at the National Center for Public Policy Research.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States' territory, regardless of a parent's nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn't say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents' status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board  Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trade policy is once again in the news with the announcement of new tariffs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore digs into why tariffs may not be a disruptive factor for markets this time.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about how investors should be digesting the latest tariff headlines and what they could mean for the broader economic and market outlook. It's Friday, June 5th at 10am in New York. Tariffs are back in focus as the U.S. administration has proposed new levies following Section 301 investigations into more than 60 of our trading partners. At the same time, USMCA negotiations appear to have begun in earnest, with recent headlines focused on autos, including the possibility of raising regional content requirements for vehicles and auto parts. Now, at first glance, these developments sound like a meaningful escalation in trade policy. But we think these headlines are best understood as a continuation of the existing tariff regime rather than a new and more disruptive phase. Let's start with Section 301. Listeners may recall that the administration replaced the IEEPA tariffs with Section 122 following the Supreme Court's decision back in February. However, that was done under a temporary authority that expires in the end of July. It's been our view that as we approach that deadline, the administration would seek to replace the existing regime under a new authority. The conclusion of the Section 301 investigations is really a step in that direction; or said differently, a continuation of existing policy. We see the administration preserving the current tariff regime come July, but without a larger inflation or growth shock. The second issue is the USMCA. Raising regional content rules may be part of the negotiation now, and those changes could create sector-level friction. Similarly, we think it's possible we see escalation ahead of the July deadline as all three countries work to improve the existing trade deal. Now that being said, we're still constructive on the longer-term trade alignment between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and we see structural and procedural constraints that are going to limit the downside risk to something like a potential withdrawal from the agreement. We still expect the USMCA carve-out to remain in place even for Section 301 goods on a range of trading partners. That's because we think the administration sees value in maintaining supply chain integration within North America across a number of sectors. In general, we actually think the recent pattern on tariffs has been toward less, not more, trade pressure at the margin. Recent months have come with several carve-outs, exemptions, and delays on broad-based and sectoral tariffs. That suggests that the administration is still sensitive to the downstream cost impact of tariffs, and of course, affordability matters politically heading into the midterm elections in November. That view also fits with our broader U.S. economics outlook. Our economists continue to see a relatively benign macro backdrop. Growth is expected to remain trend-like, with consumer spending slowing but not collapsing, and strong AI-led CapEx offsetting some of the drag from higher energy prices and policy uncertainty. On inflation, tariffs remain part of the story, but much of the pass-through appears to be already in the data. That pairs with a more constructive outlook for equity markets as well, as our strategists there see a strong earnings story supported by things like positive operating leverage, AI adoption, improving pricing power, and a broadening out in earnings growth. So, the key message for investors is this: tariff policy is still noisy, and it will remain a source of headline risk. But in our base case, the administration is moving toward a more durable version of the current tariff regime, not a materially more disruptive or restrictive one. Section 301 replaces Section 122, the USMCA carve-out stays in place, and selective exemptions continue where the affordability or supply chain costs are too high. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Supreme Leader says enriched uranium must stay in Iran. US indicts former Cuban President Raúl Castro over 1996 downing of planes. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, breaks down this week's top headlines. Trump's $1.776 billion 'weaponization' fund sparks outrage, but court challenges will be tough. World Cup news. Jailed for 37 days for posting a meme of Pres. Trump, Tenn. man reaches settlement for civil rights violation. Movies opening this weekend. Memorial Day travel. 

Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore goes through the main topics on the table during the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi: Taiwan, tariffs and the Iran conflict.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about expectations heading into the U.S.-China summit this week and what investors should be watching. It's Wednesday, May 13h at 11am in Copenhagen. Despite the importance of the upcoming summit, we think expectations for tangible progress should remain relatively modest. Reporting ahead of the meeting indicates that the discussions will focus on trade, Taiwan arms sales, and the U.S.-Iran conflict. Across the board, our base case remains an extension of the current truce with limited areas of relaxation. That's probably enough to support modest upside for risk assets in China, but likely short of the kind of breakthrough needed for a material re-rating in risk premia. Let's start with trade. We think the discussion here is likely to skew toward phase one style commitments rather than structural policy shifts. That could include additional Chinese purchases in sectors like agriculture and aerospace, or things like high-level trade and investment pledges. Or even limited tariff relief in key areas designed to demonstrate cooperation but without fundamentally changing the competitive dynamic between the two countries. What we don't expect is a meaningful unilateral tariff reduction from the U.S. side heading into the summit. Remember, China still faces an effective tariff rate of around 30 percent, and it benefited the most of all our trading partners when the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs earlier this year. As we noted at the time, that lowered its effective rate by roughly 7 percentage points. Secondly, we think the administration continues to view higher tariff levels on China versus other trading partners as a strategic imperative. Said differently, the administration appears committed to maintaining some degree of structural separation between China and other trading allies like Europe, Japan, and South Korea. We think that means a large-scale tariff reset is unlikely in the wake of the summit or in the lead up. On Taiwan, we also see limited room for meaningful policy change. President Trump has publicly referenced Taiwan arms sales in recent comments, but we think a major concession from China would be needed for a meaningful departure from many years of U.S. policy precedent. The third issue on the agenda is the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the strait is likely the area of greatest uncertainty heading into the summit. The extent to which the U.S. will ask for China's help on this front and whether or not that request will be granted remains a key unknown. But there's also a technology dimension here worth watching closely. While public reporting indicates that export controls are likely not formally part of the talks, we see a possibility that the discussion could occur, in particular in the context of rare earth relaxations from China's side. Concessions on rare earth controls likely require some corresponding U.S. flexibility on advanced semiconductor exports, given the chips for rare earths equilibrium that we think underpins the strategic bilateral relationship. We think that's largely what's disincentivized both sides from escalating in recent months. So, what should markets watch most closely? Aside from tangible trade arrangements or a formal extension of the truce, we think the tone will be crucial. Language around technology cooperation or an agreement to continue negotiating will be critical in assessing how both sides plan on managing the relationship moving forward. Remember, this event is one of several potential meetings this year, so symbolic commitments toward broader structural concessions in the future could matter. For now, we think the most likely outcome is continued stabilization rather than a transformational reset. That's still constructive for markets at the margin, but probably not enough to eliminate the geopolitical overhang that continues to shape investor positioning globally.Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Chinese officials meeting with Vancouver city hall employees to cancel Shen Yun (1:02) Kennedy Stewart, former Mayor of Vancouver and former NDP MP, current Director of the Centre for Public Policy Research at Simon Fraser University Should Vancouver allow taller skyscrapers? City of Vancouver wants to know what you think (13:47) Sandy James, former City of Vancouver City Planner The Agenda: How real is Western Alienation (24:44) Margareta Dovgal, political commentator and resource industry analyst Richard Zussman, Western Canada Vice President of Public Affairs at Burson Future on Wheels: Vancouver Eyes Six-Month Delivery Robot Pilot (41:43) Mike Klassen, ABC Vancouver City councillor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Diplomatic Pressure? Chinese Officials Allegedly Pushed to Cancel Shen Yun in Vancouver Kennedy Stewart, former Mayor of Vancouver and former NDP MP, current Director of the Centre for Public Policy Research at Simon Fraser University Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Still six months out, the U.S. midterm elections are likely to influence government initiatives to deal with higher energy costs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss how the Congress and the Fed might react.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the firm's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.Ariana Salvatore: Today we're discussing the run up to the midterm elections and what it could mean for the macro outlook and policy response.It's Wednesday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Last week, Mike Zezas and I talked through the midterm elections and their potential consequences for the economy and markets. This week we figured it might be helpful to talk about the setup into November, especially as we're both increasingly being asked about the macro outlook and potential for targeted stimulus to offset the oil shock.So, Seth, let's start there. we know cost of living is a key issue in elections, and we've seen a pretty meaningful oil shock feed through markets. How are you thinking about that in the context of the broader economy?Seth Carpenter: Our U.S. economics team has estimated that the higher gas prices that we have now and likely to have for the rest of the year are going to be more than enough to offset any boost to consumer spending from the higher tax refunds this year. So, I think that's the first point.If you're expecting a boost to come through that channel, you probably want to unwind that. And In fact, overall, what we've done is lowered our forecast for U.S. growth by about three or four tenths of percentage point worth of growth this year because of the higher energy prices. So, it's a drag on spending, I think, no matter how you cut it.Ariana Salvatore: And that's not happening in isolation, right?Seth Carpenter: No, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. We've also got at least somewhat restrictive monetary policy layered on top. So, financial conditions are already a little bit tight and the oil price shock sort of amplifies that tightening by weighing on spending. That's going to be really important.I think an extra complication then is what does it do to inflation? For now, we don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. History says at least looking at the data that when energy prices go up, when oil prices go up, gasoline prices go up. It does boost headline inflation for sure, but the pass through to core inflation is pretty limited, and the effects tend to go away on their own without too much time.So, I think the real hit here is going to be from the higher costs acting like a drag on consumer spending.Ariana Salvatore: Right. And importantly, it's a very visible shock. Gasoline prices feed directly into how consumers and voters perceive the economy, which brings us into the political overlay as we approach the midterms…Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And whenever we economists are thinking about inflation and prices and consumers, we think about exactly that – what we call salience, just how visible are these prices. And gasoline prices tend to be some of those prices that stick out in people's minds.So, if people are seeing it. And people are reacting to it, give me some idea of what the Congress can realistically do between now and the midterm elections.Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would say in theory there's a range of options. Direct stimulus, targeted transfers. We tend to frame affordability policies across five vectors: energy, healthcare, housing, consumer credit and trade policy. But in practice, the constraints are pretty binding right now and as we've been saying, tariff policy is really the only lever the president can pull easily to have a real impact on voters.Seth Carpenter: All right. So, you said constraints and constraints for the Congress. Can you walk us through what those constraints are?Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, the first and most obvious is deficits. We're already running large fiscal deficits in the U.S., and I would say there's limited political appetite to expand them meaningfully from here in the near term, especially heading into an election.The second is procedure. If you want to pass something sizable, you're either looking at reconciliation, which requires political alignment in a number of procedural hurdles. Or bipartisan cooperation to get around the filibuster. Both seem difficult to us in this environment.Seth Carpenter: So my experience in Washington for a couple decades of working on policy is that when things are difficult, they tend to take more time. So how does the timing component of all of this matter, and how does it fit into the way that you're thinking about it?Ariana Salvatore: Timing is the third constraint. The legislative calendar in particular. What we see is as you get closer to midterms – really any election – the window for passing major legislation narrows pretty quickly. That's because lawmakers shift their focus toward campaigning, and the agenda itself just becomes more limited.And then to finish off the constraints, the fourth I would say is implementation. Even if something were to pass, there's a lag between legislation and the actual economic impact. Getting funds out the door, whether it's checks or programmatic spending, tends to take time.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, even well targeted policy might not hit the economy in time to have the desired effect before the election.Would you agree with that?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, but for argument's sake, let's say we're wrong on that and Congress does manage to pass something. Maybe not a broad-based stimulus package, but let's say some form of targeted relief.From a macro perspective, what do you think would matter most? Is it the size of the package, how quickly it gets implemented, or which consumers are targeted?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I'm going to have to say a little bit of all of the above. I mean, economic analysis really tends to show that tax cuts tend to simulate less than increased spending and transfers matter. But it matters to whom those transfers happen.So, I do think if we're aiming at the lower end of the income distribution, probably has a higher propensity to spend; and so, you're more likely to see more of those dollars getting spent and faster – if that's where it's going. The size of the package has to matter as well, because more money out probably means more money getting spent. But I will add, there are two caveats this time around that we probably need to take into consideration.First, with the increase in tax refunds that we've seen this year, survey suggests that households are using that money to pay down outstanding debt more than they would historically. And so, we might be in a situation because of the past couple of years of affordability issues where households are going to try to get ahead of things and pay down some of that debt. And as a result, maybe there's a more muted effect on spending.And second, we are living in a world right now where inflation is well above the Fed's target. So, if the extra stimulus leads to extra spending at a time when prices are already high, well, there's a chance we might give an extra boost to inflation and then the Fed would have to reconsider what it's doing on monetary policy.But you said Congress is probably constrained. So, let's shift then and ask, is there something that the president could do unilaterally with executive authority? And in particular, sometimes I get this question from clients, even if there's not clear, well-defined legal authority. We've seen something like that before with the tariff policy under the IEEPA authority. It was imposed and then later it was pulled back when it was judged by courts not to be the right authority.So, why wouldn't we think – the argument goes; why wouldn't we think that some sort of large scale maybe rebates or direct payments, could get deployed quickly, even if the, let's say, legal authority is a little bit murky?Ariana Salvatore: Yes, it's an interesting question, but I think there are a few important distinctions that make something like the administration sending out checks, for example, very different from tariff policy. First, fiscal transfers are much more clearly tied to congressional authority, legally speaking.Spending power, as you know, resides in Congress, and that's a pretty firm constitutional boundary. And importantly, even something like tax refunds, which can look like direct payments aren't discretionary. They're preauthorized in the tax code, and Treasury is just returning overpayments under a standing appropriation. So, there isn't really a comparable mechanism the administration could use to send out broad-based checks, for example, without new legislation.Now, trade authorities by contrast, have historically allowed for more executive flexibility, even if contested, like we saw with the IEEPA tariffs. Direct fiscal outlays are different. You generally need explicit appropriation. And then second, there's the operational side to all of this. Even if you were to set aside the legal questions, there isn't a standing mechanism for distributing very large sums of money quickly without legislative backing.Seth Carpenter: Fair enough. And if we stay in this totally hypothetical world, what would you imagine would be the timing of any legal challenges if they did happen?Ariana Salvatore: In a scenario like this, you'd likely see challenges fairly quickly and courts could intervene early in the process, potentially before funds are even fully dispersed. So, Seth, the idea that you could deploy something on a massive scale and only deal with the legal consequences much later is all the more uncertain.But Seth, let's stay with the upside risk scenario for a moment. If Congress did pass something targeted instead, where would you expect policymakers to focus? Can we talk through maybe energy rebates, child tax credits, SNAP or nutrition support… Or do you think something else aimed at the most rate sensitive or cost of living sensitive households might make more sense?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I think you've laid out there a pretty rational strategy for trying to make things targeted for the people who are going to be feeling this affordability crunch the most. And so, the SNAP benefits, like you said, are nutrition support. That's lower income households, families with children, people who really are living paycheck to paycheck and noticing these higher prices.Energy subsidies or some sort of tax rebate – again, trying to target where the pain is most acute; the higher electricity prices, the higher gasoline prices that people are noticing, that people are feeling. I think all of that seems very plausible.I just want to flag though, that there is this possible hidden effect, which is the more these policies mask the higher cost, the economic pain from the higher energy prices – the more it allows people to keep spending despite the higher prices. And that spending with higher prices, well, that could easily lead to a tick up in inflation.That could lead to a change in the Fed's reaction function. And if it was strong enough, if growth picked up enough and inflation picked up from here, you could easily see the Fed hiking rates instead of cutting.Ariana Salvatore: So, in other words, even if the policy surprise is maybe good news for consumers in the near term, markets would still need to think through whether it extends the inflation problem or changes the expected rate path.Seth Carpenter: I think that is exactly right. I think this is very much a case where good news could be good news, but there are going to be lots of details.So maybe if we take a step back, we've got a constrained Congress, maybe limited scope for unilateral action and a macro backdrop because of inflation that's probably already under some pressure.Ariana Salvatore: Which means the key drivers heading into the midterms later this year are likely to remain the ones that are already in place: energy prices, monetary policy, and underlying growth dynamics rather than potential new fiscal stimulus.Seth Carpenter: And so that means for markets, focus needs to stay on the fundamentals.Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. Elections can shape the policy path at the margin, but the macro cycle is doing most of the heavy lifting here. And we think that's the case following the midterms as well. If you'd like more detail there, please go ahead and listen to our podcast from last week on this topic.Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk.Seth Carpenter: Ariana, thank you for inviting me. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a friend or colleague today. And leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

Raiders take Fernando Mendoza with No. 1 pick in NFL draft. A Pentagon intelligence agency assessment says Iran still has significant military capabilities. House Oversight chair says some members support a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon. Friday Sound Salad. World Cup history. US ready to use force as Iran war enters new phase in Strait of Hormuz. Reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug might only be the first step for Trump. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks oil prices and Iran. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, breaks down the top headlines of the week.  

Although the conflict in Iran keeps dominating the news cycle, investors have an eye on the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore consider policy implications – from healthcare and consumer to AI.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets.It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10am in New York.All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out and obviously a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors.And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective.Michael Zezas: Okay, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. Tariffs. Geopolitics. Really all the above.Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So, policy does matter, but the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned – trade, geopolitics, also deregulation – those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins.At the same time, it's worth noting upfront that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching – polling prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment – they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now. There's a growing narrative around a potential democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging.So, I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest.Michael Zezas: So, if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?Ariana Salvatore: There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching. In particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So, for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome.If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts.And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened. In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs.But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority.Michael Zezas: Okay. Can you explain the difference between those two things?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, the question is not just who controls Congress, it's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are. And then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the opposing party.So, to put it in simpler terms. If Democrats have a large enough majority or are able to coalesce around some of the key policy asks – for example, delaying some of these cuts – we think they can tie those two, some must pass bills. Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.Now conversely, if it's a fragile majority, you probably see more internal disagreement, less coordination, and a lot more political noise with less actual policy getting done.Michael Zezas: Okay, so a lot of good insights there. Can you boil it down to a few key takeaways for investors?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so one I would say is that fiscal policy is really where the midterm elections might matter the most. But even there, we think the impact is more micro than macro. Another is that divided government doesn't necessarily mean less policy activity. It just changes the form that it takes. And then of course there's AI, which is a topic that we've been getting a lot of questions about.Michael Zezas: Yeah, so let's dig in a bit more there because there's obviously a lot of interest in the intersection between public policy and the development of artificial intelligence.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. This was the key focus of our policy symposium that we hosted in New York last week. AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic priority across both parties. So, unlike some of these fiscal debates, we think that AI policy is likely to take shape regardless of the election outcome. What could change is the approach.So, think about things like how quickly infrastructure gets built, how permitting is handled, how energy constraints are addressed. We're seeing growing recognition across the aisle that the bottleneck for AI isn't just on the innovation front, it's the physical infrastructure – power, data centers and supply chains.Now at the same time, there's also emerging pushback from communities and from policy makers around things like energy usage and cost of living. We've done a lot of research on this front, and it's actually a really critical factor in some of these off-cycle elections that we've seen even back to last year.So, you end up with this dynamic where AI investment probably continues both in a more constrained and increasingly regulated environment in the split government scenarios.Michael Zezas: So, direction's the same, but the pace and the friction points may vary. And that has implications in particular for a few key sectors like power and data center REITs, while consumer and healthcare sectors are more exposed to those SNAP and Medicaid changes we mentioned earlier. Obviously the more unified Democrats are, the more they're able to extend or push off those shifts. Meaning the downside impact on the consumer could be limited versus current expectations.But aside from these policies we're watching. You'll probably see noise around debt ceiling fights, government shutdowns. And those things don't usually derail growth. But they can create volatility and short-term uncertainty, especially around funding deadlines.Ariana Salvatore: Right. And that's important for the macro-outlook. So, in short, our economists think that the growth outcomes are only going to vary modestly across the scenarios while the broader business cycle should stay intact.Now, following from that, our rate strategists see episodic risk, to your point around funding fights, which could drive risk off rallies in notes and bonds. And then you have to weigh that against cooling expectations for growth and inflation in both the divided government scenarios. Similarly, our FX strategists see opposing forces between yields, fiscal policy and the broader policy uncertainty variable driving dispersion across currencies more than a clear dollar direction.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, a lot to pay attention to ahead of the midterms and we'll obviously keep people updated here about what we're seeing.Ariana Salvatore: Sounds good.Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In Episode 131 of DC EKG, Joe Grogan sits down with Dr. John Goodman to discuss what both parties continue to get wrong about healthcare, why patient incentives still matter, and how market-based reforms could lower costs and improve access. Drawing on decades of work in health economics and policy, Dr. Goodman explains how special interests helped shape Obamacare, why supply-side constraints still distort care, and why patients are too often left out of the policymaking process.  The conversation then turns to Health Savings Accounts, Medicaid reform, emergency room overuse, and why policymakers remain so resistant to giving patients more control over healthcare dollars. Dr. Goodman also outlines his view that self-directed care and consumer choice can improve value and expand access, especially for vulnerable populations.  In the second half, Joe and Dr. Goodman dive into reference pricing as a major reform idea. Using real-world examples, they discuss how clearer prices and patient-driven decision-making could create more meaningful competition across healthcare markets. The episode closes with a broader conversation on bipartisan reform, the tax code, and why durable change remains so hard to achieve in Washington.  In This Conversation What both parties keep getting wrong about healthcare How special interests shaped Obamacare and why patients were left out Why HSAs remain controversial and what they change about incentives Medicaid reform, emergency room use, and patient access How self-directed care can improve outcomes and satisfaction What reference pricing is and why it could create real competition Why bipartisan healthcare reform keeps breaking down in Washington Timestamps0:00 How special interests shaped Obamacare0:46 Joe welcomes Dr. John Goodman1:09 Dr. Goodman's background and the origins of HSAs5:22 What both parties get wrong about healthcare7:36 Why physician supply stays restricted9:26 Spending more without getting healthier14:16 What Washington should actually be debating15:52 Insurance that meets patients' needs20:06 HSAs and consumer-directed care22:29 Why Medicaid patients rely more on emergency rooms24:50 Medicaid reform and letting patients pay the difference28:07 Self-directed care and “Cash and Counseling.”29:35 Reference pricing explained32:14 How reference pricing could reshape insurance markets36:06 Why Dr. Goodman is optimistic40:36 The tax code and healthcare policy44:22 Where to find Dr. Goodman's work45:42 Outro Obamacare, health savings accounts, HSA, John Goodman, Joe Grogan, healthcare reform, healthcare policy, Medicaid reform, emergency room visits, patient incentives, consumer-directed care, reference pricing, tax policy, bipartisan reform, healthcare economics About Our GuestJohn C. Goodman is President of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research and is widely known for his work in health economics, Health Savings Accounts, and consumer-directed healthcare reform.  Podcast: DC EKG with Joe GroganEpisode: 131Guest: John C. GoodmanSponsor: Survivors for Solutions – https://survivorsforsolutions.orgExecutive Producer: John “CZ” Czwartacki, DC EKG PodcastProducer: Stay on Course Studios – https://www.stayoncourse.studio

In Episode 131 of DC EKG, Joe Grogan sits down with Dr. John Goodman to discuss what both parties continue to get wrong about healthcare, why patient incentives still matter, and how market-based reforms could lower costs and improve access. Drawing on decades of work in health economics and policy, Dr. Goodman explains how special interests helped shape Obamacare, why supply-side constraints still distort care, and why patients are too often left out of the policymaking process.  The conversation then turns to Health Savings Accounts, Medicaid reform, emergency room overuse, and why policymakers remain so resistant to giving patients more control over healthcare dollars. Dr. Goodman also outlines his view that self-directed care and consumer choice can improve value and expand access, especially for vulnerable populations.  In the second half, Joe and Dr. Goodman dive into reference pricing as a major reform idea. Using real-world examples, they discuss how clearer prices and patient-driven decision-making could create more meaningful competition across healthcare markets. The episode closes with a broader conversation on bipartisan reform, the tax code, and why durable change remains so hard to achieve in Washington.  In This Conversation What both parties keep getting wrong about healthcare How special interests shaped Obamacare and why patients were left out Why HSAs remain controversial and what they change about incentives Medicaid reform, emergency room use, and patient access How self-directed care can improve outcomes and satisfaction What reference pricing is and why it could create real competition Why bipartisan healthcare reform keeps breaking down in Washington Timestamps0:00 How special interests shaped Obamacare0:46 Joe welcomes Dr. John Goodman1:09 Dr. Goodman's background and the origins of HSAs5:22 What both parties get wrong about healthcare7:36 Why physician supply stays restricted9:26 Spending more without getting healthier14:16 What Washington should actually be debating15:52 Insurance that meets patients' needs20:06 HSAs and consumer-directed care22:29 Why Medicaid patients rely more on emergency rooms24:50 Medicaid reform and letting patients pay the difference28:07 Self-directed care and “Cash and Counseling.”29:35 Reference pricing explained32:14 How reference pricing could reshape insurance markets36:06 Why Dr. Goodman is optimistic40:36 The tax code and healthcare policy44:22 Where to find Dr. Goodman's work45:42 Outro Obamacare, health savings accounts, HSA, John Goodman, Joe Grogan, healthcare reform, healthcare policy, Medicaid reform, emergency room visits, patient incentives, consumer-directed care, reference pricing, tax policy, bipartisan reform, healthcare economics About Our GuestJohn C. Goodman is President of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research and is widely known for his work in health economics, Health Savings Accounts, and consumer-directed healthcare reform.  Podcast: DC EKG with Joe GroganEpisode: 131Guest: John C. GoodmanSponsor: Survivors for Solutions – https://survivorsforsolutions.orgExecutive Producer: John “CZ” Czwartacki, DC EKG PodcastProducer: Stay on Course Studios – https://www.stayoncourse.studio

Artemis II to splashdown this evening. Pakistan in spotlight as US, Iran set for direct talks to end conflict. Friday Sound Salad. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, breaks down the week's top headlines. Scientists research the blood of a Wisconsin man bitten by snakes hundreds of times. The price of attending Cochella.

While a tentative ceasefire in the Middle East holds, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be a sticking point in diplomatic efforts. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore walk through some scenarios that could play out.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the U.S.-Iran ceasefire's key uncertainties, consequences and what we're watching for next. It's Wednesday, April 8th at 11am in New York. Okay. Let's start with the current situation. The U.S. and Iran have agreed to a provisional ceasefire, two weeks tied to follow on talks and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Markets so far, treating this as a deescalation but not a clear resolution… Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And I think the key framing here is this is a pause, not a peace deal. And in the near term, I would not assume things are suddenly stable. We still have some key uncertainties around how the ceasefire deal is going to be implemented, as well as how negotiations will begin to take shape. Michael Zezas: Right. And that's important. It seems like Iran's reported 10-point plan for the ceasefire includes some elements that might be non-starters for the U.S., some things around sanctions and unfreezing of assets. And so, there's lots of ways that there could be some re-escalation in the near term. Ariana Salvatore: Okay. So that's the near term – fragile, noisy, and still pretty headline driven. But let's try to think about this a little bit further out. How are we thinking about the medium term? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, thinking a little bit further out, it seems to us that ceasefire and Strait of Hormuz reopening should continue to progress because the incentives are widely shared across the key actors involved. So, the U.S.'s incentive to effectively be done with the conflict is pretty well understood. There's domestic political incentives and economic incentives. There's ways to potentially explain away some of the compromises the U.S. might have to make around the Strait of Hormuz, around sanctions. And maybe point to some incentives to work with partners in the region over time to diminish the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as a choke point. Iran's incentive is pretty clear – to preserve its regime. And another actor here, which appears to be increasingly important, is China, which has reportedly been involved in expressing its preference for deescalation. And that's pretty important because China has a lot of leverage on Iran given its economic relationship with the country. Ariana Salvatore: So, starting with these negotiations, it seems like, as you mentioned before, there's still a lot of gaps between what the U.S. side and what the Iranian side is asking for. But let's put that in the context of the ceasefire. Even if it were to hold – that doesn't necessarily translate to stability, right? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right. So, if Iran were to start rebuilding its military assets, in particular its nuclear program, at some point in the future, we'd probably come back to a similar point where Israel and the United States might find their ability to project that power to be intolerable. And what we don't know right now is if any type of deal is possible that can mitigate those very long-term concerns. So, even if commodities start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz at a rate that is similar to what it was before the conflict started, it seems like there will be this overhang. Of concern that that could shut down at any moment's notice, if the U.S. and Israel and other actors in the area become concerned again with Iran's power. Ariana Salvatore: So, that overhang you're talking about actually does have some real economic impacts. One way to frame this is kind of like a lingering tax on the global system. We see that through the oil market, right? So, we think of this as a structural risk premium on oil. Our strategist, Martijn Rats, thinks that even in a deescalation scenario, you're not getting back to that world of $65-$70 oil. This Strait of Hormuz will continue to be a critical choke point that doesn't necessarily go away overnight. And maybe over time you could see some mitigation, construction of new pipelines, alternative routes, et cetera. But in the interim, that risk premium feeds through to energy prices, shipping costs, and ultimately food and broader supply chains, which is something that Chetan Ahya has been flagging in Asia for quite some time. Michael Zezas: I think that's right. And so, in highlighting that the Strait of Hormuz is a critical choke point for the global economy and for supply chains generally, it's a reminder of a problem that's been on display for the last 10 years.Just that there are supply chain choke points all over the place when you start thinking about the security needs of the U.S. and other actors throughout the globe. And so, it underscores this dynamic where multinationals are going to have to rethink – and are already starting to rethink – their supply chains. And whether or not they need to build in what our investment bankers have been calling an anti-fragile supply chain strategy. So, we can't just solve for the cheapest cost of goods and cheapest transit. You have to wire up your supply chains in a way that can survive geopolitical conflicts. And while there's some extra embedded costs that comes along with that, well, they're more reliable, so it's more efficient over the long run. Of course, it costs a lot of money to rewire your supply chains, and so that's tied into this opportunity around capital expenditures going into proving this out. And so, investors should be aware that there are plenty of sectors which will have to participate in effectively being part of rebuilding those supply chains. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so the way we're framing this is, this is another data point kind of in that trend toward a multipolar world. We've seen certain geopolitical events accelerate that transition. Russia-Ukraine, for example, the pandemic; and this is just sort of another example in that same direction. And some of the sectors that we think are structural beneficiaries here: obviously defense, in particular in Europe, and industrials here in the U.S. Chris Snyder's been doing a lot of work on reshoring, how we're seeing that pick up – and we think that probably continues. But as we're speaking about the U.S. and what this could mean, let's bring this back to the AI angle. Because I think that's where this all really connects in maybe a less obvious way. Near term, we're thinking about the financing implications here as pretty modest. Unless we get a major re-escalation or a rupture of the ceasefire, it shouldn't really change capital availability in a meaningful way. But this could affect where capacity gets built. Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. And over the past year, there's been a lot of news about the U.S. engaging in the Middle East with partners to build AI capacity via data center capacity – because there's also plenty of energy in the area to fuel those data centers. But those data centers as an infrastructure asset, and an economically valuable one at that, potentially become military targets when they're built. So, there is a consideration here after this conflict about whether or not those things can be built or be relied upon. And it is a critical part of the U.S.' strategy to build compute capacity in the aggregate with allies. And increasingly they've been looking to the Middle East as allies in an AI build out. Ariana Salvatore: So, if that becomes more challenging and you see persistent instability, for example, in the Middle East, you're probably going to see more demand push toward domestic U.S. data centers. And something that we've been highlighting has been not only the kind of pressures on the capital side. But also, you know, the bottlenecks that are very real – like power, permitting, labor, equipment and political resistance, which we've talked about on this podcast as well. We're seeing a lot of constraints. So, it's not really feasible that the U.S. is going to be able to fully substitute that Middle East capacity. Michael Zezas: So, I think the read through here is that the U.S. is still on track to build the compute capacity that it needs. The CapEx that's going into that – that is helping the U.S. economy grow this year – is still very much intact. It raises some potential future questions about how quickly the U.S. can build out, but it's unclear if that matters in the near term to (a) both the build out and (b) the productivity that can come from the current build out. Ariana Salvatore: And I think a really important consequence of what you're describing has to do with the U.S. China dynamics. So, if the U.S. is, for example, seen as a less reliable security guarantor, then you may see some of the Gulf countries potentially deepen their economic alignment with China at the margin. And that's something that could be really relevant for the upcoming U.S.-China Summit next month. Remember that was postponed from – initially it was towards the end of March. Now it seems to be around the middle of May. So, that's a really important catalyst that we're keeping an eye on for now. That's a little bit further out.Near term, of course, we'll be watching things like military buildup in the region. Any indications on how exactly the Strait of Hormuz will be managed from here. And how these negotiations progress over the next two weeks. As far as the equity market is concerned, it appears that the worst of this risk is behind us from a rate of change perspective. So, our strategists think you should start to see leadership emerge from the sectors that were doing well into this conflict, namely cyclicals like Financials and Industrials leading the way from here. Michael Zezas: Well Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Iran claims photos show downed US fighter jet. Trump requests record-breaking budget of $1.5 trillion for Pentagon. Artemis II on its way to the moon. Trump fires US attorney general Pam Bondi. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about oil price fluctuations. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research, breaks down this week's headlines. 

Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore breaks down what's being discussed by policymakers around the world to try to cap the oil price spike. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Today, I'll be talking about the ongoing conflict in Iran and the policy options to offset a rise in oil prices. It's Wednesday, March 25th at 8pm in Tokyo. The U.S.-Iran conflict is stretching into its fourth week, and markets are still trying to distill headlines for news of an off-ramp or further escalation. Even here in Tokyo, the global supply crunch is top of mind. But we're also watching for second order effects among a number of key supply chains, ranging from food to semiconductors. As you've been hearing on the show, the Middle East is a critical supplier of aluminum, petrochemicals, and fertilizers—all industries that are energy intensive and deeply embedded in global supply chains. There's also sulphur, which is needed to produce copper and cobalt, largely used for chip materials and components. And helium, which is a critical material for semiconductor manufacturing. So with all this supply chain disruption on the line, what are policymakers' options to mitigate that loss? Let's start by putting some numbers around the disruption. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20 percent of global oil supply, and about a third of seaborne oil. Our strategists highlight three potential offsets. First, alternative pipelines. Saudi Arabia maintains an East-West pipeline and the UAE similarly has a smaller scale Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline. Those together can allow for some crude to bypass Hormuz. Second, the U.S. has publicly discussed potential naval escorts. We've written about the logistical difficulties with this plan, in addition to significant execution risks. Third, the IEA has coordinated a strategic stock release, which could translate to a sustained release of around 2 million barrels a day, depending on the duration of the conflict. There are also geographic considerations though that can add a lag to those strategic releases. On net, our oil strategists think these policy levers can mitigate about 9 million barrels per day from the lost 20, meaning that the global economy will still be short about 11 million barrels per day; more than three times the supply shock the market feared from the Russia-Ukraine conflict back in 2022. So, given those limitations, we're starting to see countries around the world – particularly in Asia – begin to implement rationing measures to conserve energy. The Philippines, for example, has implemented a four-day workweek for government workers and mandated agencies to cut fuel and electricity use. Myanmar has imposed driving limits, and Sri Lanka has introduced gasoline rationing. But what about in the U.S.? We've seen domestic gasoline prices climb due to this conflict, and the national average is now close to $4, almost a dollar up from where we were about a month ago. The President has announced a number of policy efforts – including a Jones Act waiver, which temporarily allows foreign vessels to transport fuel between U.S. ports, and a temporary pause on some Russian and Iranian oil sanctions. President Trump has also directed a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but similarly to the IEA stockpile, the flow rate is going to be the key limit. The authorization was for 172 million barrels over a 120 period, which translates to just about 1.4 million barrels per day on average. So what should we be watching? Tanker transits, signs of upstream shut-ins as storage fills, refinery run-cuts, and—most crucially—whether policy announcements on insurance and escorted convoys can actually translate into reality. These are all going to be critical elements going forward. For now, our oil strategists have raised their near-term Brent forecast to $110 per barrel, which underscores our U.S. economists' outlook for weaker growth and stickier inflation than previously expected. And for now, policy tools seem to be unable to meaningfully offset that disruption. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

On Today's Episode –The guys dive headfirst into the latest updates from the war in Iran with special guest Dr. Bonner Cohen. We're going beyond the surface level today as Bonner and Mark provide a masterclass on the region's history to explain how we got here. Plus, whatever happened to Greenland? We discuss why this massive territory has completely fallen off the news map lately.Tune in for all the Funhttps://www.cfact.org/Bonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kristi Noem ousted from Homeland Security post amid recent turmoil. Daylight Savings Time. United Airlines will ban passengers who don't use headphones while flying. Alpine Divorce. Latest job numbers. Oil prices continue to climb, hitting their highest level in nearly 2 years. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about how the Iran war is affecting the stock market. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research, talks about the headlines of the week.

Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore assess the potential market outcomes of the Middle East conflict, weighing its possible duration and economic impact.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, the market reaction, and what investors should be watching for next. It's Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30am in San Francisco. Ariana Salvatore: And 10:30am in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, I'm in San Francisco at Morgan Stanley's TMT Conference, but obviously events in the Middle East have captured everyone's attention. There's uncertainty around the conflict and really important questions about how it affects all of us. And of course, markets have to discount all sorts of future uncertainty about very specific impacts – to financial asset prices, to commodity prices – and really look at it through that narrow lens.And so, Ariana, the administration has suggested that this conflict and this campaign could last a few weeks. But also it said it could continue as long as it takes. So, what are the clearest signals investors should watch for to gauge duration? Ariana Salvatore: For now, we're focused on three main indicators. First, I would say, and most important, is clarity around the objectives. The president and others in the administration have referenced things like eliminating Iran's missile arsenal, its navy and limiting proxy activity. Those goals are broader than the earlier focus on just the nuclear programs. Each objective, of course, implies a different timeline. A narrower objective likely means a shorter engagement. Broader ambitions, conversely, would extend it. So that's the first thing. Second, obviously extremely important is traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We'd viewed a full closure as unlikely, given the economic consequences for Iran itself. But tanker flows have at least temporarily fallen close to zero, and that's significant because production across the region has not been impaired. This is not about oil fields going offline. It's about whether or not oil can actually move. If shipping lanes normalize within weeks, markets can recalibrate. However, if flows remain materially curtailed beyond five weeks, the risks rise meaningfully. Third, the frequency of strikes and proxy activity. Sustained or escalating engagement would suggest a longer conflict. Signs of diplomacy, on the other hand, might indicate de-escalation. Michael Zezas: Right. So, let's build on that and talk about oil. And our colleague, Martijn Rats has really laid this out with a lot of different scenarios. But what we're seeing right now is that when it comes to oil, this is really a shock to the transport of it, not necessarily a shock to its production. So, oil supply exists. The question is really – can it be delivered or not? So, if tanker flows normalize and the geopolitical risk premium fades, what Martijn is saying is that global oil prices could move back towards $60 to $65 a barrel. If the logistical disruption lasts four to five weeks, then prices maybe trade in the $75 to $80 range. And if disruption extends beyond five weeks and flows are materially constrained, then you could see a situation where oil prices have to rise towards $120 or $130 a barrel. And at that level, demand destruction is what becomes the balancing mechanism in setting price for oil. So, one signal to watch is longer dated oil prices. Early month contracts can spike during geopolitical stress, but a sustained move materially above $80 to $85 [per] barrel would likely require longer dated prices to move higher as well. And that might signal that markets believe the disruption is persistent and not temporary. Ariana, what about natural gas here? How does gas situation fit into the energy story? Ariana Salvatore: As of this recording, Qatar has halted liquified natural gas production putting roughly 20 percent of global supply at risk. Prices have, as you might expect, risen sharply, which likely reflects expectations of a relatively short disruption. If exports were to resume quickly, prices could retrace. But, of course, if the outage lasts longer, prices could move meaningfully higher. Again, duration of the conflict is really critical here. Michael Zezas: So, let's bring this back to the U.S. Ariana, how does this conflict feed into the domestic, political and economic backdrop? Ariana Salvatore: When we're thinking about the midterm elections later this year, the way we see it, the clearest transmission channel is gasoline prices. Polling shows a majority of Americans oppose military action related to Iran, but voters typically prioritize domestic issues: things like inflation, cost of living, affordability over foreign policy. However, there's a very clear caveat here. If oil prices stay elevated, gasoline prices rise, and that's where this becomes politically more salient. Michael Zezas: Right, and so our economists and our chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen has been all over this. And the way he assesses it is if oil prices remain about 10 percent higher than where they were before the conflict for several months, headline inflation would likely rise by 0.3 percent before dissipating. Historically, oil price shocks primarily affect headline inflation rather than underlying inflation. That's an important distinction that they point out. So maybe that could delay Federal Reserve rate cuts, even if policymakers ultimately look through the move. But if oil prices rise enough to weaken economic activity, particularly in the labor market or consumer spending, then our economists say the Fed could pivot toward easing despite elevated inflation. Ariana Salvatore: So, given that backdrop, what's the simple takeaway for investors in stocks or bonds? Michael Zezas: Right. So, I think we have to think about this in terms of duration of conflict and economic impact. So, if tanker flows normalize within a few weeks and oil prices move back towards that $60 to $65 range, then our economists are saying economic damage would be limited. And historically geopolitical events alone have not led to sustained volatility for U.S. equities. So, in that environment, our cross-asset team points out that stocks would likely remain supported. If instead, oil prices remain elevated long enough to push inflation higher and weigh on growth, the picture would change. A sharp and persistent rise in oil prices – that can pose a risk to the duration of the business cycle, and in that scenario, we'd expect stocks to struggle. Importantly, bonds may not provide the same diversification benefit if inflation remains sticky as a consequence of all of this. We could see stock and bond prices move in the same direction. That could challenge traditional balanced portfolios. Ariana Salvatore: And what are we seeing specifically in U.S. Treasury markets? Michael Zezas: So, as Matt Hornbach and our global macro strategy team have pointed out here, you've got two competing forces in the U.S. Treasury market. There's been some demand for safety, but investors are also focused on the risk that higher oil prices would lift inflation. So far, inflation concerns have taken precedence over growth concerns. How long that balance holds – that might depend on incoming data, especially labor market data. If you get weaker labor market data suggesting that growth could weaken, then you could see treasuries rally more meaningfully and yields come down. If you don't see that and inflation concerns dominate, then maybe you're not going to see yields come down as much. And bonds rally as much. Ariana Salvatore: So, stepping back, it seems like the key variables remain tanker traffic, longer dated oil prices and duration of the conflict itself. Michael Zezas: I think that's right. Ariana, thanks for speaking with me. Ariana Salvatore: Always a pleasure, Mike. Michael Zezas: And thanks to our listeners for joining us. We'll continue tracking developments and what they mean for markets. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Hillary Clinton derides her Epstein deposition as GOP ‘political theater'. Burger King rolls out employee assistance AI that listens in. The Pentagon's battle with Anthropic is really a war over who controls AI. Tampa airport teases pajama ban, triggering social media firestorm over dress code controversy. Bill Clinton set for Epstein deposition by House committee. White House 'circulating' 17-page executive order draft to declare emergency over voting. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks latest stock market trends. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, recaps the headline of the week. 

On Today's Episode –Mark and Matt are joined by Bonner Cohen again, and the fellas talk about this week's past State of the Union address by Pres. Trump.Tune in for all the Fun Bonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Trump says he will declassify reports on UFOs. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has left a police station as he is released under investigation after 11 hours in custody. Friday Sound Salad. AI dating apps. US continuing to build up military near Iran. Olympic update. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks stock market trends. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks US/Iran relations. 

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

This week Big Debate hosts Ally Hunter Blair and Sophie Gregory are asking : ‘Should we be taking food security more seriously in the UK and is investing in farming the answer?' This is following the publication of a report by the UK government last month titled ‘Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security: A national security assessment'. Their guests include ffinlo Costain – Chief Executive of Farmwell and Founder of the Food and Global Security Network, and Laurie Laybourn – a researcher, author and strategist. Laurie leads the Strategic Climate Risks Initiative. He is also an Associate Fellow at Chatham House and holds fellowships at the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter.Link to the report - Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security - GOV.UK

With the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA's 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Food prices for Super Bowl parties. Friday Sound Salad. Super Bowl statistics. More Epstein files released. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about market trends. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks about immigration. Savannah Guthrie's mom still missing, police share new ransom details. 

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior. Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments. Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient. So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed. Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Virginia's new Governor, Abigail Spanberger, openly admitted it's good for the state to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, not to protect the climate and environment, but rather because it's a great “cash grab.”   Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, explains how Virginia's participation in RGGI will raise energy costs, hurt low- and middle-income residents, and drive businesses out of the state, when he joined Joe Thomas, The Daily Signal's Virginia correspondent, on his podcast today.    “It's not about saving the planet, and we have to be very careful about what we mean when we say it makes money for Virginia. Actually, it's ultimately going to cost Virginia rate payers who, as a result of RGGI, as well as a result of other energy policies she's imposing as well as taxes she plans to raise, these people are going to see their disposable incomes reduced and you have to ask the question: to what end?” Follow us on Instagram for EXCLUSIVE bonus content and the chance to be featured in our episodes: https://www.instagram.com/problematicwomen/   Connect with our hosts on socials!   Elise McCue X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=EliseMcCue Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/elisemccueofficial/   Virginia Allen: X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=Virginia_Allen5 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/virginiaallenofficial/   Check out Top News in 10, hosted by The Daily Signal's Tony Kinnett: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMHBev3NsoUpc2Pzfk0n89cXWBqQltHY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All eyes have been on President Trump's address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S. outlook.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors. It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically. So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know? Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance. Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines. So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today. Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term. Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again. Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful for investors? Ariana Salvatore: So, the short version is nothing really new, and the reality is that a lot of housing policy in particular is actually out of the hands of the executive. And even if you do see congressional action here, it's likely to be marginal. A lot of housing policy is done at the state level, and even bipartisan efforts to address both the demand and the supply sides of the equation have faced some resistance in Congress. That doesn't mean they can't reemerge. But we would need to see a very large decline in the mortgage rate to get noticeable effects on economic indicators like GDP, inflation and employment. And in terms of what this means for the housing outlook, the programs talked about so far should push sales marginally higher but have little impact on our expectations for our home prices. Now it's important to note that the president didn't spend that much time of the speech talking about housing affordability proposals, as was telegraphed ahead of time. And since that, the head of the NEC Kevin Hassett has said they plan to announce more details on housing in the coming days. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, on the two pieces here that investors have really focused on, which are capping institutional ownership of single-family homes and potentially capping interest rates on credit cards, it sounded like the president talked about he would go to Congress for authorization on those things.Is that right? And if so, how plausible is it that Congress could actually deliver those authorities? Ariana Salvatore: So, here's where I think it's really critical to understand the role that Congress has to play in all of these policy initiatives. So, there are not only political constraints, but there are also procedural ones. If we were to see Republicans kind of push for this 10 percent cap, for example, that likely would have to go through the reconciliation process. And that process, as we know, comes with a number of limitations because something like a 10 percent cap wouldn't have much of an impact on the federal budget in terms of revenues or outlays. We think it's most likely not going to be permissible under that framework. So, understanding that the first filter here is Congress, and the second filter is these procedural limitations that exist in and of themselves is really important context for understanding the president's proposals on housing.Michael Zezas: So, is it fair to say the starting point is that we think Congress is unlikely to act on these things? And what would you have to see that might make you think differently? Ariana Salvatore: I think where we're looking for signals from Republican leadership in Congress – because as of right now, it's been our thinking that a second reconciliation bill ahead of the midterm elections is not feasible. It's too difficult politically, it takes a lot of time, but if you see enough of a push from the president, we do think that can start to become feasible. Again, we have to keep in mind these procedural limitations and where the rest of the party falls on these issues. But I think they're possible if the administration pushes hard enough for them.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, even though we don't think it's likely, we obviously want to prepare in case that happens. When it comes to housing, it seems like our team has said institutional ownership of single-family housing is quite low, 1 percent or less. And so, restrictions there wouldn't necessarily change the game on home prices. What about the 10 percent cap on credit card interests? What are the broader ramifications that our colleagues see? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so I'd say generally speaking, when it comes to consumer credit affordability policies, our strategists think that these could actually translate to a benefit for consumer ABS performance because they tend to be a tailwind for a consumer that's struggled with rising delinquencies and defaults post-COVID, right? However, there are some specific proposals like this cap on credit cards, and that's likely going to have a negative consequence because it's going to limit credit access for consumers, especially for those carrying a balance. So, probably a little bit counterintuitive to the overall affordability agenda that the administration's trying to go for. Michael Zezas: So, lots of interesting stuff coming out of the speech. Lots of things we have to track over the next few weeks and months. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be a boring year two of the Trump term for investors. Ariana Salvatore: Certainly not, and not for us either. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for finding the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Trump pitches direct payments to consumers for health care. Friday Sound Salad. Another government shutdown possible in 15 days. Streamflation. Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act to quell anti-ICE protests in Minnesota. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about the latest moves by the Federal Reserve. Buddhist monks walking 2,300 miles from Texas to DC. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks about the major news stories of the week. 

On Today's Episode –“Save Okefenokee Swamp From UNESCO Control,” Mark and Bonner talk about the 450,000 acres, designated as a wildlife refuge by President Roservelt, and located mostly in Georgia, but spreading as far south as Florida, that was nominated to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site, by the Biden Administration. Numerous GA. County commissioners and other concerned stakeholders who want to keep this wildlife refuge in American hands. Says one commissioner, "...more than anything, I don't like any organization that I would consider an entangling alliance. Many of the UNESCO members are adversarial nations. China, Afghanistan, Russia would sit around a table and potentially vote on what should be domestic issues....."Tune in for all the Funhttps://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/11/stanford-scholar-examines-unescos-world-heritage-programBonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ice shooting in Portland, OR. Friday Sound Salad. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks news of the week. CES Day 4 highlights. Huge anti-government protests in Tehran and other Iranian cities. Houses passes ACA subsidies; fate of bill murky in Senate. Is the American Dream dead? People regaining weight after stopping GLP-1's. Latest jobs report.

Our Deputy Director of Global Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore discuss the implications of the U.S action in Venezuela for global markets, foreign and domestic policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the latest events in Venezuela and its implications for global markets.It's Tuesday, January 6th at 10am in New York. So, Ariana, before we get into it: Long time listeners might have noticed in our intro, a changeup in our titles. Ariana, you're stepping in to lead day-to-day public policy research. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And Mike, you're taking on more of a leadership role across the research department globally. Michael Zezas: Right, which is great news for both of us. And because the interaction between public policy choices and financial markets is as critical as ever, and because collaboration is so important to how we do investment research at Morgan Stanley – tapping into expertise and insight wherever we can find it – you're still going to hear from one of – and sometimes both of us – here on Thoughts on the Market on a weekly basis. Ariana Salvatore: And this week is a great example of this dynamic as we start the New Year with investors trying to decide what, if anything, the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela means for the outlook for markets. Michael Zezas: Right. So, to that point, the New Year's barely begun, but it's already brought a dramatic geopolitical situation: The U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro – an event that can have far reaching implications for oil markets, energy, equities, sovereign credit, and politics. Ariana, thinking from the perspective of the investor, what's catching your attention right now? Ariana Salvatore: I think clients have been trying to get their arms around what this means for the future of U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy making here too. On the first point, I would say this isn't necessarily a surprise or out of step with the goals that the Trump administration has been at least rhetorically emphasizing all year. Which is to say we think this is really just another data point in a pre-existing longer term trend toward multipolarity. Remember that involves linkage of economic and national security interest. It comes with its own set of investment themes, many of which we've written about, but one in particular would be elevated levels of defense spending globally, as we're in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Another tangible takeaway I would say is on the USMCA review. I think the U.S. has likely even more leverage in the upcoming negotiations, and likely is going to push even harder for Mexico to put up trade barriers or take active steps to limit Chinese investment or influence in the country. Enforcement here obviously will be critical, as we've said. And ultimately, we do still think the review results in a slightly deeper trade integration than we have right now. But it's possible that you see tariffs on non-USMCA compliant goods higher, for example, throughout these talks. Michael Zezas: And does this affect at all your expectations for domestic policy choices from the U.S.? Ariana Salvatore: I think it's important to emphasize here that we're just seeing an increasingly diminished role for Congress to play. The past year has been punctuated by one-off US foreign policy actions and a usage of executive authority over a number of different policy areas like immigration, tariffs, and so on. So, I would say the clearest takeaway on the domestic front is we're seeing a policy making pattern that is faster and more unilateral, right? If you don't need time for consensus building on some of these issues, decisions are being made by a smaller and smaller group of people. That in itself just increases policy uncertainty and risk premia, I would say across the board. But Mike, let's turn it back specifically to Venezuela. One of the most important questions is on – what this all means for global oil markets. What are our strategists saying there? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, oil markets are the natural first place to look when it comes to the impact of these geopolitical events. And the answer more often than not is that the oil market tends not to react too much. And that seems to be the case here following the weekend's Venezuela developments. That's because we don't expect there to be much short-term supply impact. Over the medium-term risks to Venezuela's production skew higher. But while Venezuela famously holds one of the largest oil reserves in the world – it's about 17 percent of the world's oil reserves – in terms of production, its contribution is relatively small. It's less than 1 percent of global output. So, among the top 10 reserve holders, Venezuela is by far the smallest producer. So, you wouldn't expect there to be any real meaningful supply impact in the markets, at least in the near term. So, one area where there has been price movement is in the market for Venezuela sovereign bonds. They have been priced for low recovery values and the potential restructuring that was far off. But now with the U.S. more involved and the prospect of greater foreign investment into the country's oil production, investors have been bidding up the bond price in anticipation of potentially a sooner restructuring and higher recovery value for the bonds. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And to that point, our EM sovereign credit strategists anticipate limited spillover to broader LatAm sovereign credit. Any differentiation is more likely to reflect degrees of alignment with the U.S. and exposure to oil prices and potential increases in Venezuelan production, which could leave Mexico and Columbia among relative under underperformers. Michael Zezas: Right. And this seems like it's going to be an important theme all year because the U.S. actions in Venezuela seem to be a demonstration of the government's willingness to intervene in the Western Hemisphere to protect its interests more broadly. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, it's a topic that we could be spending much more time talking about this year. Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Kenya is facing rising public discontent over allegations of political corruption, economic stagnation and a shortage of good quality jobs, particularly for the country's Gen Z. One of the government's flagship responses is an ambitious push into digital outsourcing. It argues that call centres, coding work and other IT-enabled services can position the country as a global hub and generate a million new jobs within five years.The model has worked before in countries such as India and the Philippines, but the global landscape is shifting. Advances in artificial intelligence are already transforming the very roles Kenya hopes to attract, raising questions about whether this strategy can deliver long-term employment at scale.Tanya Beckett asks whether Kenya's vision for digital outsourcing can provide stability and opportunity for the country.This week on The Inquiry, we're asking: Can Kenya answer the call for employment?Contributors Joy Kiiru, senior lecturer at the Department of Economics and Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, KenyaMarcus Larsen, professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, DenmarkDeepa Mani, faculty member and deputy Dean for academic programmes at the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, India Boaz Munga, research consultant at the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, Nairobi, Kenya Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Evie Yabsley Editor: Tom Bigwood Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey(Photo: President of Kenya William Ruto. Credit: Luis Tato/Getty Images)

Top news stories of 2025. Greene claims Trump said his ‘friends will get hurt' on Epstein files. Trump threatens to 'knock the hell' out of Iran if they build weapons. Mike Lyons, military analyst, talks the Ukraine/Russia peace plan. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research gives a 2025 review. 2026 predictions. 

Badger Institute's Mike Nichols, Media Research Center's Curtis Houck, WMC's Scott Manley, National Center for Public Policy Research for Esther Bouquet, Rep Derrick Van Order, Dr. Duke Show's Duke Pesta

Massachusetts is considered one of the hardest states for young adults to buy a home. Only 36.4% under the age of 35 are homeowners, according to the National Association of Home Builders. What can be done to help make housing more affordable in the Greater Boston area? What do you think will help you with housing affordability in your community? Andrew Mikula, who is a senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and chair of Legalize Starter Homes joined us to discuss housing affordability and take calls on housing in your community.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We kicked off the program with four news stories and different guests on the stories we think you need to know about! Boston’s Housing Market Has Become UnaffordableGuest: Andrew Mikula - senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and chair of Legalize Starter Homes According to a new Monster.com survey, 47% of U.S. workers have engaged in revenge quitting.Guest: Jon Bowerman – entrepreneur, self-taught developer and cofounder of Stealth Consulting Young Americans are increasingly planning for retirement by investing in the stock market while putting off homeownership.Guest: Ron Glasgow - financial strategist and heads up Glasgow Investment Solutions TSA to charge $45 fee for travelers without proper IDGuest: Andrea Sachs – Travel reporter for WaPoSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ukraine would cede territory to Russia in draft of Trump peace plan. Sharia law and Texas. US keeping the pressure up on Venezuela. Controversy over AI Christmas toys. Trump calls lawmakers' message to military to refuse illegal orders ‘seditious'. Transportation Department asks passengers to ‘dress with respect' at airports. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital talks the economy. NASA releases new photos of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research.

Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Trump knew of sexual abuse but didn't participate. Starbucks unionized workers go on strike, demanding labor contract. Clash over healthcare subsidies threatens to reshape 2026 midterms. Congressional hemp restrictions threaten $28 billion industry, sending companies scrambling. Trump promises of direct checks test his economic message. US tariffs on coffee and bananas to ease under new trade deals. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about the latest stock market trends. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research. 

Sam Alvis of the the Institute for Public Policy Research joined us at JOETowers to talk about why Labour must bring down energy bills, and how. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging the current administration's tariff policy. Our Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Research explains the potential magnitude of the case's outcome for markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we discuss the challenge against tariffs at the Supreme Court and how it might affect markets.It's Thursday, Nov 6th at 11am in New York.This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of most of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Investors are paying close attention because if the Supreme rules against the administration, it could undo much of the four-five times tariff increase that's taken place in the U.S. this year. That would seem to set up this hearing, and a subsequent ruling which could come as early as this month, as a clear market catalyst. But, like many policy issues affecting the economic and markets outlook, the reality is more complicated. Here's what you need to know.First, there's ample debate among experts about how the court will rule. That may seem surprising given the court's makeup. Three of the nine judges were appointed by President Trump, and six of the nine by Republican Presidents. But it's not clear they'll agree that the President used his executive power in a way consistent with the law that granted the executive branch this particular power. That law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. And, without getting into too much detail, the law appears to have been designed to deal with economic crises and foreign adversaries, which the court might argue is not evident when considering tariffs levied against traditional allies.But, the next important point is that a ruling against the Trump administration might not actually change much around U.S. tariff levels. How is that possible? It's because the administration has other executive tariff powers it can deploy if needed, and ones that are arguably more durable. For example, Section 301 gives a President wide latitude to designate a trading partner as undertaking unfair trade practices. So this authority could be swapped in for IEEPA. That could take time, as Section 301 requires a study to be submitted, but there are other temporary authorities that could bridge the gap. So the U.S. can likely ensure continuity of current tariff levels if it wants – keeping tariffs more of a constant than a variable in our outlook.Of course, we have to consider ways we could be wrong. For example, the administration could use a ruling against it to re-focus instead on product specific tariffs through Section 232. That likely would result in U.S. effective tariff rates drifting a bit lower, alleviating some of the pressure our economists see on the consumer and corporate importers, adding more support to risk assets. But that scenario might come with some volatility along the way if the administration feels the need to float larger product specific tariff levels before settling on more palatable levels – similar to what happened in April.So bottom line, there's more tariff policy noise to navigate this year. It could bring some market volatility, and maybe even a bit of upside, but the most likely outcome is that we circle back to the approximate levels we are today. Setting up for 2026, that means other debates – like how companies respond to tariffs and capital spending incentives – are probably more important to the outlook than the level of tariffs themselves. We're digging in on all that and will keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

On Today's Episode –Hello again everyone…today we welcome back Bonner Cohen who is going to talk to us about Climate issues and the Supreme Court. But first, Mark tells us how we could fix the healthcare issues in about a weekend. Our FDA is an armed enforcement bureau for big pharma.We then hop into Dr. Cohen's topic…great stuff.Tune in for all the Fun Topic-https://www.cfact.org/2025/09/26/supreme-court-must-halt-states-climate-shakedowns/ Bonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States' territory, regardless of a parent's nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn't say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents' status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship?  This debate was recorded on October 9, 2025 at 1 PM at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ.  This event is part of a new partnership between Open to Debate and Arizona State University's Institute of Politics to bring live debate programming to ASU's campus in a special series titled PRO/CONversations. Produced by Arizona PBS in the Arizona State University Media Enterprise—which will air and promote the recorded programs—the series is designed to model civil discourse for students while offering hands-on production experience to ASU journalism students.     Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board    Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

34 charged in NBA, poker gambling cases include Chauncey Billups, Terry Rozier and alleged mob figures. Placing the blame for the government shutdown. Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over TV ads. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Chad's Scary Movie Countdown #6. Trump says he "may go back to Congress" on Venezuela land strikes. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about the AI bubble. Latest inflation numbers. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks Trumps plans for Venezuela. 

Trump administration tells Congress the U.S. is in "armed conflict" with drug cartels after Venezuela boat strikes. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Chad's NFL picks. Government shutdown day 3. Latest poll shows a growing distrust in media. Updates from UK mass stabbing. Zach Abraham of Bulwark Capital Management. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Suspect in Charlie Kirk assassination in custody. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital Management, talks stagflation. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research, reflects on a draining week. Economic concerns and the rise of poverty. The impact of sports on national unity. 

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture California is pushing the green new scam. they are now forcing companies to produce audit report on their CO2 emissions. This will be a disaster for California. Appeals court overrules Chutkan and axes billions from climate agenda. Trump is following in the footsteps of Andrew Jackson. Big Pharma is in a big panic. Trump authorized the EUA and trapped Big Pharma. They showed Trump one set of results and the public they tried to hide the actual results, the mislead the government and the public. The Judicial coup is failing for the [DS], everyday that passes they try to stop Trump but they are losing. The [DS] will become desperate and they will push and event, this is all they have left. Watch the water something is about to happen.   Economy California Fights Trump Deregulation by Implementing Its Own ‘Green Accounting' Rule California is leading the resistance against President Donald Trump's deregulation agenda with new rules that will force companies operating in the state to produce audited reports on their CO2 emissions, and analysts say these rules may soon apply to companies throughout the United States. California is preparing to implement two laws, SB 253 and SB 261, which would require companies operating in the state to monitor and report their CO2 emissions, as well as those of their suppliers and customers. These rules, originally passed in 2023, are similar but broader in scope than the mandate that was imposed nationwide by the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Biden administration, but which was effectively canceled under the current Trump administration. “I think the goal of California right now is to get as many other states as it possibly can to go along with this,” Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, Source: dailysignal.com BREAKING: Appeals Court EXCORIATES Obama Judge Chutkan, Sides with Trump Administration, Axes Billions of Dollars in Biden-Era Climate Grants Earlier this year US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, granted an injunction against the EPA and barred Lee Zeldin from clawing back the money that was being sheltered at Citibank for 8 different ‘green' nonprofits. Lee Zeldin previously clawed back the $20 billion in grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and Citibank agreed to freezing the funds earmarked for the eight nonprofits. A federal appeals court on Tuesday delivered a huge blow to Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan and sided with the Trump Administration by axing billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants.  , a three-judge panel sided with Trump's EPA in a 2-1 decision. The three-judge panel included: Majority: Rao (Trump), Katsas (Trump) and dissent: Pillard (Obama). Judge Rao wrote the majority opinion and absolutely excoriated Judge Chutkan. “We conclude the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The grantees are not likely to succeed on the merits because their claims are essentially contractual, and therefore jurisdiction lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. And while the district court had jurisdiction over the grantees' constitutional claim, that claim is meritless. Moreover, the equities strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund. Accordingly, we vacate the injunction,” Judge Rao wrote for the majority opinion.

MN school shooting being politicized. Trump admin. moving detainees out of "Alligator Alcatraz" after judge orders facility operations to wind down. A wave of active shooter hoaxes at universities brings panic and turmoil to the start of the school year. Consumer prices rise 2.7% annually in July, less than expected amid tariff worries. CDC director Susan Monarez fired by Trump administration. Holiday travel tips. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks about Gavin Newsom probable presidential run.