The China-Russia partnership is a highly consequential geopolitical alignment driven by a shared goal of countering U.S. hegemony and reshaping the international order into a multipolar system. While not a formal alliance, this relationship is strengthened by Russia's increasing economic reliance on China following Western sanctions, which allows Beijing to leverage its influence. Policymakers should note that while the partnership projects deep solidarity (as seen in high-level summits), it remains complex and limited by mutual mistrust and competing strategic interests. This enduring alignment poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests and requires continued diplomatic vigilance.
Why more states are passing laws to help people drive less
English Summary
States across the Americas are recognizing that the traditional link between high Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and economic growth is fracturing, leading to a policy shift toward mitigation. Key evidence shows that excessive driving generates negative externalities, including increased pollution, higher maintenance costs, and unsustainable GHG emissions. Consequently, states are passing varied laws—ranging from project-level mandates (California) to statewide planning constraints (Colorado)—to force transportation planning to prioritize VMT reduction. The implication for policy is that future infrastructure investment must move beyond simply building more roads, instead requiring comprehensive, multimodal strategies that redirect funds toward public transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure to achieve sustainable growth.
中文摘要
美洲各州已意識到，傳統上認為車輛行駛里程（VMT）與經濟增長之間存在關聯的模式正在瓦解，這引導了政策轉向減緩（mitigation）。關鍵證據顯示，過度的駕駛行為會產生負面外部性，包括增加污染、提高維護成本以及造成不可持續的溫室氣體（GHG）排放。因此，各州正在通過各種法規——範圍從項目層級的強制規定（如加州）到全州層級的規劃限制（如科羅拉多州）——來要求交通規劃必須將VMT的削減置於優先地位。政策上的啟示是，未來的基礎設施投資不能僅限於修建更多道路，而是必須採用全面的多模式策略，將資金重新導向公共交通、自行車道和行人基礎設施，以實現可持續增長。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The CSIS analysis finds that the U.S. grid's regulatory framework for connecting large loads is severely fragmented and unprepared for the massive electricity demands posed by AI data centers. FERC has mandated significant reforms across six regional operators, requiring them to modernize interconnection studies, prevent cost-shifting, and establish clear tariffs for co-located generation. Evidence shows that most operators fall far short of these new standards, necessitating complex, multi-year policy adjustments rather than simple compliance. Policymakers must coordinate federal regulation (FERC) with state utilities to accelerate grid modernization, ensuring energy affordability while maintaining technological competitiveness.
-
3.
The Brookings report argues that while modern economies are fundamentally regional in nature, effective governance requires states to align their authority and resources with empowered local cross-sector networks. Current state economic development systems are often fragmented and ill-equipped to manage structural shifts like AI or the energy transition. To modernize, policymakers must adopt a structured 'state-regional' model where states define strategic clusters and allocate capital, while regions coordinate execution using deep local knowledge. This approach has proven successful in catalyzing billions in private investment by ensuring state resources are deployed strategically across multiple sectors to achieve measurable economic growth.
-
4.
The Brookings analysis highlights that while U.S. security assistance has increased significantly, its efficacy remains inconsistent, citing past failures in theaters like Mali alongside successes in Ukraine. The core argument is that the US must reform its approaches to maximize return on investment (ROI) and build genuinely effective partner forces. This strategic recalibration is critical for achieving central national security goals, especially within regions often deemed lower priority, such as Africa. Policy recommendations suggest moving toward more targeted, sustainable assistance models rather than broad military deployments.
-
5.
This analysis tracks ongoing legal challenges targeting the Trump administration's efforts to reshape K-12 education policy. The core finding is that numerous lawsuits are challenging executive orders and non-binding guidance designed to withhold federal funding or dismantle the Department of Education (ED). These legal actions center on administrative attempts to enforce specific ideological priorities through financial penalties, creating significant policy instability. The continued litigation suggests that the administration's ability to unilaterally restructure K-12 education via executive action is facing substantial judicial resistance.