The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
Who Should Shape the Future of Development, and How?
English Summary
As global development assistance declines following USAID's closure and reduced ODA funding, CSIS proposes reimagining international development by centering local rightsholders in decision-making through three key stakeholders: civil society, philanthropy, and the private sector. The analysis, based on roundtables held 2025–2026, identifies critical gaps: global ODA dropped $56 billion (2023–2025) while philanthropic giving remains ~$17 billion annually, and over 70% of civil society organizations have cut staff. Key recommendations include shifting philanthropy from project grants to unrestricted multiyear funding, strengthening civil society resource diversification, and aligning corporate private sector engagement with local institutional capacity-building rather than control. The proposals emphasize that without coordinated stakeholder alignment and genuine power transfer to impacted communities, development's sustainability and effectiveness will remain constrained.
中文摘要
隨著 USAID 關閉及官方發展援助（ODA）資金減少，全球發展援助面臨挑戰。因此，戰略與國際問題研究中心（CSIS）提出重新構想國際發展模式，主張透過三大關鍵利害關係人——民間社會、慈善機構和私營部門——將決策權核心化，交予地方權益持有者。本分析基於 2025–2026 年召開的圓桌會議，指出幾個關鍵缺口：全球 ODA 在 2023–2025 年間下降了 560 億美元；雖然慈善捐贈每年仍維持在約 170 億美元，但超過 70% 的民間社會組織已裁員。核心建議包括：將慈善捐贈從專案撥款轉向無限制的多年期資金；加強民間社會的資源多元化；並將企業私營部門的參與，與地方制度能力建設接軌，而非控制。提案強調，若缺乏利害關係人之間的協調一致性，以及真正的權力轉移給受影響社區，發展工作的永續性與有效性仍將受到限制。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The built environment workforce, comprising 15.3 million workers across 95 occupations, is foundational to modern infrastructure and economic stability. While highly paid, the workforce suffers from significant demographic imbalances, being disproportionately white and male, and often lacking clear career progression pathways. To prevent project delays and cost overruns, policy must mandate that capital asset owners treat labor market forecasting as core to project planning. Strategic interventions are required to strengthen career pipelines through robust apprenticeships, improve retention, and actively recruit younger and more diverse workers.
-
5.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.