标签： North America

Amid escalating global fragmentation, leading U.S. think tanks convened urgent discussions this week to address the deteriorating state of international cooperation. The Peterson Institute for International Economics and Brookings Institution hosted parallel sessions examining critical challenges in climate policy, taxation, and security alliances.

At the Peterson Institute, renowned economist Kimberly Clausing delivered a stark assessment of existing global agreements. While acknowledging the Paris Agreement as a foundational moral framework for climate action, she highlighted its critical deficiency: “The pact lacks enforceable compliance mechanisms or concrete incentives for participation.” Clausing pointed to Europe’s carbon border adjustment mechanism as a potential model for balancing environmental protection with domestic industry interests.

Notably, Clausing singled out China’s climate progress as exceptionally significant, stating: “China’s achievement of peak emissions at their current development stage represents an impressive feat.” This assessment aligns with Carbon Brief’s analysis confirming China’s stabilized or declining CO2 emissions over 21 consecutive months through early 2026. International Energy Agency and UN Environment Programme reports attribute this success to massive renewable energy expansion and strategic industrial reforms.

The dialogue expanded to international taxation, where Clausing warned about multinational profit shifting eroding national tax bases. She characterized the OECD/G20 minimum tax agreement as an imperfect but necessary step toward addressing free-rider problems, despite implementation challenges across divergent national systems.

Concurrently, Brookings Institution experts presented a grim outlook on Western alliances. Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, described how traditional partners are developing hedging strategies amid declining confidence in U.S. leadership. “When certainty about your primary ally diminishes, nations inevitably pursue alternative options,” Freedman observed, noting European nations’ reluctant moves toward greater autonomy while maintaining security dependencies.

Security analyst Mara Karlin noted that current U.S. policies have created strategic openings for competing global powers. Joshua Rovner employed a powerful metaphor, comparing the international situation to an aircraft experiencing severe turbulence with unpredictable outcomes. He emphasized concerning disconnects between tactical military successes and long-term strategic stability, particularly referencing recent U.S. operations in Iran.

Both forums converged on a critical conclusion: addressing global collective-action problems requires inclusive frameworks that incorporate emerging powers across climate governance, economic policy, and security architecture. The discussions underscored that neither environmental sustainability nor international stability can be achieved through fragmented approaches in an increasingly multipolar world.

A severe political deadlock over immigration policy has plunged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into a prolonged funding crisis, triggering widespread travel chaos and leaving thousands of airport security agents unpaid. The situation escalated dramatically when House Republicans rejected a bipartisan Senate proposal and instead passed their own funding bill, ensuring the legislative impasse will continue for weeks.

The core conflict centers on immigration enforcement funding. House Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson who dismissed the Senate bill as a ‘joke,’ demand that any DHS funding legislation must include full financing for immigration agencies. Their approved measure would fund DHS at current levels—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—for 60 days. ‘Republicans are not going to be any part of any effort to reopen our borders or to stop immigration enforcement,’ Johnson stated.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have taken a firm stance against providing what they characterize as a ‘blank check’ for immigration agencies without significant reforms. These demanded reforms include prohibiting ICE agents from wearing masks, banning racial profiling practices, and requiring judicial warrants before agents can enter private property. The debate intensified following the controversial shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis earlier this year.

The human and operational consequences have been severe. Approximately 50,000 TSA agents have worked without pay since mid-February, leading to reduced staffing levels as many cannot afford to report for work. According to Jim Szczesniak, aviation director for the Houston Airport System, only 33-50% of TSA checkpoints are currently operational, creating hours-long security queues and widespread travel disruptions nationwide.

In an unprecedented move, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to pay TSA agents directly, with the DHS announcing agents might receive paychecks as early as March 30. However, this action faces potential legal challenges as the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to authorize federal spending.

With Congress now beginning a two-week recess, the funding crisis appears intractable in the immediate term. The House-approved bill faces almost certain rejection in the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already declared it ‘dead on arrival.’ The political standoff ensures that the travel chaos and financial hardship for DHS employees will continue indefinitely.

DALLAS – As the U.S.-Israeli military campaign in Iran concludes its fourth week, deepening fissures are emerging within the American conservative movement regarding the conflict’s justification and trajectory. The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas, traditionally a bastion of unwavering support for former President Donald Trump, revealed significant concerns about wartime transparency, economic consequences, and strategic ambiguity.

Multiple attendees expressed reservations to BBC journalists about the administration’s approach. Samantha Cassell from Dallas emphasized the need for clearer communication: “I just wish there was more transparency on why we’re doing what we’re doing, that way you could send your loved one overseas and be OK with that.” Her companion Joe Bolick questioned the fundamental objectives: “I don’t see an endgame yet. What are we actually trying to achieve? Is it true regime change? I think we kind of got ourselves stuck.”

The conference highlighted a generational divide within conservative ranks. Younger participants like Toby Blair, a 19-year-old University of South Florida student, articulated skepticism: “I don’t like that it’s become America’s job to find bad people and get rid of them, especially when you have so many people at home that can’t afford basic things.” His friend Shashank Yalamanchi, a first-year law student, noted that many young conservatives initially supported Trump precisely because he promised to avoid foreign entanglements.

This contrasted sharply with older attendees like Michael Manuel-Reaud, founder of the “Trump Tribe of Texas,” who asserted: “If there’s a threat for the United States getting bombed with a nuclear bomb, who can say no to that? [Trump] can’t just quit. He’s not going to stop until he finishes.”

The event witnessed emotional displays from Iranian-American activists celebrating the military operation. Attendees chanted “Thank you Trump” during panels and filled hallways with shouts of “regime change for Iran” while holding photographs of Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran. Nima Poursohi, wearing a “Persians for Trump” T-shirt, expressed gratitude: “No other president dealt with Iran or had even the courage to take a step forward like President Trump has.”

Despite this enthusiasm, prominent conservative voices expressed caution. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz warned that a ground invasion would make the U.S. “poorer and less safe,” predicting higher fuel and food prices. Erik Prince, founder of military contractor Blackwater, dismissed administration optimism about a rapid resolution, noting Iran hasn’t been conquered since Alexander the Great.

Recent Pew Research data reveals concerning trends for the administration: while 79% of Republicans approve of Trump’s war handling, only 49% strongly approve. Support drops to 22% among those who “lean” Republican and to 49% among Republicans aged 18-29. Trump’s pollster Jim McLaughlin dismissed these divisions as temporary, predicting quick resolution and economic normalization.

The gathering suggested growing pressure for a substantive debate about the conflict’s future. As former White House adviser Steve Bannon told the CPAC audience: “You have to be convinced that this is the right thing to do, particularly now that we are on the eve, potentially, of the insertion of American combat troops. This is a debate that has to happen.”

A month into the ongoing joint military campaign between the United States and Israel against Iran, significant ideological rifts have emerged within American conservative circles. The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas served as a revealing platform where attendees expressed conflicting viewpoints regarding Operation Epic Fury, initiated on February 28th.

The military operation, characterized by its unprecedented coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv, has sparked intense debate among conservative thought leaders. While some conference participants voiced strong support for the aggressive stance against Iranian targets, others demonstrated notable reservations about the campaign’s strategic objectives and potential long-term consequences.

This division highlights the evolving nature of conservative foreign policy philosophy in the post-Trump era. The spectrum of opinions ranges from hawkish advocates who emphasize national security imperatives to more cautious voices concerned about mission creep and regional destabilization. These internal disagreements reflect broader tensions within the conservative movement regarding America’s role in Middle Eastern conflicts and the appropriate application of military power.

The conference discussions revealed particularly nuanced positions on the timing, execution, and geopolitical implications of the operation, suggesting that conservative consensus on foreign interventionism may be undergoing significant redefinition.