Kahlenberg on The Education Gadfly Show Podcast: Replacing DEI with Something Better

Kahlenberg on The Education Gadfly Show Podcast: Replacing DEI with Something Better

On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Richard Kahlenberg, author of Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges, joins Mike and David to discuss how Democrats can move beyond DEI and embrace “integration, equal opportunity, and belonging.” Then, on the Research Minute, Amber examines a study on the relationship between standardized test scores, high school GPA, and first-year college performance at Ivy-Plus universities.

Listen on Spotify.

Watch on YouTube.

The Disengaged Teen, ft. Rebecca Winthrop

On this episode of Radically Pragmatic, PPI’s Senior Advisor and Director of the What Works Lab, Bruno Manno is joined by Rebecca Winthrop, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution.

Winthrop discusses the motivation behind and premise of her and Jenny Anderson’s new book, “The Disengaged Teen: Helping Kids Learn Better, Feel Better, and Live Better.” She touches on the growing teen disengagement problem and explains her four modes of student engagement. She also discusses practical strategies for how parents and educators can engage students in learning. 

Rebecca’s book can be ordered here.

And check out Manno’s recent Forbes article on the book and revisiting the K-12 student engagement cliff.

The Trump administration is trying to find foreign eggs to lower prices, then immediately tax them to raise prices

FACT: The Trump administration is trying to find foreign eggs to lower prices, then immediately tax them to raise prices.

THE NUMBERS: Egg prices,* per dozen large Grade A –

February 2025: $5.90
December 2024: $4.15
February 2024: $3.00

* National averages, via. St. Louis Federal Reserve’s “FRED” Economic Data system.

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Quick followup to our look at public opinion on tariffs last week: A poll released by Fox News (on Friday, two days after our piece) matched the four-fathoms-underwater responses to CNN/SSRS and Reuters/IPSOS: 28% thought tariffs would be good for the economy and 53% bad. More generally, this poll finds “inflation, prices, and the cost of living” the top public concern, cited by 27% of all respondents. “Economy and jobs” is next at 16%. And those thinking of inflation this year often envision an egg.

Eggs are one of those common products, like gasoline or fresh vegetables, where very visible price hikes make people sensitive. Among the apparently sensitized is the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, who is cajoling South Korea and Turkey this month to sell us more eggs. Here’s a passage from Hoosier Ag Today:

“[Rollins] says USDA is also working to temporarily increase the import of eggs in order to increase the supply available for consumers. “Turkey and South Korea have both confirmed they will be increasing breaker egg imports into the U.S. …USDA continues conversations—in fact, I was on one earlier today regarding another country who’s ready to import a significant amount of eggs in the short term, but we continue to work that issue very, very aggressively—again, just for the short term, to keep getting the price of eggs down.”

Two points on this:

1. “Autarkic” economies often suffer shortages and price shocks: Economies with tight import limits, whether whole countries or individual ‘sectors’, suffer price shocks and shortages more frequently than “open” economies with more diversified sources of supply. As the U.S. infant formula crisis was the 2022/23 example, eggs are this year’s, with prices doubling since the outbreak of avian flu last spring.

The lost output is hard to replace because only a few countries can sell eggs to Americans. Policy is jointly and fiercely patrolled by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Agricultural Marketing Service, for “high path avian influenza” and “virulent newcastle.” The three agencies, for understandable reasons, require countries hoping to sell eggs to American grocery stores to have food-safety systems comparable to that of the United States, and the individual poultry operations hatching them out to pass FDA inspection.

In principle this is correct — health and safety first; set policy through science and medicine rather than through responses to fears or price concerns. And in contrast to infant formula, where strict quotas and high tariffs make it very hard for American groceries to buy, eggs don’t have especially high import barriers. (Egg tariffs, HTS 04072100, are now 2.8 cents per dozen, or a quarter of a cent per egg.) But in practice, the regulatory gauntlet is so costly and difficult that egg trade is very small. USDA’s “Global Agricultural Trade System” database reports only two countries — Canada and Turkey — selling us any significant quantity, and even they don’t do much. (Canada shipped about 2.7 million dozen fresh eggs last year, Turkey 5.7 million dozen, and the rest of the world a few thousand dozen more.) The U.S. egg industry, by comparison, shipped about 53,000 million dozen to groceries each year, which puts imports below 1% of egg sales.

In such circumstances, as with infant formula three years ago, domestic problems bring swift consequences and they tend to last.  When last fall’s avian flu outbreak slashed U.S. production, shortages and price spikes followed immediately. So a dozen eggs now cost twice what they did last spring. Ms. Rollin’s Easter weekend egg hunt, like the Defense Department’s infant formula airlift two years ago, illustrates the effect of tough import limits even when the rationale for them is understandable.

2.  The Trump administration is trying to simultaneously lower and raise egg prices: Meanwhile, the rest of the administration is trying to make eggs cost more. As Ms. Rollins looks for ways to bring egg prices down, Mr. Trump has spent the past month hyping a plan to personally impose tariffs of 10%, 25%, or some yet-to-be-decided random level, on eggs and other products from Canada, the European Union, Mexico, China, and maybe every other country in the world.

Supposedly these tariffs, on chicken eggs and the other 11,413 additional “tariff lines,” will hit next week. Courts may well declare this plan unconstitutional: Congress, not presidents, has the power to set rates for “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” But if courts allow it on the basis of vaguely written statutes and precedent from case law, the new tariffs will put a heavy tax on all the eggs Ms. Rollins can find, and cancel much, or all, or “more than all” of whatever egg price relief she may achieve.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;

  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices, and family budgets, and living standards;

  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;

  • Offer a positive alternative.

Health and sickness:

The CDC has avian flu updates and counts of affected birds.

A perspective from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service explains egg import rules.

And the FDA’s egg standards.

Trade:

St. Louis Fed’s FRED services track egg prices.

Rollins and USDA on egg price strategy.

And egg-trade links from the Agricultural Marketing Service.

A reminder:

PPI in 2022 on the infant formula crisis.

And last:

Mr. Kennedy, the Health and Human Services Secretary, has suggested just letting avian flu spread around so that, eventually, hopefully, chicken populations gain immunity to it. Scientific American points out that encouraging the unchecked spread of disease is unwise, and new strains of flu virus rapidly replace old ones.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Johnson for The Dispatch: Why Democrats Keep Losing: Policy—Not Messaging

Politics is about changing the world. To change the world, you need power so you can implement the policies you think will help people. And to win power, you need to be able to get votes.
All this is fairly obvious, but we live in a political era where obvious and true things bear repeating. So allow me to state the obvious once more: To win votes, you can’t have wildly different views from the public. That’s a lesson Democrats seem to have forgotten.

In the wake of their 2024 loss, a significant portion of Democratic leadership seems to believe that what the party really needs is to change the messaging. They need more aggressive PR, better catchphrases, more viral stunts. They need to go on more podcasts!

Better PR and messaging strategy would help. But the core thing that held Democrats back in 2024 wasn’t PR strategy. It was the party’s beliefs and policies. If Democrats want to win the kind of large and durable majorities that will allow them to really govern, they’re going to have to rethink those policies.

Read more in The Dispatch.

Jacoby on Washington Monthly Podcast: America’s Abandonment of Ukraine

Donald Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine in favor of Russia and Vladimir Putin threatens to upend the global order. Will Europe emerge as a unified force to defend Western democracies in the absence of American leadership? Washington Monthly editor-in-chief Paul Glastris speaks with Tamar Jacoby, Director of the New Ukraine Project at the Progressive Policy Institute; and Mike Lofgren, author, historian and a leading expert on military weapons systems.

Listen to the full episode.

Watch the YouTube video.

Jacoby for Bulwark: The Impossibility of Negotiating ‘Peace’ With Putin

IT’S “UNFORTUNATE” THAT EUROPEAN LEADERS think Vladimir Putin isn’t interested in peace, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff told CBS News last week. “I know what I heard,” Witkoff insisted, recalling his latest visit to Moscow, “the body language I witnessed.” It was a frightening echo of George W. Bush, who declared after meeting Putin in 2001 that he had “looked the man in the eye,” got “a sense of his soul,” and “found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy”—a hopeful take Bush later came to regret as he learned from bitter experience how duplicitous and aggressive an adversary he faced in the Kremlin.

This is a lesson Donald Trump and team have yet to learn, but it’s only the beginning of what the 47th president doesn’t understand about his Russian counterpart. Even more dangerous, Trump doesn’t grasp that his vision of peace in Ukraine—a compromise requiring concessions on both sides—is fundamentally at odds with Putin’s vision. Russia’s ambitions in Ukraine center on one goal and one goal only, and it’s not something that can be split 50–50. Putin is determined to end Ukrainian sovereignty—its very existence as a freestanding, independent nation.

This mismatch doesn’t bode well for ceasefire talks continuing this week in Saudi Arabia. As long as one man seeks a deal—even a lopsided deal—and the other wants capitulation, they will inevitably talk past each other. Worse still, only Putin sees the skew, and he wants to prolong it. It serves his interest.

The longer he can keep Washington and Kyiv tied up in talks, the more time the Kremlin has to accomplish its aims militarily—seizing more Ukrainian territory, undermining Ukrainian morale and running out the clock on European war fatigue. Meanwhile, the longer the game goes on, the more desperate Trump becomes and the more he gives away—slice after slice of American power and Western leverage over Russia.

Read more in The Bulwark.

Untapped Expertise: HBCUs as Charter Authorizers, Part 3

On this episode of RAS Reports, Curtis Valentine, the Director of PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, and Naomi Shelton, CEO of the National Charter Collaborative, sit down with Dr. Yolanda W. Page, the President of Stillman College in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

They discuss Dr. Page’s journey in becoming the 8th President of Stillman College, as well as how she sees the role of HBCU administrators in higher education evolving in today’s environment.

Ainsley for The Political Quarterly: After Biden: Lessons for Labour and the Global Centre-Left from the United States

Centre-left governments around the world are facing challenging re-elections as populist right-wing candidates and political parties make ground with a discontented electorate. This article draws on research for a project I direct on centre-left renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), offering some preliminary insights into the forces at play in the recent presidential election in the United States and learning points for the Labour government in the United Kingdom. The research finds that the Democrats lost the presidential election largely owing to the loss of working class voters amongst the ethnically White, Hispanic and Black American population, who turned away from a Democratic Party they felt was not offering the country the change of direction they were seeking. In particular, the failure of former President Biden’s extensive economic programme to win support amongst the voters it was aimed at holds important lessons for centre-left parties aiming to replicate similar approaches.

Read the full essay.

Waltz, Hegseth Should Resign Over Negligence

News that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz accidentally invited The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Cabinet-level group chat discussion where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth uploaded plans for U.S. military strikes in Yemen ought to prompt the resignations of both officials. 

It’s irrelevant that Signal, the messaging app used by the group chat, is a secure platform; the personal phones on which Trump administration officials likely ran the app most certainly are not. If a foreign intelligence service can access one of these officials’ personal phones, it can access their Signal chats. At least one member of the group, Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff, was in Moscow at the time the discussion took place, while another, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, admitted under questioning that she was overseas as well.  

As a breach of security, the Signal group chat is unprecedented in its negligence. What’s more, the group chat also likely violates a number of laws relating to the disclosure of sensitive national defense information and federal records retention — Waltz had apparently set the group’s messages to disappear after one to four weeks.  

This incident only reinforces the impression that President Trump has assembled a squad of inept amateurs for his national security team. Though Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, DNI Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were all included in the chat, for instance, none thought to even ask why they were discussing the details of an upcoming military operation in an app on their unsecured personal phones. That suggests that such informal deliberations are a standard operating procedure for Trump’s national security team. Indeed, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, suggested as much in a recent hearing.

Congress should mount a serious and thorough investigation into the Trump administration’s wider use of personal phones and messaging apps, encrypted or otherwise, to plan military operations and discuss sensitive national security matters. At minimum, however, National Security Adviser Waltz and Secretary Hegseth should immediately resign for their roles in this debacle. 

For his part, Waltz carelessly added a journalist to a group chat that he organized via Signal, a secure app installed on insecure personal phones. Whatever the reasoning behind this move, it likely contravenes the spirit and letter of laws meant to safeguard sensitive national defense information and preserve communications involving senior federal officials. Waltz cannot remain as national security adviser, given his apparent disregard for laws and rules regarding sensitive information and records retention.

Hegseth, already unqualified and unfit for his position as secretary of defense, should resign for his cavalier disclosure of plans for impending military operations in the group chat, presumably via an insecure personal phone. According to Goldberg, Hegseth revealed details including “the specific time of a future attack, specific targets, including human targets, meant to be killed in that attack, weapons systems, even weather reports… It was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen.” The fact that the Pentagon itself had warned against using Signal in a building-wide email just after the group chat took place puts Hegseth’s eagerness to share these details in an even less favorable light.

Neither Waltz’s nor Hegseth’s resignations will repair the damage done by their careless and reckless handling of sensitive national security information. Nor will it address the Trump administration’s wider use of messaging apps to discuss defense and foreign policy issues. But they are an important first step toward accountability.

Kahlenberg in The New York Times: Affirmative Action Is Gone. Can Class-Based Admissions Replace It?

If there is one lesson that centrist Democrats have taken from Donald Trump’s startlingly broad-based victory in November, it is that their party will never return to majority status unless it regains the trust of working-class Americans. Those voters — nonwhite as well as white — rejected the language of race and identity that they associate, fairly or not, with the Democrats. So it’s no surprise that the party has scrambled to develop a “credible working-class message” that will “win them back,” in the words of one super PAC that plans to invest $50 million in the effort.

Enter Richard D. Kahlenberg, who has been arguing for virtually his entire adult life that our race-based system of affirmative action pits the white working class against Black people, and aligns the Democratic Party with middle-class or well-to-do beneficiaries of color against Americans who see themselves as the losers in a zero-sum game. His ship finally came in two years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action violated the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Kahlenberg’s new book, “Class Matters,” is his personal history of the debate, his victory lap and his spirited argument for a liberal politics of class rather than race.

That victory lap is hard to begrudge: Kahlenberg writes that he has been laboring in the vineyards since he wrote his senior thesis at Harvard in 1984 on Robert F. Kennedy’s attempt to forge a cross-racial working-class coalition in the 1968 presidential election. Kahlenberg found that Kennedy opposed even mild forms of racial preference in favor of economic programs that would benefit all working-class Americans. I was as surprised to learn this now as Kahlenberg was then, though as a biographer of Hubert Humphrey I know that the devastating loss in 1968 sent Humphrey on the same trajectory.

A politics in which elite liberals told ordinary white Americans that they had to make sacrifices — from which elites themselves were largely exempt — in order to compensate for historical injustices was an invitation to disaster.

Keep reading in The New York Times.

Weinstein Jr. for Forbes: The Cost And Benefits Of Privatizing Amtrak

Elon Musk’s call to privatize Amtrak should surprise no one. He owns a car company, has recommended that tourists from abroad not ride passenger rail in the U.S., and according to his biographer “the idea (for the Hyperloop) originated out of his hatred for California’s proposed high-speed rail system,” which he viewed as too costly and too slow.

But supporters of passenger rail in the U.S. should not dismiss the notion of redefining Amtrak’s role in running our nation’s intercity rail network, including privatizing some of its operational responsibilities. Rather, they should use this moment as an opportunity to debate the best way to leverage private investment in passenger rail.

Born out of necessity, Amtrak was never intended to be the long-term solution to providing passenger rail in the U.S. The collapse of privately-owned and operated passenger rail in the 1960s led to the government corporation’s creation in 1971. Amtrak’s operations greatly expanded in the mid-1970s when it took over the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which accounts for over a third of its passengers and is operationally a money maker. Since then, Congress has been fairly divided about Amtrak’s vision. Many Democrats support more government funding of Amtrak while large swaths of Republicans have called for the public corporation’s dismantling and the sale of the NEC to private interests. Partly as a result of this partisan divide, Amtrak has been unable to access a stable source of funding to invest in its rail infrastructure, leaving it with billions in deferred maintenance and little money for investments in high-speed rail.

Read more in Forbes. 

Sykes in The Washington Post: Democrats once killed a pipeline in the Northeast. Now they may help Trump revive it.

The new momentum behind Constitution comes as Democrats reckon with voter defections in low-income communities grappling with high energy costs, as detailed in a February report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank. It highlighted how energy costs were a significant concern driving votes in poor, predominantly Black communities in the Boston area, where Trump notched gains in November.

“If you’re a poor resident of public housing in, say, Boston or Dorchester and Roxbury, it’s really hard for you to see the benefits of tax credits for heat pumps” or other policies aimed at curbing fossil fuel use, said Elan Sykes, the report’s author. “This is really something that we as Democrats need to recognize.”

Read more in The Washington Post.

Moss for Washington Monthly: What Happens to Antitrust Under Trump?

While campaigning in the late summer of 2024, Donald Trump wooed voters with this declaration: “When I win, I will immediately bring [food] prices down, starting on Day One.” But even before Day One arrived, he was already backpedaling, declaring, “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

Indeed, it is. In the best of circumstances, presidents don’t have the power to unilaterally reduce prices. Yet Trump is adopting policies that are overtly inflationary. Aggressive import tariffs, for example, will drive up prices for food and other essential commodities. And the U.S. agriculture and construction sectors are particularly dependent on the immigrant workers Trump promises to deport. All of this will increase working Americans’ already high cost of living.

Still, if Trump were serious about fulfilling his campaign pledge, there is a policy tool he could use to help drive down the prices that most hurt working-class Americans. Namely, he could actively enforce the U.S. antitrust laws.

To understand the opportunity before him, consider that market power is a major factor in driving high prices for goods and services that matter the most to working American families.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Trump Cuts to R&D Jeopardize Innovation

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

When the Trump administration moved this week to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development, which is responsible for producing objective research on a wide array of environmental pollutants, it claimed to do so in the name of improving government efficiency. But the long list of cuts to federal science funding pursued by the administration will ultimately undermine one of the government’s most successful endeavors and leave the country ill-prepared to maintain its position as the world’s leader of innovation.

Alongside the EPA, several other federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA, have all been targeted for budget cuts. While many of these cuts have been mass layoffs of federal scientists, including nearly 1,200 of the EPA’s biologists, chemists, and toxicologists, some have been policy changes impacting the broader research ecosystem. At NIH, the administration has moved to cap support for “indirect research costs,” which cover expenses ranging from facility fees to administrative costs, at 15% of a grant’s value. 

The research ecosystem in the United States is far from perfect. Many universities have increased administrative bloat over the past several decades that risks cutting into the efficiency of genuine research activities. Several university grant recipients have routinely negotiated reimbursement for indirect costs as high as 70% of the grant’s overall research value. Although some of these indirect costs include critical funding for maintaining high-tech laboratories and other legitimate expenses, high overhead diverts resources away from dollars that could have been used more efficiently as true R&D spending. A thoughtful audit to ensure that taxpayer money is being effectively allocated toward research activities, rather than avoidable administrative costs, is absolutely warranted.

But these rapid and sweeping cuts are far from this measured approach, causing unnecessary chaos, jeopardizing projects that may have otherwise led to vital breakthroughs, and indiscriminately eliminating skilled researchers. For example, the 15% cap at NIH is only around half of what grantees typically negotiated in the past. In response, top research universities and institutions have frozen hiring, laid off staff, and even trimmed research projects on cancer and Alzheimers. Meanwhile at NOAA, the hundreds of positions eliminated at the National Weather Service risks compromising the accuracy of weather data that everyone from researchers to local weather channels rely upon.

The federal government’s support for research is foundational for innovation from businesses. While the private sector often funds “applied” research and development, which can be quickly commercialized and profited from, the government’s primary responsibility is to fund “basic” research, which forms the foundation of knowledge for all other technological and scientific progress. This type of research often requires sustained long-term investment and the benefits can often accrue to entities other than the one that funds it, which often makes it too risky for private companies to pursue on their own. Federally funded research has been a critical building block for countless innovations, including mRNA vaccines, the internet, GPS, and even Ozempic. In addition, the government can enable research even when not directly funding it by collecting and sharing vital information, such as weather and disease data.

These federal investments drive economic growth and improve American lives. According to one study by the Dallas Federal Reserve, every federal dollar invested in non-defense R&D yields between 140% and 210% in economic benefits. In certain projects, these returns are even higher: One study of NIH’s Human Genome Project estimated that it generated an astonishing $178 for every $1 spent, resulting in nearly $1 trillion of additional economic growth. 

Instead of further cuts that undermine this innovation and growth, policymakers should be working to reverse the decline in federal R&D investment, which has dropped precipitously over the past few decades when measured as a share of the overall economy. Today, public R&D spending is only around half of its historical average and nearly a quarter from its peak set during the space race. 

Continuing to cut support would risk losing that status to competitors such as China, which over the past few decades has been increasing R&D spending at a much faster rate than the United States. Already, both China and Europe are seeking to capitalize on the administration’s decisions by enticing top science talent to join them abroad. The United States has long been a global leader in research and innovation, but if Trump continues to make reckless cuts to the science ecosystem, we risk watching that leadership slip away.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

This week, the Federal Reserve gave its first updated economic projections since Trump came into office. Due to the impact of tariffs and increased economic uncertainty, Fed officials projected that real GDP growth this year would be much lower than expected — only 1.7% compared to the 2.1% predicted in December — while inflation and unemployment would be higher.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

Marshall for The Hill: Public Schools are Languishing in a Political Dead Zone

Stumping for president a quarter-century ago, George W. Bush posed the immortal question, “Is our children learning?” Although his bad grammar elicited much condescending mirth, Bush at least seemed passionate about improving public schools.

Today’s national leaders, not so much.

Ainsley for The Liberal Patriot: What U.S. Democrats Can Learn from the German Election

Last month’s federal election in Germany, which took place at a moment of significant global tension, has attracted international attention. What the new German government, under the leadership of Chancellor Frederich Merz, says and does now on Ukraine, and on the changing relationship between the United States and its oldest allies, will have immediate and long-term repercussions for the global geopolitical picture. Merz’s early comments that Europe will have to have “independence” from the U.S. as the Trump administration increasingly abandons its historic allies, and his willingness to loosen Germany’s “debt brake” to fund ramping up defense spending, have made headlines over the world.

The election was also significant because of the electoral swing from left to right, a result that has important insights for the global center-left, including U.S. Democrats, at this critical juncture as they continue to suffer declines with working-class voters.

Read more in The Liberal Patriot.