The CSPC Dispatch — June 6, 2025
Welcome to The CSPC Dispatch!
This week the newsletter features a plethora of articles. On today’s anniversary of D-Day, CSPC Senior Fellow James Kitfield, offers reflections on the meaning of this historical day, inspired by a recent visit to the Normandy beaches. Senior Fellow Robert Gerber in turn offers thoughts on the increasing importance of critical minerals and on how innovation might offer a solution to America’s challenges in this field. Senior fellow Jeanne Zaino investigates the growing influence of artificial intelligence in election campaigns, while Senior Fellow Hidetoshi Azuma provides insights into the fragile domestic standing of the Japanese government. Finally, former CSPC Presidential Fellow Isaac Thomas reflects on the dismantling of USAID, Erin McLaughlin takes a look at the effects of increased work requirements on Medicaid, and Jaya Nambiar, analyzes the potential effects of tariffs on inflation and the economic outlook for the United States.
CSPC is also pleased to highlight the release of the latest report of its Geo-technological Competition Program: “Taking Stock: GeoTech and Economic Security Policy Developments in the First Months of the Trump Administration”.
The pace of policy developments in the first months of the second administration of President Donald Trump has surprised many observers, including those who had fully anticipated a significant shift of policy and in the workings of the federal government. Though much of the initial activity in the international economic sphere was focused on tariffs and trade conflicts, a significant number of policy changes were also introduced in the economic security field and in the realm of the geo-technological competition with China. These included changes to export control mechanisms and 5G network policies, as well as revisions and modifications to artificial intelligence strategies. There has also been some movement with regard to industrial policy, though much uncertainty remains about the future of Biden-era legacies such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. Overall, the period has been characterized by increased uncertainty, even though the initial volatility of the trade war has calmed down as elevated tariffs have been paused in recent weeks and the stock market recovered lost ground. This report aims to take stock of the developments in the economic security and geo-technological realm in the first months of the Trump administration and to provide an outlook beyond these initial steps of potential future paths.
As always, we hope you will find the newsletter useful and would be delighted to receive your feedback or thoughts on how we can improve going forward.
A Message from Normandy
By James Kitfield
There is a name on a cross in a sea of crosses on a hillside in Normandy. Each of those names was once on the lips of loved ones as they called out to ardent young men who had their whole lives in front of them. Their names echoed on the nearby cliffs and beaches below, shouted by their brothers in arms in a hellscape of terror as they stood together against a gale-force of tyranny that had very nearly swept the world.
“Lieutenant Montieth!”
The scene at the Omaha Beach landing that greeted 1st Lieutenant Jimmie Monteith Jr. and the 1st Infantry Division’s first wave assault was one of utter chaos and horror. Everything in the sequencing of the attack that could go wrong had gone worse. Unanticipated cloud cover blinded high-altitude allied bombers targeting the German defenses near the beach. Adolf Hitler’s “Atlantic Wall” of fortresses and bunkers stretching from Norway to the northern coast of Spain remained intact and deadly.
On Omaha a well-camouflaged lattice work of enemy pillboxes, bunkers and artillery positions were still dug into the steep bluffs, the Germans looking down on more than 200 yards of open beach through gun scopes. Stormy weather and an unexpectedly strong tidal current swept many of the landing craft off course, including those carrying tanks meant to offer cover and supporting fire to the landing party. Many of the tanks that made it to the beach on the first wave were quickly destroyed by German anti-tank guns.
As soon as the landing craft ramps dropped, their floors already awash in the vomit of seasick soldiers, whole squads were eviscerated by the concussive impact of machine gun fire. Others stumbled out of the boats and immediately sank to the bottom weighted down with heavy equipment and drowned. Nearly half of the men in some boats died before ever making it to Omaha Beach, and many of those who made it to the sand cowered behind cross-beamed tank barriers for precious cover, frozen in shock by the scene of carnage. Many of their friends lay shot or blown to bits at their feet.
“So here we are, all seasick, ahead of everyone else, no bomb craters to get in, and heading straight into machine gun fire,” Private First Class John Robertson would later recall. “That was my definition of Hell.”
Young Lt. Jimmie Monteith understood that staying on the beach meant almost certain death, but charging ahead seemed suicidal. Yet he repeatedly exposed himself to withering fire to rally his men to assault across the open beach. He gathered the survivors who reached cover at the foot of the bluff and led them through minefields and up the hillside where they assaulted a German bunker and captured the critical high ground, opening a route to the bluff and unhinging the interlinked enemy defenses. Montieth perished in the assault and received a posthumous Medal of Honor for his courage and inspiring leadership when it was needed most. He was 26 years old.
Seven other U.S. service members received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor, for their actions during the D-Day assault and Normandy campaign that followed. They include Private First Class Charles N. Deglopper, a glider infantryman with the 82nd Airborne Division, who even after suffering wounds advanced on a German unit firing his BAR machine gun in order to give his buddies time to withdraw from a bridge across the Merderet River, dying in the effort; Lt. Colonel Robert G. Cole, 101st Airborne Division, drew his .45 pistol and led a successful bayonet charge to relieve members of his pinned-down battalion, and was killed months later; Sergeant Frank Peregory, of the National Guard’s 116th Infantry, attacked a German machine gun position with grenades and a bayonet, killing eight enemy soldiers and capturing 35 others, before being killed on June 14; Corporal John D. Kelley, 79th Division, singlehandedly attacked a German pillbox outside of the critical port of Cherbourg, taking it out on his third attempt, before being killed in action months later; and Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., assistant commander of the 4th Infantry Division and son of the 26th U.S. President, who despite poor health submitted four requests to be allowed to land with the first wave assault on Utah Beach, where he exposed himself repeatedly to enemy fire to rally his men against the Germans. He died of a heart attack little over a month after D-Day.
Lieutenant Carlos C. Ogden, 79th Division, advanced on an enemy unit alone after it pinned down his company. Armed only with an M-1 rifle and hand grenades he captured a big German 88-mm gun and a machine gun despite being shot in the head. He survived the ordeal and ended the war as a major. Staff Sergeant Walter Ehlers, 1st Infantry Division, fought his way off Omaha Beach in the second wave, and later destroyed several German machine gun nests and carried a wounded fellow soldier to safety despite suffering his own serious wounds. Ehlers survived the war, but lost his brother Roland Ehlers who was killed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Remarkably, the Normandy American Cemetery above Omaha Beach is the final resting place of 39 pairs of brothers, as well as a father and son, Col. Ollie Reed and Lt. Ollie Reed Jr.
The eight Medals of Honor bestowed for actions during the D-Day campaign are meant to shine a light on extreme valor. I know from research on my own book “In the Company of Heroes: The Inspiring Stories of Medal of Honor Recipients from America’s Longest Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” that the nation’s highest award for valor serves most importantly as a spotlight illuminating episodes of collective courage under fire. Turn the prism on those narratives even a fraction and you will see reflected within thousands of other stories that culminated in a choice to overcome fear rather than take the safe way out, each a brush with eternity. Many ended with a white cross on the bluff above Omaha Beach.
As was so often the case, General Omar Bradley, the U.S. Army commander who directed the D-Day assault from the deck of the nearby cruiser Augusta, had it right when he later wrote that “every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero.”
That goes for the entire allied force that fought for three months in Normandy to pave the way for the liberation of Paris and the final reckoning with Adolf Hitler’s murderous Nazi regime in Berlin. They suffered staggering losses in those short few months that totaled more than 225,000 dead, wounded or missing. That number includes 134,000 Americans, 91,000 British, Canadians and Poles, and an estimated 18,000 French civilians killed during the Normandy campaign. Nearly ten thousand of the U.S. war dead are interred at the Normandy American Cemetery, and the names of more than 1,500 others whose remains were never recovered are etched on a circular ‘Wall of the Unknown” under the inscription “Comrades in arms whose resting place is known only to God.”
D-Day was a rare inflection point in history, an audacious and in many ways desperate gambit: an amphibious assault across storm foamed seas against an entrenched and battle-hardened foe, the brutal conquerors of the European continent. There would be no coming back from failure. If the allies were repulsed on June 6, 1944, the receding tide would carry the last best hope for democracy and self-rule back out to sea along with the blood of thousands that foamed the waters red that day.
The German high command knew it too: “The first twenty-four hours of the invasion will be decisive,” Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, commander of the German defense, presciently declared before the attack. “The fate of Germany depends on the outcome. For the Allies as well as for Germany, it will be the longest day.”
Yet that longest day determined much more than the immediate fate of two opposing armies. There was a far higher ideal that hung precariously in the balance, and both sides knew it in their souls: one side fought for conquest, the other for liberation.
An inscription on the wall of the Normandy American Cemetery speaks to the essence of that contrast: “If ever proof were needed that we fought for a cause and not conquest, it could be found in these cemeteries,” noted the late General Mark W. Clark, former Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission. “Here was our only conquest: All we asked…was enough soil in which to bury our gallant dead.”
That was the inheritance those service members risked and sacrificed everything to pass down, the founding principal that U.S. forces traveled under the banner of liberators against regimes of oppression. The trust in a powerful nation’s limited ambition that ideal engendered was bolstered by the post-World War II Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe, including the defeated foes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It underwrote formation of the NATO alliance, the most successful in history. They were the foundation stones of the World America Built, one that has lasted more than eighty years and produced one of the most prosperous periods in human history, as well as the most peaceful among major powers. For all the terrible geopolitical mistakes and dead ends pursued by fallible leaders in Washington, D.C. over those decades, rarely did allies have serious reason to doubt fundamental American intentions. There can be no coming back from squandering that kind of inheritance.
Today the forces of empire lust and ultranationalism are loosed again upon Europe, with hundreds of thousands already killed in a brutal war of conquest. Another autocratic hegemon arises in the east to challenge our allies in the Indo-Pacific. War toxins have spread to poison the Middle East.
In the free world’s hour of vulnerability, powerful voices at home insist we should once again covet our neighbors’ land. Seductive voices argue that we must put “America First” and take a pass this time, just as they did during the 1930s, leaving allies to defend themselves. Doubts have arisen about America’s intensions and trustworthiness that have not darkened allied counsels in over half a century.
As you pass through the tunnel of the visitor’s center at the American Cemetery a woman’s voice intones from a speaker the name of each U.S. service member who endured everything and gave their last full measure of devotion in the assault on Omaha Beach in the cause of freedom. Outside each of their names can be found on a sea of white crosses on a green hillside in Normandy. Listen closely to the sound of “Taps” as it plays each day at the furling of the American flag on that bluff, and you can still hear their voices on the wind. They have important news to pass along.
James Kitfield is the author of “In the Company of Heroes: Inspiring Stories from Medal of Honor Recipients in America’s Longest Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and a three-time recipient of the Gerald R. Ford Award for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense.
Innovating to Win the Critical Minerals Race
By Robert Gerber
Fluorite (or fluorspar) is a luminous, crystalline mineral known for its energetic healing properties and low melting point. Cobalt is heat resistant and magnetic. Gallium, which can be cut with a knife, is used to make photovoltaic cells. Graphite provides electrical conductivity. These four materials are on the U.S. Geological Survey’s list of 50 critical minerals. What makes them critical are that they a) serve an essential function to the manufacture of a product that is important to the U.S. economy or national security, and b) their supply chain is vulnerable to disruption.
There is growing demand for critical minerals for defense applications, energy storage, semiconductors, and communications technology. China operates most of the world’s critical materials processing and refining infrastructure. A large portion of the world’s raw minerals, including some from the United States, must therefore be shipped to China for processing. China has leveraged these “midstream” capabilities to throttle global supply chains for Chinese made ready-to-use materials, and it regularly manipulates global prices to dissuade investment in new projects outside of China.
The United States and its allies therefore have a monumental challenge: to secure critical minerals supply chains by freeing themselves from dependency on Chinese production. There are known critical minerals deposits in the Rocky Mountains, Alaska, and the Appalachians. There are 26 active mines in the United States, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Department of Energy Deputy Assistant Secretary Carolyn Snyder told an industry audience in Washington DC on June 4 that, “We need to produce, refine, and manufacture more of these minerals domestically… in an economically sound and environmentally responsible way.” Beijing’s ban or licensing of antimony exports has prompted the U.S. Department of Defense to search for domestic supplies of this material, which it needs for ammunition and specialty glass. The good news is that there are signs that governments and industry are confronting this challenge with creativity and vigor.
Government Steps Up
Industry leaders admit that government support is key to success. Both President Trump in his first term and President Biden directed agencies to take steps to secure the critical minerals supply chain. In his second term, President Trump has issued four executive orders that aim to “restore America’s mineral dominance.” The whole-of-government approach would identify priority projects for permitting, it requires enhanced surveying, encourages favorable lending terms, and leverages the Defense Production Act (last used during the pandemic to secure needed supplies.) The Administration’s strategy also involves new “Section 232” investigations into foreign critical minerals trade practices that impair U.S. national security. The Administration is also amending the charter of the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC) so it may finance domestic projects. The U.S. Export-Import Bank loans, loan guarantees, and insurance will now be available to domestic manufacturing projects, and under a new Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative, the bank will be able to finance mining and refining projects outside the United States.
Industry Innovates
Adam Bernstein of the Office of the Secretary of Defense recently said, “While we won’t catch up to China, there’s an opportunity to leapfrog.” There is promising innovation happening in the industrial sector that could make this statement a reality. For example, American energy services companies are using hydrocarbon drilling techniques to extract lithium-rich brine from deep underground reserves, separating the lithium, then treating and reinjecting the water underground. This method requires less capital expenditure and is less environmentally hazardous than traditional lithium mining. Nevada-based Aqua Metals claims to have pioneered a sustainable and cost-effective way to recycle critical battery metals. Xerion Battery Corp is able to convert mined materials into high-purity metals and electrodes in a single step, rather than in multiple stages, as is currently the norm.
Removing the Obstacles
There are ways to accelerate industry and government efforts. Government finance (grants, loans, and equity) can play a catalytic role in financing the growing critical minerals sector, and the Department of Energy, DFC, and other agencies will be rolling out new programs in the coming months. Private financing has an essential role to play too, but the financial industry needs to adjust its expectations to the long timelines and unique financing requirements of a major critical minerals project. Australia is considering creating a critical minerals strategic reserve that would make the government the purchaser (or “off-taker”), which would in effect help companies more easily secure commercial lending and stabilize prices.
Speaking of Australia - the United States cannot tackle this problem alone. The Administration has said it would explore working with so-called “Quad” members: Australia, India, and Japan. That is a good start, but expanding this circle of cooperation is vital. Canada – a leading mining nation - and Greenland are both major potential sources of critical minerals including rare earth elements. But putting tariffs on Canada and threatening Greenland’s sovereignty only makes cooperation more difficult.
The U.S. Congress will likely preserve the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credits (Section 45X of the Inflation Reduction Act) for critical minerals production, although credits for wind power will, sadly, be terminated. Congress could also protect R&D funding to develop substitute materials and methods that alleviate dependence on critical minerals where the supply is uncertain. Incentives to capture critical minerals from post-use products (i.e. recycling) rather than exporting the waste overseas would also reduce the need for critical materials. Making these ideas a priority could accelerate the achievement of critical minerals independence.
Robert W. Gerber is a CSPC Senior Fellow and a consultant for renewable energy
The AI Election: How Technology is Reshaping Campaigns
By Jeanne Zaino
AI generated pictures of Trump meeting with Putin at a hotel.
Last year was described as “the year of the AI election.” Two factors contributed to this characterization. First, generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies, such as deepfake videos and chatbots, altered the way political campaigns developed and disseminated their messages. Second, voter engagement reached over 1.6 billion participants in elections across 70 nations and the European Parliament.
This confluence of events created an opportunity for researchers to study the impact of AI on democracy in a real-world setting. Among the studies, was one I led on cases of AI use in the U.S. election between March 2023 and November 2024. While this study is scheduled to be published in full in a few months, some preliminary findings are worth noting.
Following the team at the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security (CETaS, at The Alan Turing Institute) in this study, cases were identified from publicly accessible sources, including news and social media outlets. This approach prioritizes identified or “viral” cases—those substantial enough to have drawn notice from journalists or informed observers but cannot capture cases that remained beneath the visibility threshold required for public or media reporting.
In total, 59 cases of AI-use were documented. This includes more mundane cases of AI use such as a viral deepfake video showing Elon Musk and Donald Trump dancing. It also includes several more concerning
cases such as an AI generated video that falsely accused Kamala Harris of being involved in a hit and run accident that left a woman paralyzed. Authorities later attributed the Harris video to a group operating in Russia.
One notable example was an AI-generated robocall that portrayed President Biden advising Democratic voters in New Hampshire not to participate in the primary election. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) subsequently fined political consultant Steve Kramer $6 million for using AI to impersonate the president and the state of New Hampshire charged him with 11 felony and 11 misdemeanor counts, punishable by several decades in prison.
Incidents such as these, elevated public concern about AI’s influence on the democratic process. Polling data reflect these worries: a survey from Elon University indicated approximately 75% of Americans expressed concern over AI’s potential impact on electoral outcomes, while a University of Chicago study found that about 60% of respondents anticipated increased misinformation due to AI.
In the study, AI use was classified into two categories: malicious and beneficial. Malicious use includes any instance in which AI is used to undermine the representative system, this includes spreading disinformation, manipulating voter behavior, or damaging the integrity of elections. To the contrary, beneficial use is when AI is used to enhance the electoral system, such as when it is used to increase democratic participation and voter education, particularly in underrepresented communities.
Among the cases examined, 76% were categorized as malicious or detrimental to the democratic system. These included instances of deepfakes, targeted misinformation, misleading propaganda and undisguised attacks (i.e., those in which the creators indicate that AI was used to produce the content). One example of an undisguised attack, for instance, occurred just after President Biden announced he was running for re-election and the Republican National Committee (RNC) released an AIGen video depicting a dystopian world under his leadership. Other examples of detrimental AI use were more mundane, such as when the technology was used to promote fake celebrity endorsements, something we witnessed in the election as it pertained to entertainers such as Elton John and Taylor Swift.
On the other hand, beneficial applications of AI use also demonstrated significant potential. While there were far fewer instances of beneficial use identified, they nevertheless constituted one-fifth of all cases. One example was NextGen America’s chatbot, “Vote-E,” which was designed to mobilize voters, particularly in minority communities, resulting in higher voter registration compared to previous election cycles.
Among the most important preliminary findings of this work, is that so far, we have not identified a direct connection between AI and election outcomes. In short, there is no evidence that Gen AI played a role in meaningfully impacting election results. Nevertheless, indirect or “second-order” risks persist. These risks include diminished public trust and intensified political polarization. Cass Sunstein’s concepts of “echo chambers” and the “illusion of truth” illustrate how AI misinformation could amplify existing societal divisions, potentially leading to political conflict and threats to democratic stability.
While my study focuses solely on the U.S., several international examples illustrate the global scope of these challenges. Brazil’s 2024 presidential election demonstrated the widespread impact of deepfake content, significantly intensifying existing political tensions and polarization. Similarly, India’s 2024 general elections faced extensive AI-generated misinformation, which distorted public discourse and exacerbated communal tensions. Nigeria also experienced notable AI interference during its elections, with manipulated videos and misinformation increasing social tensions and leading to episodes of violence. Furthermore, during the elections in Indonesia, deepfake-generated misinformation complicated efforts to maintain electoral integrity and public trust. These international instances, coupled with what we have found in the domestic context, highlight the urgency for global cooperation to effectively address AI in campaigns and elections.
To tackle these challenges effectively and independently from industry pressures, surveillance interests, or data brokerage influences, policymakers are well advised to adopt a cohesive strategy. At the core of this approach is establishing a dedicated oversight body for monitoring AI electoral applications. This body should be independently funded through public resources, ensuring freedom from private-sector influence, and it should include a balanced representation of bipartisan and nonpartisan stakeholders to enhance credibility and fairness.
Transparency must also be central to policy initiatives. Clear and consistent labeling of AI-generated electoral content should be required, allowing voters to distinguish authentic information from fabricated or manipulated materials. Existing frameworks like those from the FCC and GDPR can offer guidance and practical examples for implementing these measures.
In addition, ethical standards focused on voter privacy and data protection should be developed and strictly enforced. By drawing from proven models such as the GDPR, policymakers can effectively prevent data exploitation and limit the involvement of data brokers in political processes.
Regular independent audits of AI tools and practices in elections are crucial to maintaining accountability and public trust. These audits should be transparent, with results made readily available to the public to reinforce confidence in electoral integrity.
An effective penalty system, incorporating clear fines and technology restrictions, must be clearly outlined and enforced consistently. Such penalties will act as a deterrent against misconduct and reinforce the seriousness of compliance with established regulations.
Moreover, policymakers should champion comprehensive public education programs, such as nationwide digital and data literacy initiatives, to help citizens critically evaluate AI-generated content. Ensuring these educational efforts remain independent from private-sector involvement is essential to maintaining trust and credibility.
Finally, because AI misinformation crosses borders, international collaboration is essential. Policymakers should actively participate in diplomatic efforts through organizations like the United Nations and the Council of Europe to develop consistent global standards for managing AI-driven electoral interference.
Anticipating and addressing potential challenges, such as industry lobbying and political resistance, will be key. Early bipartisan engagement, transparent stakeholder discussions, and robust public education initiatives can mitigate these issues effectively.
A phased approach to implementation can facilitate practical success. Initially, policymakers should prioritize establishing oversight bodies and transparency regulations. Over the following one to three years, they can implement educational initiatives, ethical guidelines, and auditing procedures. Longer-term plans should strengthen international partnerships and adapt regulations in response to evolving technological landscapes.
Effective policy implementation will depend on ongoing cooperation among government bodies, academic institutions, civil society, and independent technology experts, ensuring AI strengthens rather than undermines democratic governance.
Jeanne Sheehan Zaino is a Political Science & International Studies Professor at Iona University, and Senior Democracy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress (CSPC).
The Return of the Triumvirate in Japan
By Hidetoshi Azuma
The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan
Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who assumed office last October, faces a mounting threat to his leadership as a resurgent triumvirate—former Prime Minister Taro Aso, former LDP Secretary-General Toshimitsu Motegi, and allies of former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida—consolidate power within the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Their influence, amplified by the recent launch of an LDP task force on Japan’s Indo-Pacific strategy, chaired by Aso and involving Motegi, has intensified internal divisions, positioning them as a formidable opposition to Ishiba’s cabinet. The Aso-Motegi-Kishida triumvirate, leveraging this task force and their factional clout, significantly increases the likelihood of the Ishiba cabinet’s collapse, with far-reaching consequences for Japan’s political stability, economic reforms, and geopolitical role.
Ishiba’s Fragile Mandate
Shigeru Ishiba’s premiership began with a promise of renewal. A veteran lawmaker and former defense minister, he positioned himself as an LDP outsider, advocating for transparency to address fundraising scandals, regional revitalization, and progressive policies like marriage equality. His narrow victory over conservative Sanae Takaichi in the LDP leadership race was seen as a mandate for change following Fumio Kishida’s scandal-ridden tenure. However, Ishiba’s lack of a strong factional base and reliance on LDP Secretary-General Hiroshi Moriyama have left him exposed. His snap election on October 27, 2024, aimed at capitalizing on a 51% approval rating, backfired when the LDP-Komeito coalition lost its Lower House majority, securing only 215 seats against a target of 233. This electoral setback provided an opening for the Aso-Motegi-Kishida triumvirate to reassert their dominance, with the Indo-Pacific task force serving as a new platform for their influence.
The Triumvirate’s Resurgence and the Indo-Pacific Task Force
The Aso-Motegi-Kishida triumvirate’s return to prominence is a calculated challenge to Ishiba’s leadership, with the LDP’s revamped task force on Japan’s Indo-Pacific strategy, launched on May 14, 2025, acting as a critical vehicle for their opposition. This panel, chaired by Aso and including Motegi among key conservative voices, has sparked speculation that it could coalesce dissent against Ishiba in the lead-up to the July 2025 Upper House elections.
Taro Aso, a former prime minister and LDP’s uncontested kingmaker, heads the task force, using it to reassert his influence after Ishiba demoted him from vice president to a ceremonial “senior advisor” role. Aso’s support for Sanae Takaichi in the 2024 leadership race highlighted his conservative stance, clashing with Ishiba’s centrism. The task force, described by Aso as a platform to deepen understanding of Japan’s regional diplomatic strategy amid a “time of seeming emergency,” provides a stage to rally rural lawmakers and former Abe faction members against Ishiba’s policies. His leadership of this panel, coupled with his decades of political clout, positions him as the triumvirate’s linchpin.
Toshimitsu Motegi, a former foreign minister with premiership ambitions, is a key participant in the task force, amplifying its role as an anti-Ishiba coalition. Excluded from Ishiba’s cabinet, Motegi has been forging alliances with conservatives, leveraging his foreign policy expertise to critique Ishiba’s proposals, such as an Asian NATO. His involvement in the task force, alongside figures like former LDP Policy Chief Koichi Hagiuda and former Economy Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura, signals a strategic effort to consolidate conservative opposition. Motegi’s push for a “policy group” over factionalism, despite resisting full dissolution of his former faction, aligns with the task force’s ostensible focus on policy while masking its political motives.
Fumio Kishida’s allies, though less visible in the task force, complete the triumvirate’s influence. Kishida, who stepped down in September 2024 with a 25% approval rating, maintains a neutral public stance, but his supporters, including Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi, resent Ishiba’s adoption of Kishida-era policies—like defense spending increases—without credit. The LDP’s 2024 campaign platform, rooted in Kishida’s framework, has fueled their discontent. While not directly tied to the task force, Kishida’s moderate wing could shift support to a compromise candidate if Ishiba falters, making their influence a subtle but critical factor in the triumvirate’s strategy.
The Triumvirate’s Role in Driving Collapse
The Aso-Motegi-Kishida triumvirate, amplified by the Indo-Pacific task force, threatens Ishiba’s cabinet through three mechanisms: fracturing coalition unity, stalling policy reforms, and eroding party and public support.
First, the triumvirate’s opposition, crystallized through the task force, undermines Ishiba’s ability to maintain a governing coalition. The LDP-Komeito coalition’s loss of its Lower House majority has forced Ishiba to negotiate with smaller parties like the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) and the Japan Innovation Party, both demanding policy concessions. Aso and Motegi, using the task force to rally conservatives, complicate these talks by opposing compromises that deviate from their regional security priorities. Kishida’s allies, wary of Ishiba’s leadership, may withhold support for coalition deals, further destabilizing the government. This fragmentation could paralyze Ishiba’s legislative agenda, increasing the risk of collapse.
Second, the triumvirate’s influence, channeled through the task force, stalls Ishiba’s reformist agenda, risking gridlock. Ishiba’s pledges of transparency in political funding and regional revitalization face resistance from Aso and Motegi’s conservative allies, who protect entrenched interests. His socially liberal proposals, like separate surnames for couples, are at odds with the task force’s conservative bent, which prioritizes a hardline Indo-Pacific strategy. Motegi’s critique of Ishiba’s foreign policy, including revising the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, aligns with the task force’s focus on strengthening regional alliances, sidelining Ishiba’s initiatives. Kishida’s moderates, while less ideologically opposed, may obstruct reforms to assert influence, diluting Ishiba’s vision and weakening his credibility.
Third, the triumvirate’s actions, bolstered by the task force, erode Ishiba’s support within the LDP and among voters. Aso’s mobilization of rural lawmakers and Motegi’s alliances with conservatives, facilitated through the task force, isolate Ishiba, who is criticized for relying on Moriyama, leading to perceptions of a “de facto Moriyama Cabinet.” Kishida’s allies, by distancing themselves, further weaken party unity. Public support, which fell from 51% in October 2024 to lower levels by early 2025, reflects frustration with LDP infighting. Surveys show 43% disapproval of Ishiba’s cabinet picks, and the triumvirate’s continued opposition, amplified by the task force’s high-profile platform, could further erode voter confidence, jeopardizing the LDP’s prospects in the 2025 Upper House elections.
Broader Implications
The triumvirate’s role in precipitating Ishiba’s potential downfall, with the Indo-Pacific task force as a key instrument, carries significant consequences. Economically, a cabinet collapse could delay reforms needed to address a weakening yen and rising inflation, shaking investor confidence. Geopolitically, a leadership vacuum would weaken Japan’s role as a U.S. ally and counterweight to China and North Korea, especially as the task force underscores the urgency of regional security. The LDP’s strife might embolden opposition parties, though their disunity limits their threat.
Should Ishiba’s cabinet fall, the triumvirate, through the task force’s conservative coalition, is poised to shape the LDP’s future. Aso and Motegi could back a conservative like Sanae Takaichi or vie for leadership, signaling a rightward shift that may reverse Ishiba’s progressive policies. Kishida’s moderates might support a compromise candidate, but the task force’s conservative momentum suggests a return to traditional LDP priorities. While this could stabilize the party’s base, it risks alienating younger, urban voters who backed Ishiba’s reforms.
Can Ishiba Survive?
Ishiba’s survival depends on outmaneuvering the triumvirate and neutralizing the task force’s influence. Offering Aso and Motegi roles in his cabinet could temper their opposition, though their ambitions make this unlikely. Moderating his progressive agenda might align with the task force’s conservative priorities but risks alienating his base. Strengthening coalition ties with smaller parties could secure a majority, but the triumvirate’s resistance complicates these efforts. Rallying public support through transparency and economic results could pressure the LDP into unity, but Ishiba’s perceived lack of charisma hinders this strategy. Without bold action, the triumvirate’s momentum—fueled by the Indo-Pacific task force—may prove unstoppable.
Conclusion
The Aso-Motegi-Kishida triumvirate, wielding the LDP’s Indo-Pacific task force as a platform, has placed Shigeru Ishiba’s cabinet on the brink of collapse. By fracturing coalition unity, stalling reforms, and eroding support, these LDP titans exploit Ishiba’s vulnerabilities, from his weak factional base to his electoral missteps. The task force, led by Aso and involving Motegi, amplifies their conservative opposition, threatening Japan’s political and geopolitical stability. Ishiba’s premiership, once a beacon of reform, now faces a dire reckoning, with the triumvirate holding the keys to his fate. As Japan navigates economic and regional challenges, the world watches this high-stakes drama unfold.
Presidential Overreach and Congressional Silence Create a “Zone of Twilight”
by Isaac Thomas
President Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson at the capitol: “It’s time to pass President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill."
Republican leaders scrambling to pass President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget request of tax and spending cuts by Memorial Day, and fashion the dozen funding bills for fiscal 2026, which starts in October, are being dogged by a nagging question: what if the White House ultimately ignores their spending directives by refusing to spend congressionally approved funds – a maneuver known as “impoundment”?
“I’ve got a real problem with impoundment. That’s like a line-item veto, and I think it’s illegal, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, chair of the House Appropriations panel that funds the Interior Department, told reporters last week. “That will be a challenge, for sure.”
After already spending months withholding billions of dollars appropriated by Congress and signed into law by former President Joe Biden even in the face of lawsuits challenging the tactic, the White House seems determined to continue escalating that challenge.
Recall that a few months ago, in a move that should have triggered bipartisan outrage, the Trump administration began the process of dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). They did so without the passage of any new legislation or a formal repeal of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which originally created USAID. The White House simply issued a presidential executive order, instigated a 90-day freeze on foreign aid, and announced a vague plan to fold the agency into the State Department. It’s a constitutionally suspect sleight of hand that bypasses Congress and its Article One powers over the budget – unless Congress decides to defend itself as a co-equal branch of government.
This is not just a test of executive power. It’s also a test of congressional will.
The legal limits are clear: Congress created USAID by statute, and only Congress can dissolve it. The agency’s mission, funding, and oversight are woven into law. The president cannot simply nullify a statute with a signature, no matter how bold the rhetoric or justified the rationale.
But there is a catch – and it’s one that Justice Robert Jackson warned about over 70 years ago in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). When President Truman tried to seize steel mills during the Korean War, Jackson outlined a framework that continues to shape debates over executive power today. Presidential power, he wrote, is at its peak when Congress explicitly authorizes it; that power is in a “zone of twilight” when Congress remains silent; and it is at the “lowest ebb” when the president acts against Congress’s explicit will.
Trump’s dismantling of USAID is not backed by any act of Congress. Even more troubling is the fact that it has also not been clearly opposed by Congress.
This current age of congressional silence carries a profound danger of executive overreach. If Congress does nothing to defend its constitutional prerogatives, the nation will drift into the twilight zone Justice Jackson warned about, where power consolidates as a result of inertia, not legitimacy. The president’s authority will continue to grow in practice unless Congress says “stop!”
This is not hypothetical. Congress has been here before.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan tried to abolish the Department of Education, arguing it was an unnecessary intrusion on state authority. Congress blocked him. In 2020, President Trump issued executive order 13957, creating Schedule F, a new job classification designed to strip job protections from thousands of career civil servants. President Biden reversed that order, but Trump allies promise to bring it back. This administration’s playbook is clear: assert sweeping executive authority, then wait to see if Congress flinches or the courts intercede.
The unilateral dismemberment of USAID is thus merely a test in the larger mission of expanding executive power.
The administration argues that consolidating USAID’s functions within the State Department will improve “efficiency” and “mission alignment.” But efficiency is not a grant of constitutional license. Unlike past reorganizations conducted under expired reorganization statutes – like the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 – there is no current law authorizing the president to unilaterally dismantle agencies like USAID.
What’s more, USAID is not some bureaucratic backwater. It supports global health programs, emergency response teams, and democracy initiatives in over 100 countries. Its independence ensured that foreign assistance was not subordinated to short-term diplomatic goals. Collapsing it into the State Department with no input from Congress has politicized humanitarian aid, and crippled institutional memory built over decades. Yet Congress has not passed any legislation condemning, blocking, or even supporting the move. Instead, presidential overreach has been met by congressional silence, and in our system of separation of powers silence is not neutral. Silence amounts to complicity.
Legal scholars across the political spectrum have warned about the consequences of unchecked executive restructuring. Saikrishna Prakash, a prominent originalist, argues that while the president can direct how agencies carry out their duties, he cannot eliminate entities established by law without new legislation. Others have noted that “presidents may execute the laws, but they may not cancel or nullify them.” USAID statutory existence isn’t symbolic – it’s a legal fact.
So, what happens if Congress stays silent?
That’s where Jackson’s “zone of twilight” becomes real. Without a clear legislative rebuke – such as a joint resolution – the president’s seemingly unlawful action gains the veneer of legitimacy. Over time, precedent will take root. A future administration could dismantle the EPA, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the Department of Education with similar ease. Congress’s failure to respond could echo as precedent for years to come.
Again, the president cannot dismantle what Congress created – unless Congress remains quiet.
This moment demands more than outrage. It requires action. Congress should immediately introduce and pass legislation affirming USAID’s legal standing, barring any executive attempt to restructure or dissolve the agency without statutory authorization. Even if Congress is in agreement with the administration’s actions, lawmakers should pass legislation explicitly stating that agreement. Doing nothing simply lends more legitimacy and authority to the president through precedent. Appropriators should also block any funding transfers aimed at defunding the agency by attrition. Oversight committees should open investigations into the legal basis behind this administration’s actions.
History shows that presidents will always test the boundaries of their power. That is not new. What matters is how the other branches respond. Jackson’s framework reminds us that executive power dangerously expands when no one resists. USAID may be one of the first agencies targeted in this administration’s bid to remake the government by decree. Unless Congress speaks up now, it will not be the last.
Isaac Thomas is a 2024-2025 CSPC Presidential Fellow and student at Westminster College.
The Historical Precedent of Medicaid Work Requirements
By Erin Mclaughlin
Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Medicare Medicaid Act with Harry Truman on July 30th, 1965.
On Thursday, May 22nd, 2025, the House of Representatives passed a budget reconciliation package, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” The bill aims to fulfill many of President Trump’s campaign promises, like funding aggressive immigration policies, extending corporate and individual tax cuts from 2017, and ending taxes on tips and overtime work. Because of Senate rules regarding the reconciliation process, the bill must offset these cuts. To achieve this, the bill plans to reduce Medicaid spending by $793 billion. The House plans aim to reduce Medicaid costs by creating stricter enrollment qualifications, including work requirements. The proposed work requirements establish that childless adults without disabilities must prove that they are working, volunteering, or attending school to be eligible for Medicaid. Many Republican lawmakers also contend that such work requirements will benefit the economy by encouraging Americans who rely on Medicaid to “get off the couch” and start working, as Speaker Mike Johnson put it. Using employment as a condition for Medicaid and Medicaid as an impetus for employment reinforces the broader American conflation of access to healthcare with work status, a connection that is not found in most other industrialized countries, where the government often guarantees healthcare. This linkage has previously generated similar local changes. The state of Arkansas, for example, implemented stricter work requirements in 2018, though the effect on employment numbers was negligible. To further understand this notion, it is helpful to examine the history of American health insurance, the creation of Medicaid, and the policies that led to America’s preference for an employer-based healthcare system.
The private health insurance that we think of today did not exist during the mid-19th century. From the Civil War Era to the Great Depression, employers and unions relied on “Sickness Funds” as the equivalent of our modern health insurance. These funds covered the wages lost when an employee became injured or too sick to work, as opposed to directly covering health expenses. A fund would collect weekly payments from all members, and when a member became injured or ill, they would receive cash from the fund, typically making up to 60% of their wages. This system remained essentially unchanged until the 20th century, when innovations in the medical field encouraged more people to utilize hospitals and medical services, which in turn increased the cost of healthcare.
During the Great Depression, the average American family experienced a 40% decrease in their annual income. The reduced earnings led many families to cut back on expenses, including healthcare. Hospitals experienced a significant reduction in occupancy rates while the demand for charity care beds rose by 400%. To make hospital care more accessible during this challenging time for American families, Justin Kimble, an educator from Dallas, developed a model to reduce healthcare costs known as the Baylor Plan. Kimble collected monthly payments from Dallas public school teachers and pooled this money to guarantee twenty-one days of free hospital care for participating educators. This framework gained significant popularity, and hospitals nationwide implemented similar plans, known widely as “Hospital Service Plans.” In 1933, the New York Insurance Commission, which already regulated life and casualty insurance, declared that “Hospital Service Plans” constituted insurance and thus required regulation. The American Hospital Association Blue Cross Commission regulated these Hospital Service Plans and later merged with other health coverage efforts to form Blue Cross Blue Shield.
The 1940s and 1950s witnessed significant growth in the number of insured Americans, driven by three key factors: wage controls, the expansion of union membership, and tax code exemptions. In 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Emergency Price Control Act into law, which aimed to reduce inflation and maintain a stable economy during America’s involvement in World War II by establishing fixed prices and wages. The National War Labor Board did not consider health insurance part of an employee’s wage and, therefore, it became an added benefit that employers offered to attract and retain scarce labor. As a result of the labor movement’s growth, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 to further regulate organized labor and unions, due to growing concerns about the influence of communism. The legislation banned unions from contributing money to political campaigns and prohibited employers from collecting union dues, but it also defined health insurance as a condition of employment. As union membership grew, so did the demand for healthcare. Finally, in 1954, Congress exempted employer-sponsored insurance from federal income taxation. The tax exemption encouraged employers to offer robust health insurance plans as untaxed forms of compensation.
By the end of the war, the number of Americans with health insurance had increased by 30%. Not only did wage controls, union membership, and tax codes increase the number of Americans with health insurance, but they also solidified the way that Americans accessed their healthcare, through their employer. Following the war, individual proposals to transform this system by Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy were consistently rejected due to fears of far-left economic policies and the priority given to other social programs.
This changed in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare Medicaid Act into law. This act created Medicare and Medicaid to address the coverage gap, primarily affecting the elderly population, low-income individuals, and the unemployed. Medicare covers all Americans over the age of 65 with federal funds, while Medicaid is administered by the states to low-income individuals, funded jointly through a state and federal matching program. Medicaid has undergone numerous changes since its inception in 1965, including expanding its coverage to include pregnant women and children from low-income households, as well as increasing the income requirements for enrollment. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 gave states the choice to expand Medicaid to include all adults with income up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. Today, Medicaid provides health insurance for 1 in 5 people living in the United States, including 8 in 10 children living in poverty, 6 in 10 adults living in poverty, 44% of Americans with disabilities, and 41% of births.
The current House bill’s work requirements are projected to result in the loss of Medicaid eligibility for 7.8 million Americans. Experts expect many Americans enrolled in Medicaid to lose their health insurance simply due to logistical difficulties in reporting their work status, rather than a lack of employment. Currently, 44% of American adults who are insured through Medicaid already work full-time. Of the 56% who are not working full-time, 20% work part-time, 12% are primary caregivers, 10% are unable to work due to a serious illness or injury, and 7% are full-time students. The 8% that remain unemployed report that they are either retired or that they cannot find work.
By introducing work requirements to Medicaid, the government not only increases the likelihood that some of these high-risk Americans will lose their health insurance, but it also perpetuates a uniquely American approach that healthcare hinges on employment.
Erin McLaughlin is an intern at CSPC and a senior at Sewanee: The University of the South, majoring in Politics and minoring in Rhetoric.
An Economic Policy Quandary: Exploring the Impact of Tariffs
By Jaya Nambiar
The Mariner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, one of the main buildings of the headquarters of the Federal Reserve System, located in Washington, D.C. at the intersection of 20th Street and Constitution Avenue.
The chaotic rollout of the new U.S. tariff policy has left consumers, businesses, and investors in a state of uncertainty. The ongoing trade war has been defined by reversals, delays, and overnight implementation of tariffs. Supply chain managers face complicated planning processes, actual economic output wavers with every change in tariff policy, and consumer expectations are erratic.
With every deal made and reversed, the stock market has become extremely volatile. Following President Trump’s agreement to delay the 50% tariff deadline on the European Union until July 9, the stock market revived from a sour four days with The Dow Jones Industrial Average gaining 740.58 points. Though, stock performance plateaued with investors hesitant amidst current negotiations with China.
It is challenging to predict the performance of the United States Economy with tariffs struck down one day and back the next. With a flux economy, how does the Federal Reserve approach regulation?
Unanchored Inflation Expectations: Inflation, Stagflation, OR a One-Time Price Bump?
As the United States contemplates its economic future defined by the Trump administration’s tariffs, there is no shortage of speculation on their implications.
In a recent press conference, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell stated, “If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they’re likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment.”
Tariffs, taxes imposed on imports, can result in an increase in the cost of imported goods, as the tax might be pushed onto consumers. Reciprocal tariffs and supply issues can, in turn, drive prices up for U.S. manufacturers, investors, and consumers. This structure leads towards inflation—rising prices on all goods and services and potentially diminishing future currency power.
With businesses cutting costs to weather supply chain issues and higher prices, there is a real threat of growing unemployment, particularly in sectors that rely on international trade. The simultaneous threats of growing unemployment and inflation creates the necessary conditions for stagflation, which is among the most difficult problems to fix with economic and monetary policy. Generally, when faced with increased inflation, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. By making borrowing more expensive, consumer spending, investment, and economic growth will slow, which can help to control price increases. When faced with unemployment and slow economic growth, the Federal Reserve may use expansionary monetary policy (lower Federal Funds Rate target range— the interest rate at which banks lend reserve balances to each other overnight, decrease interest rates, etc.) to help increase spending, demand, and overall stimulus. With stagflation, characterized by slow economic growth, high unemployment, and inflation occurring simultaneously, traditional economic policy can worsen the issue.
Other economists are speculating a one-time price bump, as opposed to traditional longer-term inflation. Rather, tariffs may cause a single hike in prices, then settle. Goldman Sachs is predicting a 2% rise in consumer prices over 18 months and a temporary elevation of 1 PCE percentage point that will slow in 2026.
An Economic Letter issued by the Federal Reserve estimates that tariff “impact on equipment prices is likely to be much larger than their impact on consumer prices.” Even so, businesses are already trying to offset some costs to consumers with shipment surcharges, general supply costs increasing, and pessimistic projections for future price increases. The service sector is also facing grim projections as international travelers begin to steer clear of the U.S. amid political volatility.
Inflation expectations and consumer sentiment regarding upcoming expected price hikes can influence actual prices and wages; ‘anchored’ expectations have implications for economic outcomes. The way consumers act, whether they hold back spending in preparation for a recession or wait to take out loans at the possibility of lower interest rates, affects real economic conditions. With the sheer number of differing opinions on what the country’s economic future holds, it is extremely difficult to predict what the market will do. Unanchored inflation expectations occur when long-term inflation expectations shift significantly in response to short-term economic events. Essentially, people's expectations of inflation and the economy at large are volatile and less predictable than usual, which makes effective economic policy extremely difficult to institute.
Overview of Current CPI and PCE, and Unemployment
Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation in April, released May 11, was lower than expected at 2.3%, lowest since February 2021, as opposed to the forecasted 2.4%. CPI inflation measures the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers. The monthly reading was in line with the Dow Jones consensus estimate while the 12-month period was a bit below the forecast for 2.4%. This is good news, considering the predicted inflation associated with the implemented tariffs.
Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) inflation in April, released May 30, is at 2.1%. This was lower than the expected 2.2% and indicates a slowdown in consumer spending. Consumers are anxious about what’s to come and saving in response. Many economists are bracing for price shocks, though it is not quite clear when they will start to show up.
Unemployment in April (released May 21) was unchanged from March at 4.2% but was 0.3% higher than in April 2024. However, 24.5% of the U.S. labor force either does not have a full-time job but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage (described as $25,000 before taxes).
Interplay between Tariffs, Inflation, and Uncertainty
The looming specter of stagflation makes it challenging for the Federal Reserve to weave a path between prioritizing inflation or stimulating the economy. As there are few concrete predictions to influence decisions, the Federal Reserve maintains a ‘wait and see’ position.
The impact of tariffs on inflation and the economy overall is very hard to predict, which puts the Federal Reserve, U.S. trading partners, American consumers, manufacturers, and investors alike in a perplexing position. To compound the issue, the on-again/off-again status can act as a repellent for both domestic and international investors and businesses. Until the future of tariff policy is established, it remains difficult to predict the impacts on the economy in a productive way. Tariff policy needs to be made clear to consumers before the Federal Reserve can productively enact economic policy.
Jaya Nambiar is an intern at CSPC and senior at Lake Forest College majoring in Economics and International Relations with a minor in Spanish.