Number of results to display per page
Search Results
12. After the CHIPS Act: The Limits of Reshoring and Next Steps for U.S. Semiconductor Policy
- Author:
- Vishnu Kannan and Jacob Feldgoise
- Publication Date:
- 11-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The U.S. Congress’s recent success in passing the CHIPS and Science Act (informally the CHIPS Act) shows that legislators are united on one point: the United States needs to manufacture more semiconductors at home. This idea gained traction during the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic, when global shortages of semiconductors halted the manufacturing of automobiles, traditional consumer electronics, and other products that use semiconductors, such as household appliances.1 As demand for these products soared during the pandemic, the world experienced painful price inflation, which amplified the acute geopolitical tensions between the United States and China.2 U.S. policymakers, already worried that dependence on Taiwan for the most sophisticated semiconductors could imperil national security and economic security, saw an urgent need to act.3 And together, rising prices and geopolitical competition underscored the need to invest in domestic economic revitalization. The CHIPS Act’s $52.7 billion investment in domestic semiconductor manufacturing (see table 1) aims to fulfill three main objectives: 1) reduce the likelihood that shocks abroad might disrupt the supply of chips, 2) boost American international economic competitiveness and create domestic jobs, and 3) protect semiconductors from being sabotaged in the manufacturing process. This paper argues that the CHIPS Act, by itself, will not fully accomplish any of these goals. The act is a major step forward, but it leaves multiple gaps that require additional government action.
- Topic:
- Industrial Policy, Legislation, Trade, and Semiconductors
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
13. Breaking Down the Arguments for and against U.S. Antitrust Legislation
- Author:
- Caitlin Chin
- Publication Date:
- 04-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- Abstract:
- In many areas of the world, including the European Union, United Kingdom, South Korea, and Australia, governments are considering new legislation to check the market power of a few dominant technology platforms. Yet some of the most sweeping proposals are taking place within the U.S. Congress. In October 2020, the majority staff of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law published a set of recommendations to promote competition in technology markets, the result of a 16-month investigation that directed attention to the actions of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon, Apple, and Facebook (now Meta). The House Judiciary Committee advanced six bills in June 2021 that paralleled many of these recommendations, focusing on the anticompetitive impacts of self- preferencing, mergers and acquisitions, data accumulation, and network effects related to digital platforms. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the American Innovation and Online Choice Act and Open App Markets Act in early 2022. While antitrust reform has seen broad bipartisan support in Congress, members of both parties have also expressed concerns that these bills might have unintended consequences. For example, many of the newly proposed restrictions would only apply to “covered platforms” that meet certain size or categorical criteria—which, under current market conditions, would primarily include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta. In turn, some critics have asserted that unequal rules could create arbitrary winners or losers in the marketplace and even benefit foreign competitors or bad actors at the expense of U.S. technological innovation. To put these issues into context, below is an overview of seven major bills under consideration in the U.S. House and Senate as well as the related challenges, commentary, and controversies that surround them.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Legislation, Antitrust Law, and Emerging Technology
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
14. Measuring Congressional Impact on Defense Acquisition Funding
- Author:
- Seamus P. Daniels and Todd Harrison
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- Abstract:
- Congress exercises its oversight authority on the executive branch’s defense policy via the appropriations process and can choose to match, modify, or eliminate the Department of Defense’s (DoD) requested funding levels for acquisition programs primarily funded by the procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts. Congress’s decisions in this process can have a significant impact on the executive branch’s defense plans by making adjustments to acquisition projects’ program of record. This in turn can force DoD program management teams to alter schedules and contracting actions, causing second-order effects on private sector partners in the acquisition process. To measure Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding, this study compares the actual funding level for procurement and RDT&E accounts with the original level proposed in the administration’s budget request and identifies patterns in which accounts are regularly adjusted by Congress. It assesses procurement and RDT&E accounts between fiscal year (FY) 2001 and FY 2020 and conducts data cuts of acquisition funding at the account, category, military department, and budget activity levels. This analysis ultimately aims to inform defense planners, acquisition officials and program managers, and industry partners of trends in congressional appropriations for defense so they can better anticipate Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Legislation, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
15. Competition and Content Moderation
- Author:
- Jennifer Huddleston
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has played a pivotal role in fostering the internet ecosystem we have today. Although the law applies to millions of websites of all sizes, critics often misconstrue it as a special exemption for “big tech” companies, shielding them from legal scrutiny; however, platforms large and small are liable for all content they create or develop, even if only in part. Yet many lawmakers see Section 230 as a stumbling block impeding fairness and accountability online. Their arguments fail to consider the expansive impact that Section 230 has had in fostering and preserving a competitive online marketplace over the past 25 years. Its protections for both platforms and users have proven essential to increasing competition.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Social Media, Legislation, Content Moderation, and Competition
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
16. Universal Preschool: Lawmakers Should Approach with Caution
- Author:
- Colleen Hroncich
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Children are not widgets. What works well for one may not work for another. That is why education is not a one‐size‐fits‐all endeavor. When looking at preschool or K–12 education, having a diversity of options is essential.
- Topic:
- Education, Children, Legislation, Preschool, and Schools
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
17. Unfair Trade or Unfair Protection? The Evolution and Abuse of Section 301
- Author:
- Scott Lincicome, Inu Manak, and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the U.S. trade representative (USTR) broad authority to investigate “unfair” foreign trade policies allegedly harming American companies and to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions to achieve the removal of those policies. The statute was a common tool of U.S. trade policy from the 1980s to the 1990s, authorizing the USTR to conduct almost 100 different investigations during that period. Since the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, however, the USTR has used Section 301 infrequently and almost exclusively to initiate or implement WTO dispute settlement actions—actions that, per WTO rules, were supposed to supplant the kinds of unilateral trade actions once applied under the law. The Trump administration departed from this long‐standing U.S. practice and took advantage of Section 301’s flaws to circumvent the WTO and enact unilateral tariffs against multiple U.S. trading partners, imposing significant economic and geopolitical costs along the way. This paper examines the Trump administration’s actions in historical context, evaluates how the law was stretched beyond its intended purpose in direct contravention of the United States’ WTO obligations, and offers practical reforms to prevent future abuse.
- Topic:
- Economics, Legislation, Trade, Protectionism, and WTO
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
18. Fact Sheet: Anti-Protest Legislation and Demonstration Activity in the US
- Author:
- Sam Jones and Roudabeh Kishi
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
- Abstract:
- Since the wave of demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020, state governments have proposed more than 90 “anti-protest” bills to restrict demonstration activity around the country (Al Jazeera, 22 April 2021). Republican lawmakers have introduced 81 bills in 34 states during the 2021 legislative session alone, more than double the number introduced in any other year, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (New York Times, 21 April 2021; International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, 22 April 2021). These bills have become law in states like Oklahoma and Florida, with new legislation increasing the penalties for “unlawful protesting” and “granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets” (New York Times, 21 April 2021). Although officials have cited instances of protest violence over the past year to justify this new legislative push — with Governor Ron DeSantis labelling Florida’s law “the strongest anti-looting, anti-rioting, pro-law-enforcement piece of legislation in the country” (New York Times, 21 April 2021) — most of these states have experienced low levels of violent or destructive demonstration activity. ACLED data show that, on average, the states in which strict “anti-protest” laws have been proposed are home to the same rate of peaceful protests — 97% of all events — as states that have not pursued such legislation, meaning that violent demonstrations do not feature more prominently in the former than the latter. States like Florida and Oklahoma, which have promulgated some of the most restrictive new laws, have actually seen a lower proportion of demonstrations involving violent or destructive activity than most other states in the country.
- Topic:
- Social Movement, Protests, Legislation, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and Racial Justice
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
19. Taking Action on Cyber Enforcement: Assessing US Legislative Progress in the 116th Congress
- Author:
- Michael Garcia and Pat Shilo
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- The 116th Congress experienced events like no other in American history, including unprecedented levels of malicious cyber activity. Global estimates say that ransomware attacks have increased by 148% since February 2020, with many US hospitals and schools falling victim and having their operations suspended.1 Leading up to and during the pandemic, Members of the 116th Congress responded and drafted cybersecurity legislation, introducing 316 bills to tackle the issue—a 40% increase from the previous Congress. This memo presents a comprehensive analysis of the cybersecurity legislation introduced in the 116th Congress and is a successor to our memo assessing the cybersecurity legislation in the previous Congress. Unlike the 115th Congress, the two chambers of the 116th were each under the control of a different party. Still, more than half of the introduced bills were bipartisan, including 85% of the bills signed into law. However, only 11% of the introduced bills focused on imposing consequences for the human actors behind cyberattacks, such as imposing sanctions or strengthening laws to prosecute criminals to hold them accountable for their actions. Following the trend of past congresses, most of the bills focused on protecting data and securing critical infrastructure. But while defending data and infrastructure is important, the lack of legislation to address the challenges of imposing consequences on the human actor suggests that Congress should prioritize introducing and passing bipartisan legislation that reduces the impunity with which malicious cyber actors, particularly cybercriminals, act. Here are the main takeaways from the bills introduced last Congress: Cybersecurity-related legislation increased by 40% since the 115th Congress. Of the 316 bills introduced, 14 became law, with nine related to appropriations or agency authorizations legislation. However, only 36 of the 316 bills introduced in the 116th Congress, and just three of the 14 provisions signed into law, focused on imposing consequences on the human actors behind cyberattacks. Cybersecurity remains a largely bipartisan issue. Over 50% of all legislation and 85% of all bills signed into law had a bipartisan co-sponsor.
- Topic:
- Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Legislation, and Cyberspace
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
20. The Militarization of Cyberspace? Cyber-Related Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act
- Author:
- Michael Garcia
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- With Congress struggling to pass stand-alone cybersecurity legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is now the primary vehicle to pass all matters of cybersecurity legislation. Because the annual defense bill typically requires provisions to have a tie to national security, other cyber issues, like those pertaining to criminal justice, tend to be excluded. As a result, the authorities and resources awarded to Department of Defense (DoD) cyber mission far outpace those provided to civilian agencies responsible for partnering with state, local, private, and international partners. With ransomware and cyber incidents at an all-time high, Congress should either include a new title in future Defense bills to bolster US cyber enforcement and civilian agencies’ capabilities or pass a cyber-omnibus bill to fix policy gaps and provide commensurate funds to federal and local agencies to combat malicious cyber activity. In this paper, we analyzed the last five NDAAs (2017-2021) to chronicle Washington’s reliance on the NDAA to shepherd through a wide swath of cybersecurity legislation. We found that: Members of Congress included 290 cyber-related provisions in the past five NDAAs, with the past two NDAAs accounting for 60% of those provisions. In fact, the FY 2021 NDAA contained 380% more cyber-related provisions than the FY 2017 NDAA. The 179 cyber-provisions included in the past two NDAAs far outpace the 14 cybersecurity bills that the 116th Congress passed (two of which were those NDAAs). Across 13 categories, three of the top four were aimed at the DOD core cyber missions, such as changing organizational processes and structures, protecting DoD assets, and engaging with foreign partners while deterring nation-state adversaries. In FY 2020, the number of non-DoD-related cyber provisions began increasing, such as supply-chain security and industrial policy, critical infrastructure protection, and election security. The provisions in these NDAAs helped improve US offensive cyber capabilities, implement measures to deter cyber adversaries, and shore up our cybersecurity defenses, all of which are needed. But because cybersecurity is a multifaceted issue that expands beyond national security and touches on criminal justice, workforce development, private-sector collaboration, and privacy issues, Congress must ensure it takes a holistic approach when creating cybersecurity laws.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Legislation, and Cyberspace
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4