The United States continued to lead global trade in conventional armaments last year, according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service, but overall trade declined from the year before.
“Worldwide weapons orders decreased in 2015. The total of $79.8 billion was a decrease from $89 billion in 2014. The United States’ worldwide weapons agreements values increased in value from $36.1 billion in 2014 to $40.2 billion in 2015. The U.S. market share increased greatly as well, from roughly 40.5% in 2014 to 50.3% in 2015. Although the United States retained its position as the leading arms supplying nation in the world, nearly all other major suppliers saw increases too.”
The CRS report is based on access to unclassified but unpublished government databases. As such, the 72-page document provides a uniquely informative view of the global arms trade. See Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015, December 19, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Defense Acquisitions: How and Where DOD Spends Its Contracting Dollars, updated December 20, 2016
U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, updated December 16, 2016
Tribal Broadband: Status of Deployment and Federal Funding Programs, updated December 20, 2016
The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer, updated December 16, 2016
State Management of Federal Lands: Frequently Asked Questions, updated December 16, 2016
The FCC’s Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity, updated December 16, 2016
Special Minimum Wages for Workers with Disabilities: Frequently Asked Questions, updated December 16, 2016
Discretionary Budget Authority by Subfunction: An Overview, updated December 16, 2016
Restrictions on Lobbying the Government: Current Policy and Proposed Changes, CRS Insight, December 15, 2016
U.S. Policy on Cuban Migrants: In Brief, December 16, 2016
The African Union (AU): Key Issues and U.S.-AU Relations, December 16, 2016
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.