Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Rovner, Associate Professor of International Relations, American University

The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”

Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.

Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.

Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.

I am a scholar of international relations who studies intelligence and strategy in international conflicts, and the author of “Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence.” I know from history that overcoming the challenges of battle damage assessment is especially hard when the target is a facility hidden under hundreds of feet of earth and rock, as is the case at Fordo.

Tools of the trade

The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.

More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.

Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.

The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.

Pervasive uncertainty

But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.

Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.

Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.

Politicized intelligence

In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.

But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”

Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”

The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.

This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.

What lies ahead

What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.

Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.

As with military campaigns, episodes of politicizing intelligence have lasting and sometimes unforeseen consequences.

Joshua Rovner is associate professor of international relations at American University, and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

– ref. What damage did the US do to Iran’s nuclear program? Why it’s so hard to know – https://theconversation.com/what-damage-did-the-us-do-to-irans-nuclear-program-why-its-so-hard-to-know-260058

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, Honorary Reader in MIgration and Politics, University of Kent

Based on pronouncements in 2024, you might think now is the time to see U.S. citizens streaming out of the country. Months before the 2024 presidential election, Americans were saying they would leave should candidate Donald Trump win the election. Gallup polling in 2024 found that 21% of Americans wanted to leave the United States permanently, more than double the 10% who had said so in 2011.

And indeed in June 2025, a Vermont legislator announced that she was resigning her seat and moving to Canada because of political concerns and economic opportunities. To be sure, people are moving. Even so, as a scholar of American migration overseas, my research finds that the vast majority of Americans are not about to depart for greener shores.

A western Massachusetts group

In October 2024, I surveyed 68 Americans in western Massachusetts, an area with a slight Democratic majority, asking if they wanted to leave the United States for a lengthy period of time, but not necessarily permanently. Over 90% said no, noting that there were factors limiting their mobility, such as financial obligations or having a partner who would not move, and that there were reasons that made them want to stay, such as owning property and having friends nearby.

Just three respondents indicated they were making plans to move, while an additional 11 said they wanted to move “someday.”

Reality strikes

After the November 2024 election, I interviewed seven of those respondents, two of whom had said prior to the election that they might leave the United States. After the election, they all said they planned to stay.

One who had said she wanted to leave acknowledged her reversal, saying: “I may have flippantly said, ‘Oh, if (Trump) gets voted in … I would leave,’ but I can’t see leaving. Part of it is because of my daughter,” who had recently become a mother. She continued, “It’s never crossed my mind seriously enough to even research it.”

Another told me, “I’m not going to let somebody push me out of what I consider my country and my home because he’s a jerk.”

Others spoke of needing to work several more years in order to receive a pension, or having family responsibilities keeping them in the country. None supported the current administration.

On a national level

In two nationally representative surveys, my colleague Helen B. Marrow, a sociologist of immigration, and I found no significant increase in migration aspiration between 2014 and 2019. We also found that respondents mentioned exploration and adventure much more often than political or economic reasons for wanting to move abroad.

Even though the U.S. passport grants visa-free visitor access to more than 180 countries, U.S. citizens still need residence and work visas. At home, they, like others, have family commitments and financial constraints, or may just not want to leave home. More than 95% of the world’s population do not move abroad – and U.S. citizens are no different.

Relocation coaching

In addition to my academic research on overseas Americans, I am also an international relocation coach. I help Americans considering a move abroad navigate the emotional, practical and professional complexities of relocation, whether they’re just starting to explore the idea or actively planning their next steps.

Many of my clients do not want to live in a United States that no longer aligns with their values, while others are concerned about their safety, particularly, but not only, due to racism or homophobia. They are finding jobs overseas, retiring abroad or acquiring a European citizenship through a parent or grandparent. Most recently, American academics seeking to leave are being courted by European universities.

But most are staying

In February 2025, a national poll found that 4% of Americans said they were “definitely planning to move” to another country.

That same month, I followed up with my seven interviewees from western Massachusetts, including one trans man. They all reiterated their choice to remain in the United States. One person, who might move abroad at some point, told me she hadn’t changed her mind about leaving soon: “Leaving doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be better for me, even if it was a financial possibility.”

Two people said that recent political developments actually meant that they were more committed to remaining in the United States. One told me, “Now, more than ever, individuals need to figure out what small actions can be taken to help our fellow Americans get through this dark period.”

But even those “definitely planning on moving” can have other factors intervene. Two clients of mine who were making serious plans had to stop when family members’ health situations changed for the worse.

So how many people are actually leaving? It is clear that a growing number of Americans are considering a move abroad. But far fewer are conducting serious research, seeking professional consultation or actually moving. Drawing on available data, my own academic research and my coaching experience, my educated estimate is that no more than 1% to 2% of U.S. citizens are actively making viable plans to leave the country. Nor are all of those leaving out of protest; many are still motivated by exploration, adventure, employment or to be with a partner.

Even so, that figure is roughly 3 million to 6 million people – which would be a significant increase over the estimated 5.5 million Americans currently living abroad. As with many migration flows, even the movement of a small percentage of a population can still have the potential to reshape both the United States and its overseas population.

Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Despite claims they’d move overseas after the election, most Americans are staying put – https://theconversation.com/despite-claims-theyd-move-overseas-after-the-election-most-americans-are-staying-put-250728

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut

Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.

The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.

When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.

Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust

Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.

A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.

When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.

For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.

When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.

Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.

If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.

Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.

For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.

When corruption grows, stable and democratic governments weaken, opportunities for terrorism increase and corruption-fueled authoritarian regimes, which oppose the interests of the U.S., thrive. Halting the enforcement of an anti-bribery law, even for a limited time, is an issue of national security.

Legal uncertainty fuels brain drain

Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.

American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.

The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.

Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.

Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.

Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.

Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.

Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.

Robert Bird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The rule of law is key to capitalism − eroding it is bad news for American business – https://theconversation.com/the-rule-of-law-is-key-to-capitalism-eroding-it-is-bad-news-for-american-business-254922

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Reid Kress Weisbord, Distinguished Professor of Law and Judge Norma Shapiro Scholar, Rutgers University – Newark

Lawyers often tell their clients that everyone should have a will that clearly states who should inherit their assets after they die. But even having a will is not necessarily enough to avoid a costly and contentious legal dispute.

Consider what happened after Jimmy Buffett died of skin cancer at the age of 76 in 2023. The singer and entrepreneurial founder of the Margaritaville brand ordered in his will that his fortune be placed in a trust after his death. To manage the trust, Buffett named two co-trustees: his widow, Jane Slagsvol, and Richard Mozenter, an accountant who had served as the singer’s financial adviser for more than three decades.

In dueling petitions filed in Los Angeles and Palm Beach, Florida, in June 2025, however, Slagsvol – identified as Jane Buffett in her legal filing – and Mozenter are both seeking to remove each other as a trustee.

The outcome of this litigation will determine who gets to administer Buffett’s US$275 million estate.

As law professors who specialize in trusts and estates, we teach graduate courses about the transfer of property during life and at death. We believe that the Buffett dispute offers a valuable lesson for anyone with an estate, large or small. And choosing the right person to manage the assets you leave behind can be just as important as selecting who will inherit your property.

Buffett’s business empire

Buffett’s estate includes valuable intellectual property from his hit songs, including “It’s 5 O’Clock Somewhere,” “Oldest Surfer on the Beach” and “Cheeseburger in Paradise.” Buffett’s albums have sold more than 20 million copies worldwide and continue to generate some $20 million annually in royalties. Buffett also owned a yacht, real estate, airplanes, fancy watches and valuable securities.

In addition, he owned a 20% stake in Margaritaville Holdings LLC, a brand management company he and Slagsvol founded in the 1990s. Margaritaville owns 30 restaurants and 20 hotels, along with vacation clubs, casinos and cruise ships. It also sells branded merchandise.

According to Slagsvol’s petition, Buffett’s trust was set up to benefit his widow. Slagsvol, who married Buffett in 1977, is one of two trustees of that trust, which is required to have at least one “independent trustee” in addition to her “at all times.” That requirement is stated expressly in Buffett’s trust declaration.

Slagsvol receives all income earned by the trust – an estate-planning technique for giving away property managed by a trustee on behalf of the trust beneficiaries – for the rest of her life. She can also receive additional trust funds for her health care, living expenses and “any other purpose” that the independent trustee – Mozenter, as of July 2025 – deems to be in Slagsvol’s best interests.

The estate plan also created separate trusts for their three children: Savannah, Sarah “Delaney” and Cameron Buffett, who are in their 30s and 40s. Each child reportedly received $2 million upon Jimmy’s death. When Slagsvol dies, she can decide who will receive any remaining assets from among Buffett’s descendants and charities.

The structure of Buffett’s plan is popular among wealthy married couples. It provides lifelong support for the surviving spouse while ensuring that their kids and grandchildren can inherit the remainder of their estate – even if that spouse remarries. This type of trust typically cannot be changed by the surviving spouse without court approval.

Dueling trustee removal petitions

Slagsvol is trying to remove Mozenter as the trust’s independent trustee.

She claims he refused to comply with her requests for financial information, failed to cooperate with her as her co-trustee, and hired a trust attorney who pressured her to resign as trustee. Slagsvol also raised numerous questions about the trust’s income projections and compensation paid to Mozenter for his services.

Mozenter’s petition, filed in Florida, is not available to the public. According to media coverage of this dispute, he seeks to remove Slagsvol as trustee. He claims that, during his decades-long role as Buffett’s financial adviser, the musician “expressed concerns about his wife’s ability to manage and control his assets after his death.”

That led Buffett to establish a trust, Mozenter asserted, “in a manner that precluded Jane from having actual control” over it.

Estate planning lessons

We believe that the public can learn two important estate planning lessons from this dispute.

First, anyone planning to leave an estate, whether modest or vast, needs to choose the right people to manage the transfer of their property after their death.

That might mean picking a professional executor or trustee who is not related to you. A professional may be more likely to remain neutral should any disputes arise within the family, but hiring one can saddle the estate with costly fees.

An alternative is to choose a relative or trusted friend who is willing to do this for free. About 56% of wills name an adult child or grandchild as executor, according to a recent study. Some estates, like Buffett’s trust, name both a professional and a family member. An important consideration is whether the people asked to manage the estate will get along with each other – and with anyone else who is slated to inherit from the estate.

The second lesson is, whether you choose a professional, a loved one or a friend to manage your estate, make clear what circumstances would warrant their removal. Courts are reluctant to remove a handpicked trustee without proof of negligence, fraud or disloyalty. But trustees can be removed when a breakdown in cooperation interferes with their ability to administer the estate or trust.

Some trusts anticipate such conflicts by allowing beneficiaries to replace a professional trustee with another professional trustee. That can resolve some disputes while avoiding the cost of seeking court approval.

Preventing disputes from erupting in the first place can help people avert the costly and embarrassing kind of litigation now ensnaring Jimmy Buffett’s estate.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Legal wrangling over estate of Jimmy Buffett turns his widow’s huge inheritance into a cautionary tale – https://theconversation.com/legal-wrangling-over-estate-of-jimmy-buffett-turns-his-widows-huge-inheritance-into-a-cautionary-tale-259116

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jade Craig, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Mississippi

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s Housing Opportunities Made Easy initiative, which was included in the city budget passed June 12, 2025, is an ambitious effort to address the city’s affordable housing challenges.

Parker has promised to create or preserve 30,000 affordable housing units throughout the city, at a cost of roughly US$2 billion.

To help fund the plan, the Parker administration says it will issue $800 million in housing bonds over the next three years.

In an April 2025 report on the housing plan, the Parker administration admits that, in light of declining federal investment in affordable housing, proceeds from municipal bonds issued by the local government “have taken on an outsized role” in Philadelphia’s housing programs.

Often, only city treasurers and the finance committees of city councils pay attention to the details behind these municipal bonds.

As a law professor who studies the social impact of municipal bonds, I believe it’s important that city residents understand how these bonds work as well.

While municipal bonds are integral to the city’s effort to increase access to affordable and market-rate housing, they can include hidden costs and requirements that raise prices in ways that make city services unaffordable for lower-income residents.

How municipal bonds work

Most people are aware that companies sell shares on the stock market to raise capital. State and local governments do the same thing in the form of municipal bonds, which help them raise money to cover their expenses and to finance infrastructure projects.

These bonds are a form of debt. Investors can purchase an interest in the bond and, in exchange, the local government promises to pay the money back with interest in a specified time period. The money from investors functions like a loan to the government.

Municipal bonds are often used so that one generation of taxpayers is not having to bear the full cost of a project that will benefit multiple generations of residents. The cost of building a bridge, for example, which will be in use for decades, can be spread out over 30 years so that residents pay back the loan slowly over time rather than saddle residents with huge tax increases one year to cover the cost.

However, the cost of borrowing pushes up the cost of projects by adding interest payments the same way a mortgage adds to the overall cost of buying a house. Overall, the market and state and local governments have historically viewed this cost as a worthy trade-off.

Some municipal bonds have limits

The Parker administration has several options when it comes to raising capital on the municipal market.

The most common method is through general obligation bonds, which are backed by the city’s authority to impose and collect taxes. Bondholders rely on the city’s “full faith and credit” to assure them that if the city has difficulty paying back the debt, the city will raise taxes on residents to secure the payment.

The city plans to use general obligation bonds to help fund its affordable housing plan, but there are limits on how much it can borrow this way. The state constitution limits Philadelphia’s ability to incur debt to a total of 13.5% of the value of its assessed taxable real estate, based on an average of this amount for the preceding 10 years.

Philly has another option

The city, however, also has the authority to take on another form of debt: revenue bonds. Revenue bonds rely on specific sources of revenue instead of the government’s taxing power. Jurisdictions issue revenue bonds to fund particular projects or services – usually ones that generate income from fees paid by users.

For example, a publicly owned water utility or electric company relies on water and sewage fees or electricity rates and charges to pay back their revenue bonds. Likewise, a transportation authority will rely on tolls to pay back revenue bonds issued to build a toll road, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Under state law, revenue bonds are “non-debt debts.” They are not debts owed by the city, because the city has not promised to repay the debt through the use of its own taxing powers. Instead, the people who pay the fees to use the service are paying back the debt.

Since states began to place stricter limits on debt in the wake of the Great Depression in the 1930s, cities across the U.S. have increasingly used revenue bonds to get around state debt limits and still fund valuable public services, including affordable housing projects.

When another government entity – rather than the city – issues the bond, and the city pays them a service fee for doing so, it’s a form of what’s called conduit debt. That obligation to pay the service fee to the other government entity is the conduit debt that the city pays out of its general fund.

In Philadelphia, conduit debt includes revenue bonds issued by the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development and Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.

From fiscal years 2012 to 2021, the city’s outstanding debt from general obligation bonds paid for out of its general fund was between $1.3 billion to $1.7 billion per year. However, the city’s conduit debt outstripped that number every year, ranging from $1.8 billion to nearly $2.3 billion. In more recent years, conduit debt has been less than the city’s debt from general obligation bonds.

The city keeps conduit debt on its books – and is obligated to pay it back – even though it comes from bonds issued by the development authorities, because these debts loop back to the city. In the bonds issued by these agencies, the city actually becomes like a client of the agency. The city is typically obligated to pay the agency service fees as part of a contractual obligation that cannot be canceled.

The revenue on which the development agencies’ bonds rely, the money from which bondholders expect to be paid back, does not come from fees that residents pay out of their own pocket – for example through ticket sales from a sports stadium built with revenue bonds. The money instead comes out of the city’s treasury.

A loophole to affordable housing

Essentially this is a loophole for the city to bypass debt limits set for Philadelphia in the state constitution. Sometimes creativity in government requires using loopholes to get the job done – to get to yes instead of a stalemate.

Consider this analogy. Say your sister takes out a bank loan to buy a car for you because your credit limit is maxed out. She is relying on you to pay her back, and she uses your payment to pay the bank. But if you don’t pay her back, she’s not responsible by law for paying the bank herself. So, it’s your debt, but she is the conduit.

If the city holds itself accountable, it can use conduit debt responsibly to make affordable housing construction a reality.

The mayor’s office did not respond to my questions about whether they plan to use conduit debt issued by a development authority, whether that conduit debt would include service fees, and what funds would be used to pay those fees.

In its quest to increase access to affordable housing, the Parker administration should, in my view, be mindful of limiting the service fees it agrees to pay – which have no legally prescribed limits – and also account for where it will find income to cover these costs. For example, will it come from the sale of city-owned land? Fees charged to developers? Or some other source?

Otherwise, taxpayers may be left to foot a bill that is essentially unlimited.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Jade Craig does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Philadelphia’s $2B affordable housing plan relies heavily on municipal bonds, which can come with hidden costs for taxpayers – https://theconversation.com/philadelphias-2b-affordable-housing-plan-relies-heavily-on-municipal-bonds-which-can-come-with-hidden-costs-for-taxpayers-253522