Global

Prof. Simon Johnson joins CNBC’s Squawk Box to discuss the potential impact of U.S. tariffs on the global economy. 

Writing for The Hill, Prof. Fiona Murray and Sloan Lecturer Gene Keselman underscore the importance of investment in U.S. universities, noting that the “traditional contributions of universities — advancing knowledge through research and patents — remain fundamental to America’s economic and national security dynamism.” An MIT program called Proto Ventures is building on this tradition, by turning “breakthroughs made in tech labs into real-world solutions that can help all Americans.” They note that: “By bridging the gap between groundbreaking research and tangible outcomes, universities can address their critics, strengthen the nation and focus on their highest purpose: advancing human progress through knowledge and innovation,” they write. 

Writing for Science, Prof. Fiona Murray and Research Affiliate Stefan Raff-Heinen underscore the necessity of federal investment in university research, noting that “without sustained federal support, the country risks losing its technological edge, threatening economic competitiveness and national security.” Murray and Raff-Heinen write: “Translational research funding is crucial for moving discoveries and early-stage technologies from labs to real-world applications. Government support gives scientists the time to refine nascent technologies, which can be a long and uncertain process. But this approach has had substantial payoffs.” 

Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen highlights the impact of U.S. tariffs on foreign investment in U.S. Treasury securities and U.S. corporate bonds. “Nevertheless, since target countries will want to respond to reciprocal tariffs, they may stop buying or even sell U.S. debt securities,” explains Pozen. “Either response would increase U.S. interest rates and decrease economic growth. International trade flows and international investing are two sides of the same street.” 

Writing for the Financial Times, Prof. Abhijit Banerjee and Prof. Esther Duflo highlight the importance of foreign aid. “Reaffirming the most basic principle of aid would provide clarity,” they write. “The goal should be to invest in projects that will have the largest impact on the quality of life of poor people around the world. Saving lives during environmental catastrophes qualifies, as does financing global public goods such as vaccinations or epidemic control. Helping local actors to learn from each other and adopt the most effective ways to fight poverty can also have enormous benefits, even if this sounds a bit vague. That is because any aid money invested can then be spent in the best way possible.” 

Writing for The Boston Globe, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif highlights the fundamental contributions made by universities across the United States in the advancement of scientific and technological innovations, and the role of government funding in these sectors. “Since World War II, the ideas born in university research laboratories have helped to make America great,” writes Reif. “Universities’ contributions should be recognized, and the systems that allow them to contribute should not be recklessly derailed.” 

Prof. Christopher Knittel speaks with GBH reporter Robert Goulston about the potential impact of tariffs on imported metals and lumber. “When you place a tariff on an imported good, it’s not just the price of the imports that increase, but it’s also the price of the domestically manufactured products that increase,” explains Knittel. “Obviously the cost of importing steel and aluminum will increase, but domestic manufacturers will also raise their price because they can.”

Prof. Carlo Ratti, curator of the 2025 Venice Architecture Biennale, speaks with Dezeen reporter Lizzie Crook about how this year’s event will be a “science-heavy edition of the festival examining the changing role of architecture at a time of environmental instability.” Says Ratti: "Architecture starts when the environment is against us and we adapt it to somewhere where we can live. We can look at this through science. There's going to be a lot of science in this year's biennale.”

Prof. David Autor speaks with NPR Planet Money host Greg Rosalsky about his working paper exploring “what happened to American communities after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001,” also known as the “China Shock." Autor and his colleagues found that while regions impacted by the China Shock did eventually recover, the people hurt by the China Shock did not. “The China Shock research suggests that classic, free market economic theory blinded many to the reality that free trade can destroy the livelihoods of many people and that they have a hard time adjusting," says Rosalsky.

In a discussion with Metropolis reporter Francisco Brown, Prof. Carlo Ratti, curator of the 2025 Venice Architecture Biennale, discusses his vision for this year’s festival. “I think the biggest challenge of architecture today, which we are trying to address both with our practice at CRA (Carlo Ratti Associati) and our research at MIT, is to create a better alliance between natural and artificial systems,” Ratti explains. 

Writing for Le Monde, Prof. Arnaud Costinot and Prof. Andrés Rodríguez-Clare of UC Berkeley make the case against the U.S. implementing substantial tariffs on imports. “Retaining its dominance in high-tech sectors, regaining a foothold in new green sectors, and restoring prosperity to lagging regions, to name just a few, are critical goals for US economic policy in the years to come. A richer set of economic policies are needed, with tariffs playing at best an auxiliary role,” writes Costinot. “Pursuing a policy of raising tariffs would most likely lead to a new global trade war. Its consequences, unfortunately, are not hard to predict. It would mean less trade and, most importantly, less international cooperation on the big issues of the day: war, poverty, and climate change.” 

A new tabletop exercise, developed by researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has found that “a further buildup of U.S. nuclear capabilities would have limited effect on whether China might use its own nuclear weapons should a war over Taiwan erupt,” reports Brad Dress and Ellen Mitchell for The Hill. “The first large-scale war game of such an incident,” they write, “found that a U.S. buildup that goes past current modernization plans would not bolster nuclear deterrence in relation to Taiwan.” 

Prof. Abhijit Banerjee speaks with Financial Times reporter John Reed about global politics and the increased need for trust in economists. On his book, Poor Economics, Banerjee says, “I think we have always thought that economic ideas were too important to be left out of the public discourse. There is a sense in which we think economics does a disservice to ourselves and the world by wrapping ourselves in this omniscient jargon.” 

In a wide-ranging interview with NHK (broadcast in Japanese), President Sally Kornbluth discusses MIT’s innovation ecosystem, the MIT Climate Project and how MIT faculty work to help nurture their students’ creativity. "We give students the opportunity to research real-world projects and see their impact on society," says Kornbluth. “We should focus on bringing out the creativity of students, their individual creativity. Almost everyone you meet at a place like MIT wants to start a company. Nurturing this kind of talent is essential in the long run to the incredible success we see at American universities.” 

Researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have used a tabletop exercise to determine whether a further build-up of US nuclear capabilities would impact China’s nuclear weapon use in Taiwan, reports Kathrin Hille for Financial Times. “The US has 600-plus tactical nuclear weapons, and it is modernizing their delivery means,” explains Principal Research Scientist Eric Heginbotham. “In the game, the one US team that employed tactical nuclear weapons used fewer than a dozen. In no cases did any of the participants ever say: ‘We need SLCM-N or some other system that is not in the inventory or being deployed under the current modernization plan.’”