Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Featured Stories
STAND UP AMERICA CONDEMNS ARREST OF DON LEMON, WARNS OF THREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -- Stand Up America, an organization was born in 2016 as a digital-first grassroots community working to resist what they say is Donald Trump's corruption, racism and his threats to democracy, issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
STAND UP AMERICA CONDEMNS ARREST OF DON LEMON, WARNS OF THREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
LOS ANGELES--Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey issued the following statement condemning the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon, a longtime target of the president, and independent journalist Georgia Fort after covering
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -- Stand Up America, an organization was born in 2016 as a digital-first grassroots community working to resist what they say is Donald Trump's corruption, racism and his threats to democracy, issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
STAND UP AMERICA CONDEMNS ARREST OF DON LEMON, WARNS OF THREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
LOS ANGELES--Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey issued the following statement condemning the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon, a longtime target of the president, and independent journalist Georgia Fort after coveringa protest at a Minnesota church.
"This is an attack on the First Amendment and the constitutionally protected work of American journalists that should alarm every American. The unprecedented arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort are an attempt to stifle the free press and punish journalists for doing their jobs and reporting the facts.
"None of us can remain silent in the face of these growing abuses of power and attacks on Americans' fundamental freedoms. Every elected official who values our constitutional rights should speak up and demand their immediate release. If the government can do this to a nationally recognized journalist, then no one is safe."
* * *
About Stand Up America
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with nearly two million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to stand up to corruption and voter suppression and build a more representative democracy, Stand Up America has driven over 1.7 million calls to lawmakers, registered over 100,000 voters, mobilized thousands of protestors, and contacted tens of millions of voters.
* * *
Original text here: https://standupamerica.com/2026/01/stand-up-america-condemns-arrest-of-don-lemon-warns-of-threat-to-freedom-of-the-press/
[Category: Political]
Progress Michigan: Poll - Michiganders Support State Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs
LANSING, Michigan, Feb. 2 -- Progress Michigan, an organization that says it holds public officials and government accountable and assist in the promotion of progressive ideas, issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
New Poll: Michiganders Support State Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Voters say lawmakers who oppose lowering drug prices risk electoral consequences
*
On Friday, a new poll released by Progress Michigan shows that Michiganders overwhelmingly support state-level action to lower the cost of prescription drugs, including the creation of a nonpartisan Prescription
... Show Full Article
LANSING, Michigan, Feb. 2 -- Progress Michigan, an organization that says it holds public officials and government accountable and assist in the promotion of progressive ideas, issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
New Poll: Michiganders Support State Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Voters say lawmakers who oppose lowering drug prices risk electoral consequences
*
On Friday, a new poll released by Progress Michigan shows that Michiganders overwhelmingly support state-level action to lower the cost of prescription drugs, including the creation of a nonpartisan PrescriptionDrug Affordability Board to review drug prices and set upper payment limits on medications deemed excessively expensive.
"Michiganders expect their state leaders to step up and protect them - especially when the federal government fails to act," said Levi Teitel, communications coordinator of Progress Michigan. "Prescription drug prices are out of control, and families are paying the price at the pharmacy counter every month. The fact that many Michiganders travel to Windsor or Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario just to be able to get a script filled without getting fleeced is just more evidence that this is a uniquely American problem. When Washington refuses to rein in corporate greed, Michigan lawmakers have both the authority and the responsibility to act. Voters understand that, and they are paying attention to who is standing with them and who is standing in the way."
* * *
Original text here: https://progressmichigan.org/2026/01/new-poll-michiganders-support-state-action-to-lower-prescription-drug-costs/
[Category: Political]
Progress Michigan: Dirty Duggan Throws Trans Youth Under the Bus for Cheap Political Points
LANSING, Michigan, Feb. 2 -- Progress Michigan, an organization that says it holds public officials and government accountable and assist in the promotion of progressive ideas, issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Dirty Duggan Throws Trans Youth Under the Bus for Cheap Political Points
Duggan used young trans athletes to score cheap political points with his business leader buddies
*
DETROIT - Yesterday at the Detroit Regional Chamber's 2026 Policy Conference, Mike Duggan made the incorrect claim that Democrats in Lansing refused to pass a school funding bill unless they
... Show Full Article
LANSING, Michigan, Feb. 2 -- Progress Michigan, an organization that says it holds public officials and government accountable and assist in the promotion of progressive ideas, issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Dirty Duggan Throws Trans Youth Under the Bus for Cheap Political Points
Duggan used young trans athletes to score cheap political points with his business leader buddies
*
DETROIT - Yesterday at the Detroit Regional Chamber's 2026 Policy Conference, Mike Duggan made the incorrect claim that Democrats in Lansing refused to pass a school funding bill unless theypassed a bill that would allow trans athletes to compete in high school sports.
"All students regardless of their gender identity should have the right to participate in school sports and should not be used by our elected officials to score cheap political points," said Levi Teitel, communications coordinator of Progress Michigan. "While we aren't surprised Dirty Duggan chose to lie, we are surprised that he chose to throw members of the LGBTQ+ community under the bus to try and explain his split from the Democratic Party and impress his business leader buddies. It appears that Duggan is not only taking MAGA money, he is using their same old tired lies as well."
* * *
Original text here: https://progressmichigan.org/2026/01/dirty-duggan-throws-trans-youth-under-the-bus-for-cheap-political-points/
[Category: Political]
No Labels Issues Commentary: What Are Sanctuary Cities?
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
What Are Sanctuary Cities?
Definitions, legal boundaries, and the range of local immigration enforcement policies
What "Sanctuary City" Means
By Austin Milks
"Sanctuary city" is not a legal term. There is no single official definition. The phrase is commonly used to describe cities, counties, or states that restrict the extent to which local officials cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
These policies often include limits
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
What Are Sanctuary Cities?
Definitions, legal boundaries, and the range of local immigration enforcement policies
What "Sanctuary City" Means
By Austin Milks
"Sanctuary city" is not a legal term. There is no single official definition. The phrase is commonly used to describe cities, counties, or states that restrict the extent to which local officials cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
These policies often include limitson honoring ICE detainer requests -- administrative requests asking local jails to hold someone beyond their release date so ICE can detain them -- as well as restrictions on police asking about immigration status and rules governing information sharing between local agencies and federal authorities.
Importantly, sanctuary policies do not grant legal immigration status, and they do not prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration law on its own.
How Sanctuary Policies Work in Practice
Sanctuary policies mainly define the boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Common features include:
* Local jails may decline to hold someone past their release date based solely on an ICE administrative detainer, but may comply when there is a judicial warrant -- a warrant issued by a judge, typically in connection with a criminal case -- or court order.
* Police officers are often discouraged or prohibited from asking about immigration status during routine encounters.
* Cities may restrict the use of local funds or personnel to enforce civil immigration violations (such as visa overstays or unlawful presence).
* Policies usually distinguish between civil immigration violations and criminal offenses, with more cooperation allowed in serious criminal cases.
In practice, sanctuary policies vary widely, and jurisdictions fall along a spectrum of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Historical Origins
Sanctuary policies trace back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The modern concept grew out of a church-led movement in which religious congregations sheltered Central American refugees fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala.
Beginning around 1982, churches in places like California and Arizona publicly declared themselves sanctuaries, arguing that U.S. asylum policies were failing people facing violence. Over time, this faith-based movement influenced local governments, and by the mid-to-late 1980s cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco, California, and Santa Fe, New Mexico adopted early sanctuary declarations or ordinances limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
How Many Unauthorized Immigrants Are in Sanctuary Cities?
According to a 2025 Pew Research Center analysis, the unauthorized or "undocumented" immigrant population in the United States reached a record high of about 14 million in 2023, representing roughly 4.1% of the total U.S. population and 27% of the foreign-born population. These figures are estimates derived from demographic modeling that uses census survey data and administrative records to distinguish lawful from unauthorized immigrants.
There is no official count of undocumented immigrants at the city or state level, and local governments do not track immigration status. Researchers estimate that most unauthorized immigrants live in states and metropolitan areas with larger immigrant populations, including California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. The same Pew analysis showed California alone was home to an estimated 2.3 million unauthorized immigrants in 2023.
Some analyses suggest that a substantial share -- on the order of half or more -- of the unauthorized population live in sanctuary cities or states. But these are just estimates, no official city-level totals exist.
How Many Sanctuary Cities Are There?
There is no single official count, but federal and advocacy lists offer snapshots.
A U.S. Department of Justice list from October 2025 identifies 12 states -- California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington -- plus the District of Columbia as having sanctuary-type policies.
The DOJ also lists 18 cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, Denver, and San Francisco.
Four counties are listed: Baltimore County (MD), Cook County (IL), San Diego County (CA), and San Francisco County (CA).
Other organizations use broader definitions and count hundreds more jurisdictions, showing how widely practices vary. While the size of the immigrant population provides context, sanctuary policies are ultimately defined by local government choices.
Sanctuary jurisdictions have expanded significantly over the past three decades.
In the early 1990s, only a handful of cities had sanctuary-style policies. By 2009, estimates put the number at about 40. By 2018, more than 560 jurisdictions were identified, and by 2025, some tallies reached over 1,000.
Definitions differ and there is no official registry, but the overall trend is clear: more local governments have adopted policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
* * *
Austin Milks is Deputy Research Director at No Labels. He has a degree in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and a JD from Valparaiso University. He has worked for numerous campaigns over the last fifteen years.
* * *
Original text here: https://nolabels.org/the-latest/what-are-sanctuary-cities/
[Category: Political]
Will Human Rights Survive the Donald Trump Era?
NEW YORK, Feb. 1 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch posted the following news:
* * *
Will Human Rights Survive the Donald Trump Era?
*
Human rights are never ensured. The freedoms we hold dear were won-piece by piece-after the catastrophes of the 20th century, when governments accepted, however imperfectly, that state power should be constrained by law, institutions, and a shared baseline of human dignity.
Today, that architecture is buckling. Under relentless pressure from President Donald Trump's administration, and long undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based order
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Feb. 1 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch posted the following news:
* * *
Will Human Rights Survive the Donald Trump Era?
*
Human rights are never ensured. The freedoms we hold dear were won-piece by piece-after the catastrophes of the 20th century, when governments accepted, however imperfectly, that state power should be constrained by law, institutions, and a shared baseline of human dignity.
Today, that architecture is buckling. Under relentless pressure from President Donald Trump's administration, and long undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based orderthat helped make human rights enforceable is fraying fast.
Can human rights survive without the rules that established them? They can, but not by clinging to a collapsing status quo. They will survive only if we build something new: a durable human rights alliance that defends core norms (even when a superpower defects), and makes repression costly.
To be sure, the deterioration in human rights protections predates Trump's return to office. Over the past two decades, democracy has been in retreat worldwide, and with it the checks-such as independent courts, free media, and accountable institutions-that make abuses harder to carry out and harder to hide. When democratic guardrails erode, the full range of rights can erode with them. And though democracies are not a panacea for human rights, they are the best defense we have.
In just one year, the Trump Administration has moved aggressively to weaken core democratic safeguards: attacking judicial independence, defying court orders, politicizing institutions meant to be impartial, and using government power to intimidate critics across society, including journalists, universities, law firms, and even late night talkshow hosts. These actions not only chill speech, they also signal that accountability is negotiable and that power can be abused without consequence.
The Trump Administration's approach to immigration has been especially revealing. A president may tighten borders and pursue strict immigration policies, but no electoral mandate entitles a government to deny anyone the right to seek asylum or to subject migrants to degrading detention conditions.
Beyond US borders, the Trump Administration has tested international law's limits on lethal force, while treating international obligations with indifference or contempt. And when other governments stay silent, fearing tariffs, retaliation, or abandonment on security, they become accomplices to a world where power, not principle, decides who is protected. Trump's foreign policy has stripped away the pretense that US global leadership is tethered, even rhetorically, to human rights. In short order, the administration has politicized human rights reporting, withdrawn from key multilateral bodies, and eviscerated aid programs that saved lives. It has simultaneously cozied up to autocrats while disparaging democratic allies, and undermined the International Criminal Court.
China and Russia, which have spent years weakening the human rights ecosystem through disinformation, influence operations, and coordinated obstruction at the UN, are seizing on Washington's retreat. When the United States signals contempt for the rules and institutions that constrain abuse, it strengthens the hand of every leader who believes rights are for the weak.
The consequences are already visible, particularly in the context of international justice. For instance, despite being wanted by the ICC, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not only continued to travel but also met President Trump in Alaska. ICC warrants still have some bite-Putin avoided the BRICS summits in South Africa and Brazil-but the larger message is chilling: if you are powerful enough, you can outlast accountability.
The question, then, is not who will replace the United States, but whether the governments still committed to the human rights framework can act in alliance. While the US was never a consistent guardian of the rules-based order, enforcing rights selectively and often without the constraints urged on others, when it brought its weight to bear, America was unmatched.
The rapid shift in Washington's posture, dismantling of the post-World War II order it helped build, has exposed a hard truth: the system cannot depend on any single superpower. The answer to our challenges isn't nostalgia for yesterday's system; it is to construct a human rights alliance of rights-respecting democracies that are capable of defending core norms when powerful states defect. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has made a related argument, urging " middle powers " to build a new order rooted in shared values.
This alliance could impose sanctions and visa bans on abusive officials; tighten money-laundering rules so kleptocrats can't park wealth in safe havens; support independent media and civil society groups under threat; and protect international institutions when powerful states try to bully them into silence. It should also use incentives, not only penalties, by offering deeper trade and security cooperation to governments that meet baseline commitments on elections, courts, and minority rights.
None of this will work, however, without civic courage inside countries where democracy is fraying. Institutions do not defend themselves. Legislatures and courts need to check executive power. Universities and law firms should refuse coercive deals that trade independence for short-term safety. Businesses should stop treating authoritarian demands as mere "regulatory risk." And the public needs to reject the seductive lie at the heart of authoritarian politics: that the erosion of other people's rights will keep their own secure.
A system that safeguards human rights doesn't endure by accident; it endures because governments and civil society build structures strong enough to outlast any leader. Human rights can survive the Trump Era. But only if we build a world order that is not hostage to Trump or his successors.
***
Original text here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/01/will-human-rights-survive-the-donald-trump-era
N.J. and N.Y. Leagues of Conservation Voters Issue Joint Warning Over Gateway Tunnel Funding
TRENTON, New Jersey, Feb. 1 -- New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, an organization that says it works to elect environmentally responsible candidates to state and local offices, issued the following joint statement on Jan. 30, 2026, by Interim Executive Director Allison McLeod and New York President Julie Tighe about the delay in funding for the Gateway Tunnel project:
* * *
"New Jersey LCV and New York LCV strongly support the Gateway Tunnel Project, a once-in-a-generation investment that is essential to the economic vitality, climate resilience, and public safety of the entire Northeast
... Show Full Article
TRENTON, New Jersey, Feb. 1 -- New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, an organization that says it works to elect environmentally responsible candidates to state and local offices, issued the following joint statement on Jan. 30, 2026, by Interim Executive Director Allison McLeod and New York President Julie Tighe about the delay in funding for the Gateway Tunnel project:
* * *
"New Jersey LCV and New York LCV strongly support the Gateway Tunnel Project, a once-in-a-generation investment that is essential to the economic vitality, climate resilience, and public safety of the entire NortheastCorridor -- a project now well under construction and being built with local union labor.
"The existing Hudson River tunnels are more than a century old, vulnerable to failure, and already a major bottleneck for millions of riders and billions of dollars in economic activity each year. Gateway will modernize critical infrastructure, create thousands of good-paying union jobs, and significantly reduce climate pollution by improving reliable, high-capacity rail service.
"We urge the Trump Administration to continue fully funding the Gateway Tunnel Project and to stop unnecessary delays that only increase costs and risk catastrophic service disruptions. This project is not partisan--it is a shared regional priority that benefits New Jersey, New York, and the nation as a whole. The time to move forward is now."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njlcv.org/news/joint-statement-new-jersey-lcv-interim-executive-director-allison-mcleod-and-new-york-lcv
[Category: Political]
Americans for Tax Reform Issues Commentary: New Census Migration Data Shows Americans Moving From High- to Low-Tax States
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- Americans for Tax Reform issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
New Census Migration Data Shows Americans Moving From High- to Low-Tax States
By Patrick Gleason
The U.S. Census Bureau recently released its annual report on state-to-state migration, which looks at how population changed from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025. In addition to showing national population growth of 1.8 million people, which amounts to a 0.5 percent increase, the new Census documents interstate migration patterns.
Among the 50 states and Washington, D.C., following ten experienced
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- Americans for Tax Reform issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
New Census Migration Data Shows Americans Moving From High- to Low-Tax States
By Patrick Gleason
The U.S. Census Bureau recently released its annual report on state-to-state migration, which looks at how population changed from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025. In addition to showing national population growth of 1.8 million people, which amounts to a 0.5 percent increase, the new Census documents interstate migration patterns.
Among the 50 states and Washington, D.C., following ten experiencedthe greatest population growth last year as a result of domestic net-migration:
1. South Carolina
2. Idaho
3. North Carolina
4. Delaware
5. Tennessee
6. Montana
7. Maine
8. Arkansas
9. New Hampshire
10. Nevada
Meanwhile, the following ten experienced the greatest population loss last year as a result of domestic net-migration:
1. New York
2. Hawaii
3. Alaska
4. District of Columbia
5. California
6. Massachusetts
7. New Jersey
8. Illinois
9. Louisiana
10. Colorado
Some noteworthy trends stand out when comparing the states that gained the most new residents (as a percentage of state population) over the past year as a result of net domestic migration with those that lost the most people. The following breakdown shows that the top states gaining population through net domestic migration have much lower tax rates and lower overall tax burdens than the top 10 losers. What's more, most of the top 10 gainers have a right-to-work law, while only one of the top 10 losers has such a law on the books protecting workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
In Summary:
* The top 10 net domestic migration gainers had an average top marginal income tax rate that is less than half of that for the top 10 net domestic migration losers.
* The average corporate tax rate for the top 10 losers is 43 percent higher than the average rate for the top 10 gainers.
* Average per capita state and local tax collections among the top 10 losers is 60 percent higher than the average for the top 10 gainers.
* Six of the top 10 gainer states are a Right-to-Work state, whereas only one of the top ten loser states has a Right-to-Work law on the books.
Americans have been voting with their feet for many years, with population shifting from high-tax blue states to low-tax red states. The new state-to-state migration data released by the Census Bureau on January 27 shows this trend is continuing unabated.
* * *
Original text here: https://atr.org/new-census-migration-data-shows-americans-moving-from-high-to-low-tax-states/
[Category: Political]
