Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to New York Post: NY's City Council Members Are Just Begging for Blackouts
NEW YORK, Dec. 30 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Dec. 28, 2025, to the New York Post:
* * *
NY's City Council Members Are Just Begging for Blackouts
By Ken Girardin
On Dec. 18, two government bodies -- one in Albany, the other in Manhattan -- were both holding votes related to New York City's looming electricity shortage.
Unfortunately, one was actively trying to make it worse.
The City Council that day passed Introduction 994, which, beginning in 2030, will require every private landlord, upon a tenant's request, to install air conditioning in
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Dec. 30 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Dec. 28, 2025, to the New York Post:
* * *
NY's City Council Members Are Just Begging for Blackouts
By Ken Girardin
On Dec. 18, two government bodies -- one in Albany, the other in Manhattan -- were both holding votes related to New York City's looming electricity shortage.
Unfortunately, one was actively trying to make it worse.
The City Council that day passed Introduction 994, which, beginning in 2030, will require every private landlord, upon a tenant's request, to install air conditioning inat least one room.
Mayor Eric Adams hasn't yet indicated whether he'll sign or veto the bill before he leaves office this week.
About 9% of New York City homes lack AC -- and while excessive heat indeed carries negative health effects, the council's vote paid short shrift to the question of how the city can power a few hundred thousand additional cooling units during the hottest days of the year.
A "reasonable worst-case" estimate by city officials warning that the measure could push up electricity demand by hundreds of megawatts -- the output of a medium-sized power plant -- got little attention.
Council members saw the concentration of un-air-conditioned units in particular pockets of the city as justification for their vote, rather than a cause for concern about its effect on the grid's reliability.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2025/12/28/opinion/how-nycs-foolish-city-council-puts-the-power-grid-at-risk)
* * *
Ken Girardin is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/nys-city-council-members-are-just-begging-for-blackouts
[Category: ThinkTank]
Federal Appellate Court Upholds Educators' Rights Against Unconstitutional DEI "Training"
PHOENIX, Arizona, Dec. 30 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Federal Appellate Court Upholds Educators' Rights Against Unconstitutional DEI "Training"
*
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals this morning ruled in favor of a group of school employees who argued that their free speech rights were violated when they were forced to endure a DEI "training" session that declared, among other things, that "calling the police on black people" or "treating kids of color as adults" are forms of "white supremacy." Agreeing with arguments that the Goldwater
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, Dec. 30 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Federal Appellate Court Upholds Educators' Rights Against Unconstitutional DEI "Training"
*
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals this morning ruled in favor of a group of school employees who argued that their free speech rights were violated when they were forced to endure a DEI "training" session that declared, among other things, that "calling the police on black people" or "treating kids of color as adults" are forms of "white supremacy." Agreeing with arguments that the GoldwaterInstitute offered in its friend of the court brief, the decision marks a major victory for color-blind justice as well as the free speech rights of government employees.
The saga began when school officials in Springfield, Mo., ordered employees to attend a meeting where they were taught what was then up-to-date social justice dogma: specifically, that America's legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions are saturated with "covert white supremacy"manifested in everything from "claiming reverse-racism" to the idea of "colorblindness." Instructors at the session told attendees that white people are inherently "privileged," and that they were morally obligated to not only to "acknowledge your privileges" but to renounce that "privilege," and to undertake, at all times, to eliminate their inherent, and even subconscious, racism.
Two of the school employees objected to these assertions but were told that their views were "confused and wrong" and that they "needed to work on [themselves]." When they persisted, they were told that their disagreement was like "having a conversation about football and you bring up baseball"whatever that means. In the end, they were forced to shut up and stay silent. Worse, they were required to take a test in which the "correct" answers were those prescribed by DEI orthodoxy. When, for example, one employee was asked on the exam how including DEI concepts in the class will improve the educational environment, she wanted to answer that it does not, because she thinks people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skins. But that was considered an "incorrect" answer.
That's unconstitutional, though: the government isn't allowed to tell people what to believe, or to shut them up when they want to express disagreement. And public school employees have the same constitutional rights as everyone else. While schools can prescribe curricula and teachers can be required to listen quietly to the explanation of concepts they disagree with, they can't be punished for disagreeing or compelled to assert that they do agree.
So, the employees sued. Represented by our friends at the Southeastern Legal Foundation, they argued that the DEI "training" requirementmore accurately labeled an indoctrination sessionviolated their First Amendment rights. Amazingly, the trial judge threw the case out as "frivolous" and punished them by imposing a massive attorney fee award against them. When they appealed, the Goldwater Institute filed a friend of the court brief, joined by the Kansas Justice Institute, the Mississippi Justice Institute, and the Show Me Institute, arguing that in fact DEI is inherently compulsory, because under DEI theory, to disagree with the assertion that white people are inherently racist is automatically deemed racistand being labeled racist is, of course, career suicide for any public school employee.
Today's decision reverses the trial court decision in its entirety. The "training" session, the court explains, forced employees to pledge allegiance to DEI and censored them from expressing their disagreement. Not only did the school district "force acceptance or adoption of the school's views," but it threatened to punish those who voiced oppositioneven while it claimed that they could speak their minds. "The plaintiffs self-censored to avoid negative consequences that the school district itself repeatedly said it would imposethe employee would be asked to leave the training; the employee would not receive credit; and... if this happened, their pay would be docked because completion of the training was mandatory."
The decision is a major win for public school employees who for years now have been forced to sit silently through DEI lectures that assert that the ideal of colorblindness is racist, and that America is a fundamentally racist nation. Coming on the heels of the closure of Ibram Kendi's "Center for Antiracist Research" at Boston University and significant changes in the DEI programs at some 400 other colleges nationwide, the ruling is an important signal that Americans are fed up with the reverse-racism that recently dominated cultural discourse.
That doesn't mean DEI is deadon the contrary, much remains to be done, as many institutions are simply "rebranding" the dogma to call it by a different name. That's why states need to implement the Goldwater Institute's Freedom from Indoctrination Act. But today's victory is a critical step out of a perverse ideology that destroys equality in the name of fairness.
You can read the ruling here and the Goldwater Institute's amicus brief here.
Timothy Sandefur is the Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/federal-appellate-court-upholds-educators-rights-against-unconstitutional-dei-training/
Victory! Oregon Bar Cannot Compel Lawyers' Speech
PHOENIX, Arizona, Dec. 29 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Victory! Oregon Bar Cannot Compel Lawyers' Speech
*
No one should be barred from their profession simply for refusing to subsidize speech they disagree with. This month, after more than six years of litigation, the Goldwater Institute secured a victory for that key principle of economic liberty when the U.S. District Court in Oregon entered a final judgement in favor of two lawyers who argued that they shouldn't be forced to support speech by the state bar that they disapprove of.
It
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, Dec. 29 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Victory! Oregon Bar Cannot Compel Lawyers' Speech
*
No one should be barred from their profession simply for refusing to subsidize speech they disagree with. This month, after more than six years of litigation, the Goldwater Institute secured a victory for that key principle of economic liberty when the U.S. District Court in Oregon entered a final judgement in favor of two lawyers who argued that they shouldn't be forced to support speech by the state bar that they disapprove of.
Itbegan in 2017 when the Oregon State Bara glorified trade association Oregon-licensed lawyers are forced to joinpublished a lengthy statement in its flagship magazine associating then-President Donald Trump with violence and white nationalism. The bar's statement bothered many lawyers in the state because their bar dues subsidized its publication and their compelled membership associated them with the message.
Daniel Crowe and Lawrence Peterson, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonels and Oregon lawyers, objected. In 2018, Goldwater filed a lawsuit on their behalf and on behalf of Oregon Civil Liberties Attorneys, a group which included other like-minded Oregon lawyers. Crowe and Peterson argued that the bar violated their First Amendment rights because their mandatory bar dues and membership constituted "compelled speech" and "compelled association," two things the government should not be able to force upon you absent a very good reason.
The bar claimed that all its actions, including its Trump statement, were justified because they pertained to the bar's role in "regulating lawyers." The U.S. District Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.
During the "discovery" phase of the lawsuit, Goldwater attorneys reviewed more than 100,000 pages of records and obtained testimony from bar officials. They discovered that the bar's anti-Trump statement was hardly unusualthe bar regularly published materials with an ideological slant, all under the guise of "regulating lawyers." Moreover, the bar lobbied for and against bills before the Oregon legislature, with the subject matter of many of those bills having nothing to do with the bar's regulatory role. That means that Oregon lawyers, even those that might be members of the legislature itself perhaps even bill sponsorswere forced to subsidize lobbying efforts that might work contrary to their personal views.
After the discovery phase, the U.S. District Court dismissed the case again. But Crowe and Peterson soldiered on and the case went to the Ninth Circuit for a second time.
In 2024six years after the case was filedthe Ninth Circuit issued its opinion, holding that the bar violated Crowe and Petersons' First Amendment rights when it published its anti-Trump statement. The case then went back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings about the appropriate remedy.
But disputes continued in the remedies phase. The bar wanted any final judgment to include provisions that would insulate it from similar, future challenges through a "disclaimer" requirement; a kind of "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Essentially, the bar contended that it would cure any future First Amendment issues by stating that its actions were not necessarily the views of all its members, or "licensees." But Goldwater and its clients fought on, insisting that the bar's activities must be directly related and tailored to its claimed need to regulate lawyersin their capacity as lawyersand the proposed "disclaimer" could not have cured the plaintiffs' injury. At last, the bar relented.
The victory not only vindicates Crowe and Peterson's constitutional rights but sends a strong message to other states that require lawyers to join mandatory bar associations. Those associations should not, and cannot, act as trade associations that lobby and pontificate on fashionable issues unrelated to their strictly regulatory role.
Mandatory bar associations should know that the Goldwater Institute stands ready to challenge them if they do, and is ready for the fight, however long it takes.
Read more about the case here.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/victory-oregon-bar-cannot-compel-lawyers-speech/
2025 Was A Year of Liberty in Action
PHOENIX, Arizona, Dec. 29 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
2025 Was A Year of Liberty in Action
*
If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that woke activists, leftist leaders, and entrenched bureaucrats will stop at nothing to maintain their iron grip on government. That's why the Goldwater Institute is fighting in state courts, legislatures, and communities nationwide to advance, defend, and strengthen the freedom guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and the fifty states. And we're winning.
In our newly released 2025 Liberty
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, Dec. 29 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
2025 Was A Year of Liberty in Action
*
If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that woke activists, leftist leaders, and entrenched bureaucrats will stop at nothing to maintain their iron grip on government. That's why the Goldwater Institute is fighting in state courts, legislatures, and communities nationwide to advance, defend, and strengthen the freedom guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and the fifty states. And we're winning.
In our newly released 2025 Libertyin Action Annual Report, we look back at our year of victories as we chart our course for 2026. You can view the full report below or download it here.
In 2025, the Goldwater Institute achieved victories for freedom across the country. We enacted nearly 50 laws, including measures to root out DEI from public universities, to protect individuals' right to try cutting-edge treatments, and to ensure hard working Americans are free to practice their professions without first begging the government for permission.
Goldwater scholars worked with K-12 schools and universities to restore the teaching of America's founding principles. Our attorneys are engaged in 40 active lawsuits and have defended parents' rights, stood up for the freedom of speech, upheld the right to bear arms, and fought government overreach.
Every single day, with your generous support, the Goldwater Institute is fighting to empower all Americans to live freer, happier lives, so that we can remain the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/2025-was-a-year-of-liberty-in-action/
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary: Ukraine Military Situation Report - Critical Trends From 2025
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 (TNSxrep) -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 24, 2025:
* * *
Ukraine Military Situation Report | Critical Trends from 2025
By Can Kasapoglu
Key Trends
* The Kursk incursion: North Korean support in the Russian region of Kursk helped erase Ukraine's brief territorial hold--and Kyiv's diplomatic insurance.
* Expanded Russian drone production: Russia heightened the operational tempo of its drone warfare operations, driven largely by increased production
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 (TNSxrep) -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 24, 2025:
* * *
Ukraine Military Situation Report | Critical Trends from 2025
By Can Kasapoglu
Key Trends
* The Kursk incursion: North Korean support in the Russian region of Kursk helped erase Ukraine's brief territorial hold--and Kyiv's diplomatic insurance.
* Expanded Russian drone production: Russia heightened the operational tempo of its drone warfare operations, driven largely by increased productionof Iran-designed Shahed systems.
* Russian drones threaten Europe: Moscow probed North Atlantic Treaty Organization airspace with drone incursions.
* Ukraine strikes sanctioned tankers: Kyiv grew the geographic scope of its maritime pressure on Russia, striking a shadow fleet vessel in the Mediterranean.
* Counter-drone developments: A volunteer drone warfare group called the Wild Hornets developed a cost-effective Shahed-killer drone, presaging the future of Ukrainian air defenses.
1. Russia and North Korea Recapture Kursk
In spring 2025, Russian forces backed by the elite North Korean 11th Corps recaptured Kursk. Kyiv's control of the enclave was its main leverage against being forced into ceding territory to achieve a frozen conflict, or worse.
The joint counteroffensive marked a significant escalation in North Korea's involvement. The hermit kingdom moved from arms transfers and advisory support to active involvement in combat operations. In 2026 North Korea could further expand its involvement and even deploy troops in Ukraine.
2. Shahed Drones Shape the Battle Space
In the second half of 2025 Russia launched over five thousand Shahed-type drones per month at Ukrainian population centers and critical infrastructure--double its 2024 operational tempo. Images suggest Moscow has significantly grown its Alabuga drone plant and developed new manufacturing sites across Russia.
Russia further advanced its drone warfare model, which relies heavily on mass deployment of these low-cost airframes. The most notable developments were the additions of thermobaric warheads, cluster-munition payloads, and R-60 air-to-air missiles. While the model's strength lies in its ability to impose sustained attrition at a favorable cost ratio, these technological innovations expanded the Russian drone threat in Ukraine and beyond.
3. Russia Probes NATO Airspace
In September about 20 Russian unmanned aerial vehicles, which North Atlantic Treaty Organization sources assessed to be Shahed decoys known as Gerberas, entered Polish airspace. The incident prompted a high-profile response from Polish and NATO forces, including Dutch F-35 aircraft, a German Patriot air and missile defense battery, and supporting airborne early warning and control (AWACS) and aerial refueling platforms under NATO command.
This probing mission gave the Russian military valuable operational insight. It allowed Moscow to observe NATO's response times, command coordination, quick reaction alert procedures, and escalation thresholds. The incident also had political consequences. It sped up policy debates within the European Union on a layered air defense project known as the drone wall.
This drone incursion was the war's most significant kinetic spillover into NATO territory thus far. It reflected a deliberate escalation by Moscow and signaled that the alliance should not take for granted that the conflict will be confined to Ukraine's borders.
4. Russia's Rubicon Center Advances Drone Operations
In August 2024, by order of Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, the Russian Ministry of Defense established the Rubicon Center to formalize drone warfare lessons from Ukraine. The center sought to move beyond dispersed, tactical experimentation to grow the importance of robotic warfare in Russia's conventional force structure.
Rubicon's main mission is to train drone operators for combat roles and innovate new drone warfare systems to shape novel concepts of operations (CONOPS). Rubicon is not a special forces unit. Instead, it focuses on standardization, doctrine development, and scalability across the Russian military. It also serves as a development hub, testing new drone systems, refining operational art, and researching artificial intelligence in robotic warfare.
Rubicon played a key role in targeting Ukrainian drone operators, enhancing unmanned systems capabilities, and integrating drones across the Russian Armed Forces. But the center's impact extends beyond the invasion of Ukraine. In 2026 Rubicon's influence on Russian drone warfare is likely to increase significantly, posing a broader threat to NATO nations and other US allies.
5. Ukraine Takes Maritime Drone Strikes to the Mediterranean
Since late 2022 Russia has built a shadow shipping network of hundreds of vessels, which now transports about 3.7 million barrels of oil per day. This represents roughly 65 percent of its seaborne exports and generates $87 to $100 billion of annual revenue--more than the total economic and military aid the West has provided to Ukraine since the war began.
In December Ukraine escalated its campaign against Russia's crucial hydrocarbon revenues by targeting sanctions-evading shadow fleet tankers in the Mediterranean. This incident marked a significant expansion in the geographic scope of Kyiv's maritime pressure. Ukrainian forces used unmanned aerial systems in a multi-stage operation to strike the Oman-flagged crude oil tanker Qendil, demonstrating a limited but vital ability to project force far from Ukrainian territory. By operating in the Mediterranean, Ukraine signaled that Russian vessels can no longer rely on distance for protection. In 2026 Ukraine is likely to keep targeting this maritime revenue system.
6. Kyiv Begins to Reverse Shahed Drone Dominance
Ukraine produced and deployed the STING counter-drone system, developed by the Wild Hornets volunteer group. STING is designed to restore balance to the cost equation, enabling Ukraine to counter mass drone attacks without depleting high-end missile stocks.
The STING system successfully targeted thousands of Shahed drones, including jet-powered variants. In 2026 groups like the Wild Hornets are likely to develop and proliferate more such systems, which Ukraine will integrate more closely into its layered air defense networks.
* * *
Can Kasapoglu is a nonresident senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/ukraine-military-situation-report-critical-trends-2025-can-kasapoglu
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Free Press: U.S. Needs Israeli Innovation for Our Defense
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 24, 2025, to the Free Press:
* * *
The US Needs Israeli Innovation for Our Defense
Without Israeli experience, technology, and collaboration, the US will be less safe.
By Michael Doran
At the Turning Point USA conference in Phoenix last week, the mood was combative.
MAGA strategist and organizer Steve Bannon accused Ben Shapiro of being "Israel First" and of pushing a "Greater Israel" agenda that "drags the United
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 24, 2025, to the Free Press:
* * *
The US Needs Israeli Innovation for Our Defense
Without Israeli experience, technology, and collaboration, the US will be less safe.
By Michael Doran
At the Turning Point USA conference in Phoenix last week, the mood was combative.
MAGA strategist and organizer Steve Bannon accused Ben Shapiro of being "Israel First" and of pushing a "Greater Israel" agenda that "drags the UnitedStates into wars." He called Shapiro "a cancer." This exchange typified the conflict within the MAGA movement between those that see Israel as an ally and those that see it as a liability.
No media figure has done more to advance the idea of Israel as a liability than Tucker Carlson. Speaking at the Qatari-government-funded Doha Forum earlier this month, Carlson dismissed Israel as "a completely insignificant country" with "no resources," and argued that the United States has "no overriding strategic interest" in the relationship, asking, "What are we getting out of this?"
Carlson's question has several answers.
One of them is already very familiar to Americans: Iron Dome. Developed by Israelis under constant rocket fire and co-funded by the United States, the Iron Dome demonstrated how civilian populations can be protected at scale from barrages of rockets from Lebanon and Gaza.
For decades, the U.S.-Israel partnership has delivered significant returns: providing the United States with world-leading defense innovation and access to intelligence from across the Middle East.
President Donald Trump's Golden Dome is the latest--and most consequential--expression of that same partnership. Announced by executive order at the end of January, Trump's signature homeland defense initiative is a layered architecture designed to protect the American heartland from ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, and emerging aerial threats.
Golden Dome is not a theoretical exercise. Its purpose is to ensure American survivability under attack. In building such a system, the United States is drawing directly on Israeli technology, Israeli expertise, and Israeli combat experience.
Israel contributes to the Golden Dome in three decisive ways. It provides mature, combat-tested interception technologies. It supplies real combat data generated under sustained missile and drone assault--data no test range or simulation can replicate. And it offers a strategic framework forged under existential pressure. Together, these contributions accelerate development, reduce risk, and close gaps the United States has struggled to address on its own.
The roots of this partnership lie in a strategic division of labor that began in the Cold War. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan invited Israel into the Strategic Defense Initiative at a moment when American missile defense development was effectively frozen.
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty constrained deployment, research, and political imagination. Missile defense became legally fraught and politically radioactive inside the American system, and serious development stalled.
Israel faced no such constraints. It was not bound by the ABM Treaty. It was not immobilized by arms-control orthodoxy. It confronted real missiles from real adversaries. After the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraqi Scuds fell on Israeli cities, interception became a survival requirement rather than an academic debate. Reagan's decision allowed Israel to develop capabilities the American system could not pursue at the time. Those gains were shared fully with the United States and continue to be shared to this day.
The Arrow missile family--jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing--anchors the upper tiers of emerging homeland defense architectures. Arrow 3 is one of the most advanced exo-atmospheric interceptors in the world and has already proven itself against Iranian and proxy threats. It employs hit-to-kill technology designed to defeat complex salvos under real combat conditions.
Israel is also developing Arrow 4, a system designed to intercept hypersonic and maneuvering reentry vehicles. These weapons represent the most acute vulnerability in current American missile defenses. Once again, Israel is advancing capabilities under pressure that the United States needs but cannot rapidly generate within its own political and institutional timelines.
Below the exo-atmospheric layer, joint programs such as David's Sling address medium-range missiles and cruise threats and integrate seamlessly into U.S. command-and-control networks. At the lowest tier, Israel's work on directed-energy weapons may prove transformative. Iron Beam, a laser system that has entered combat service in Israel, promises interception costs measured in tens of dollars rather than hundreds of thousands. Adapted for homeland defense, such systems address the core economic problem: attacking with missiles is cheap; intercepting them is expensive.
Israel also provides something equally valuable: real-life combat experience at scale. During the June 2025 war with Iran, the Islamic Republic launched hundreds of ballistic missiles and more than a thousand drones at Israel, the largest coordinated missile assault in history. Israel intercepted most of the incoming ordnance, but the conflict exposed limits. Interceptor stockpiles ran low. Some missiles penetrated defenses.
Those lessons now shape Golden Dome's design. Israeli experience informs decisions about stockpile depth, threat prioritization, and the integration of kinetic and non-kinetic defenses. Refinements in electronic warfare demonstrate how threats can be defeated without firing a shot. No simulation can substitute for this data.
Israel's broader strategic approach also matters. Its defenses are designed to protect population centers and critical infrastructure while imposing prohibitive costs on attackers. They do not seek perfect coverage. Golden Dome adopts the same logic at continental scale, prioritizing resilience and sustainability over theoretical completeness.
Golden Dome also reveals a deeper truth missed by critics of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israel functions across multiple domains of national security as an operational component of American power. It helps the United States develop, refine, and validate capabilities that cannot always be generated domestically. When Israel innovates under fire, American cities become safer.
The campaign to portray Israel as a strategic liability corrodes American power. In an era of great-power competition, adversaries test the United States by eroding alliance cohesion and legitimacy. They reframe proven assets as burdens. Weakening the partnership behind Arrow and Iron Beam directly degrades American defensive capacity.
The implications extend far beyond the Middle East. In its rivalry with China, the United States holds a decisive structural advantage, namely, its web of global alliances. China has few genuine allies. The durability of American alliances under sustained pressure will shape the outcome of the 21st century's defining strategic contest. Israel plays an outsize role within that system. It fields advanced capabilities under real threat, accelerates innovation at lower cost, and absorbs regional shocks that would otherwise consume American attention and resources. Efforts to weaken the U.S.-Israel relationship therefore advance Beijing's interests by narrowing America's coalition and degrading the mechanisms through which U.S. power is generated.
Critics who argue for distancing the U.S. from Israel implicitly assume that the strategic environment would remain unchanged. International politics does not work that way. It operates less like a balance sheet and more like a game of chess. Moving a major piece does not affect only a single square. It changes the configuration of the entire board and creates opportunities for alert competitors. That pattern is already visible across the Middle East, where Gulf partners increasingly hedge toward China to manage risk. Israel has behaved differently. A small state with unusually concentrated capabilities, it aligned with the United States by choice rather than necessity. Treating Israel as a liability would alter that alignment. Israel would be forced to hedge as well.
China would benefit directly. Through calibrated cooperation, Israel would place intelligence access, cyber expertise, advanced defense technologies, and operational military experience at Beijing's disposal. Preventing that outcome is a core American interest. Severing ties with one of America's most capable partners reflects a failure of strategic realism. It would leave the United States more isolated in the contest that will determine its position in the international system.
What critics miss is that Golden Dome does not make the United States dependent on Israel; it reflects a partnership in which American security is strengthened precisely because innovation is forged where missiles actually fall.
The United States does not defend itself by turning inward. Israel's critics argue that being America First requires disengagement beyond U.S. borders. But America's partnership with Israel is mutually beneficial and will only make Americans safer.
Read in The Free Press (https://www.thefp.com/p/the-us-needs-israeli-innovation-for).
* * *
Michael Doran is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/us-needs-israeli-innovation-our-defense-michael-doran
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Thoughts on Philanthropy From Books Featured in The Giving Review in 2025
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Dec. 24, 2025, to the Giving Review:
* * *
Thoughts on philanthropy from books featured in The Giving Review in 2025
An end-of-year collection of interesting and insightful passages.
By Michael E. Hartmann
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
***
Foreign agents and American nonprofits
American lobbyists Ivy Lee and Paul Manafort each contributed to nothing less than "the transformation of American industries." Their work made industries and tax-exempt nonprofits "into platforms
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Dec. 24, 2025, to the Giving Review:
* * *
Thoughts on philanthropy from books featured in The Giving Review in 2025
An end-of-year collection of interesting and insightful passages.
By Michael E. Hartmann
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
***
Foreign agents and American nonprofits
American lobbyists Ivy Lee and Paul Manafort each contributed to nothing less than "the transformation of American industries." Their work made industries and tax-exempt nonprofits "into platformsfor foreign governments trying to upend and redirect American policy.
...
"[F]or three-quarters of a century" following passage of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), it was "all but forgotten and ignored," and "that lack of enforcement ushered in an explosion of foreign agents who saturated Washington, all in the secret service of foreign benefactors around the world." FARA became "the most disappointing--and most frustrating, and neglected--piece of lobbying restrictions the nation had ever known.
...
"[B]y the end of the Cold War--fully a half-century after FARA promised to finally shine light on the foreign lobbying and foreign influence campaigns targeting Americans--FARA was little more than a shell of its former self. It was an afterthought. A backwater. Something the DOJ rarely considered, let alone enforced. Few were even familiar with FARA, or why successfully implementing and enforcing it would actually matter."
...
The Fighting Foreign Influence Act "contains some of boldest proposals the country has ever seen. ... Think tanks, universities, foundations, all those American nonprofits processing millions (and potentially more) in wealth linked to foreign regimes, all as a means of opening doors to U.S. policymakers, would finally have to disclose how much they've taken in ...
[I]t is Congress that stands as arguably the last, best hope at preventing Washington from drowning in this flood of foreign lobbying."
- Casey Michel, Foreign Agents: How American Lobbyists and Lawmakers Threaten Democracy Around the World, reviewed in "Foreign agents and American nonprofits," January 21, 2025
***
Professional-class liberalism's "philanthropic governance"
Post-New Deal, "the demographic growth of the professional middle class also meant that professional-class liberals' life experiences, political cultures, and professional outlooks were reflected back to them by an increasingly vocal and well-resources plurality within the Democratic Party's base and from within institutions of profound social, economic, and political influence, chiefly philanthropy, media, and universities. Professional-class liberals, then, emerged as political and state actors whose training, instincts, and social worlds were increasingly embedded in and defined by the globalized, financial, legalistic, and managerial capitalist systems they imagined themselves reforming."
- Brent Cebul and Lily Geismer, "Introduction," in Mastery and Drift: Professional-Class Liberals Since the 1960s, reviewed in "Professional-class liberalism's 'philanthropic governance,'" May 12, 2025
"A bevy of anti-regulatory, pro-market, and state-shrinking measures endorsed across party lines from the 1970s through the 1990s smoothed the way for the rise of philanthropic governance. Together, they directed public funds and plaudits toward private foundations and other philanthropic bodies.
"By the final decades of the twentieth century, the logic and structure of philanthropy had permeated every realm of American power, from domestic and foreign policies to corporate practices to grassroots politics. In other words, no domain of American power operated bereft of the capital and logic of philanthropy. This fact served to lash together disparate political actors from the left and the right, who no matter their policy divisions all conceded to--and often lauded--philanthropic governance.
...
"In its bid to solve liberalism's most fundamental tension between private property and the public good, philanthropy made liberalism appear perfectible, but it did so by destroying liberalism's lifeblood: the vital tension between the private and the public.
...
"It is conceivable that philanthropy will weather the changes--or, even, that it is already funding them--but if it continues to serve as a governing strategy, it will almost surely be absent the liberal vision that crowned it king of the last century."
- Lila Corwin Berman, "How Philanthropy Made and Unmade American Liberalism," in Mastery and Drift: Professional-Class Liberals Since the 1960s, reviewed in "Professional-class liberalism's 'philanthropic governance,'" May 12, 2025
***
National Review's founding funding plan
"No one could honestly object to a liberal magazine that subsisted on charity. It was fully in keeping with the 'statism' of the New Deal programs The New Republic had supported. But Buckley had promised something different. 'The only weekly of opinion that stands on the side of free enterprise' would itself live out the free-market creed. It would be something new: a serious political journal that sustained itself fiscally. Buckley even promised that it would turn a profit.
...
"David Lawrence, the conservative columnist who also the founding editor of U.S. News & World Report, advised WFB to set up his magazine as a nonprofit and seek donors willing to absorb losses."
- Sam Tanenhaus, Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America, reviewed in "Buckley and Buckley offer insights from founding funding plan for National Review," July 14, 2025
***
Philanthropy, Frank S. Meyer, and fusionism
"In early 1954, the William Volker Fund agreed to pay" Frank S. Meyer "$1,000, and, more significantly, subscribe him to scores of scholarly journals, to act as a scout of sorts for the philanthropy. ... One of the talents Volker identified in Meyer's reviewing scholarship was Meyer" himself.
He "parlayed this relationship into stronger connections and more money. He had petitioned Volker to award him a grant for a history of the United States from a libertarian perspective that he had begun as the 1940s transitioned to the 1950s coeval with the anti-Communist Democrat Meyer's transformation into a right-wing Republican. Harold Luhnow, the nephew of the charity's last namesake, informed him in July 1954 of $9,500 awarded toward the project.
"The money validated Frank. His ego needed it less than his bank account."
As Meyer began working for the Volker Fund, it "soon took intense notice of another of Meyer's projects that eventually joined the auspicious list" of its grantees. ...
In June 1955, just as Meyer's controversial "Collectivism Rebaptized" article was published, the Fund wrote him: "The Directors of the Volker Fund have approved your request for a postponement of the one-year renewal of the grant for the book on American history" and "[w]e have acted favorably on your request for a grant of $4,750 for the preparation of a book on the New Conservatism during the next six months."
Years later, both works ultimately were published, the latter of which laid the intellectual foundation for conservative "fusionism."
- Daniel J Flynn, The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer, reviewed in "Philanthropy and The Man Who Invented Conservatism," July 29, 2025
***
Rules of the road for nonprofit leaders
Overall, entities categorized as nonprofits under Internal Revenue Code Sec. 501(c)(3) unfortunately operate within "an outdated, complex, one-size-fits-all, and negative legal framework, which is further complicated by outmoded professional practices." For leaders of these nonprofits, there are eight good precepts to follow even external to the context of any specific legal situation or questions that may arise. Adhering to them, however, will likely help avoid legal problems. They are:
"1. Keep the mission front and center.
"2. Govern wisely.
"3. Fill the coffers.
"4. Go into business?
"5. Treat your friends and colleagues well--just not too well.
"6. Advocate for your cause.
"7. Complete the paperwork.
"8. Know how to change course."
- Elizabeth M. Schmidt, Rules of the Road for Nonprofit Leaders: Using the Law to Achieve Your Mission, reviewed in "Rules of the Road for Nonprofit Leaders is helpful, common-sense, plain-English legal primer," August 4, 2025
***
Philanthropy and the making of the MAGA New Right
"One of the most frustrating things about politics today--and here I am thinking about the New Right mainly, but certainly not exclusively--is the amount of money, energy, and talent that it churns through, wasted, when there is always so much to be done."
...
The Claremont Institute "has certainly benefited from its populist pivot. Its profile rose sharpy, in some quarters, since its turn to Trumpism, and its donor base expanded.
...
"Generally speaking, those on the New Right who formed the activist arm of the movement (and so also those who were more beholden to donors and the right-wing base) tended to side with Ukraine and the American establishment's support for it."
...
Postliberals "are not beholden to GOP donors, or to the GOP base. Which means that, with the exception of their influence on JD Vance, they have been the least influential thinkers of the New Right."
...
The American Enterprise Institute headquarters is "one of those places that feels overflowing with money: The building is gorgeous and the art is real."
- Laura K. Field, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right, reviewed in "Philanthropy and Furious Minds,"November 10, 2025
* * *
Michael E. Hartmann is CRC's senior fellow and director of the Center for Strategic Giving, providing analysis of and commentary about philanthropy and giving. He also co-edits The Giving Review, a joint project of Philanthropy Daily and the Center for Strategic Giving.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/thoughts-on-philanthropy-from-books-featured-in-the-giving-review-in-2025/
[Category: ThinkTank]
