Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Russia Concerned About Upcoming NPT Review
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by Anna J. Davis, fellow of Eurasia Studies and contributing editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Russia Concerned About Upcoming NPT Review
Executive Summary
* Russia is preparing for the 2026 NPT Review Conference by warning against "politicized" agendas that could challenge its nuclear posture and constrain its freedom of action.
* The Kremlin is appearing concerned about new cooperation among members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), particularly as France is to boost
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by Anna J. Davis, fellow of Eurasia Studies and contributing editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Russia Concerned About Upcoming NPT Review
Executive Summary
* Russia is preparing for the 2026 NPT Review Conference by warning against "politicized" agendas that could challenge its nuclear posture and constrain its freedom of action.
* The Kremlin is appearing concerned about new cooperation among members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), particularly as France is to boostits nuclear arsenal and extend nuclear deterrence arrangements in Europe.
* Russian officials are attempting to shift responsibility for their own nuclear behavior onto Western states while struggling to manage their approach to Iran and escalating nuclear intimidation narratives toward Ukraine and NATO.
The Kremlin is due to approach the upcoming Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) with "a significant number of disagreements" with other signatories, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. On March 24, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Office in Geneva, Gennady Gatilov, expressed visible concern about shifts in the transatlantic nuclear posture ahead of the 2026 NPT Review Conference (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24). The review, which occurs every five years, will take place April 27-May 22 in New York City (United Nations; IAEA, accessed March 24).
The conflict in Iran and France's updated nuclear posture are central points of tension. Russia's state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, is currently evacuating personnel from the Bushehr nuclear power plant (NPP) in Iran, claiming that the United States and Israel have launched strikes targeting the plant (Sputnik; Interfax, March 25). The Kremlin has struggled to respond to the U.S-Israeli strikes beyond narratives that conflict with its own behavior (see EDM, March 2). Moscow has held double standards over strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities compared to the approach it takes toward Ukraine and its ongoing occupation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP (see EDM, June 27, 2025).
Russian officials frequently use fabricated claims to argue that Western states are attempting to reshape the nuclear balance. This allows Moscow to present itself as responding to external pressure rather than initiating escalation. On March 2, French President Emmanuel Macron announced an increase in French warhead numbers and invited European partners to participate in deterrence exercises (President of France, March 2). France and Germany also agreed to set up a "nuclear steering group" to deepen nuclear deterrence cooperation (President of France, March 2). The Kremlin is attempting to depict these moves as destabilizing while ignoring its own escalatory behavior. It frames France's new direction on nuclear deterrence as part of a broader European movement toward a collective nuclear stance that challenges Russian national security and the NPT's non-proliferation aims. Gatilov said that France's intention to increase its nuclear arsenal will "very negatively impact" global disarmament dialogue (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24). Gatilov also rebuked the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe as among the immediate threats to Russia's security.
In February, Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) accused, without evidence, the United Kingdom and France of preparing to secretly transfer a nuclear warhead to Ukraine. The SVR said that it believed the United Kingdom and France could secure more favorable terms for Ukraine in ending the fighting (SVR, February 24). Despite France, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine having rejected the claims, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, threatened the use of Russian nuclear weapons against Ukraine and supplier countries in a "nuclear conflict" (Telegram/@medvedev_telegram, February 24). A former head of the Soviet nuclear and radiation safety inspectorate said that Russia would launch a preemptive strike against the United Kingdom and France in response to such a move (Gazeta, February 24). The Russian nuclear doctrine considers aggression toward Russia by a non-nuclear weapons state that is supported by a nuclear weapons state to be considered a joint attack, thereby justifying a nuclear response (see EDM, December 18, 2025).
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) frontline states, especially Poland and the Baltic countries, are welcoming nuclear cooperation with France possibility given the threat from Russia, as well as interference by the People's Republic of China (PRC) (see EDM, January 16, 30; Euractiv, March 2; TVP World, March 3; LRT, March 5; The Parliament Magazine, March 12; The Baltic Times, March 16). These countries have been directly threatened by Russia's stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus (see EDM, April 17, December 2, 2025). Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed that his country is talking about joining a broader nuclear deterrence initiative with France (TVP World, March 3; see EDM, March 4). Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the Estonian parliament's foreign affairs committee, said that using France's nuclear capability would be the most "logical, fastest, and most cost-effective option" for the foundation of an independent European nuclear deterrent (Politico, February 5).
Russia has consistently escalated its nuclear posture from a predominantly defensive deterrence model toward offensive nuclear deterrence and intimidation since its war against Ukraine began in February 2022 (see EDM, December 18, 2025). Putin frequently signals Russia's commitment to strategic stability without pursuing follow-up actions, such as offering in September 2025 to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) (see EDM, December 18, 2025). The Kremlin later blamed the United States for failing to accept its proposal, since New START expired on February 5 (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 7). Moscow, meanwhile, brings a record of obstruction to nuclear non-proliferation. During the previous NPT Review Conference in August 2022, Russia blocked consensus on any agreed recommendations, preventing states from carrying forward a unified approach to the next cycle (United Nations, August 26, 2022). Russia's subsequent decision to deploy nuclear weapons to Belarus further undermines its claim that it seeks stability.
Russia's attempts to shape the debate ahead of the 2026 NPT Review Conference reveal a broader pattern in which the Kremlin constructs a narrative that shifts responsibility for its nuclear behavior onto other nuclear-weapon states while it avoids accountability for its own actions. The Kremlin's intentions surrounding nuclear weapons are malign and dangerous because it is willing to take risks (see EDM, December 18, 2025). The Kremlin's willingness to manufacture threats and obstruct multilateral processes reflects its discomfort and potential fear of nuclear dynamics that are changing in ways it cannot direct or prevent.
* * *
Anna J. Davis is Fellow of Eurasia Studies at the Jamestown Foundation and a contrinuting editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russia-concerned-about-upcoming-npt-review/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Ethnic Unity Law Codifies 'Chinese' Identity
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by editorial assistant Jonah Reisboard in its China Brief Notes:
* * *
Ethnic Unity Law Codifies 'Chinese' Identity
Executive Summary:
* A new ethnic unity law frames assimilation under a narrow definition of Chinese identity as central to achieving the principal goal of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP): national rejuvenation
* Assimilation is to be effected by eliminating non-Mandarin languages and sinicizing religion, as well as by forging a national consciousness that demands identification
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by editorial assistant Jonah Reisboard in its China Brief Notes:
* * *
Ethnic Unity Law Codifies 'Chinese' Identity
Executive Summary:
* A new ethnic unity law frames assimilation under a narrow definition of Chinese identity as central to achieving the principal goal of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP): national rejuvenation
* Assimilation is to be effected by eliminating non-Mandarin languages and sinicizing religion, as well as by forging a national consciousness that demands identificationwith the CCP, socialism, and the "Chinese [Zhonghua] nation."
* The law responds to Party theorists' critiques of the Soviet Union's failures and codifies their policy recommendations, such as "diluting" ethnic consciousness or "culturalizing" ethnicity.
On March 12, the National People's Congress (NPC) approved the Promotion of Ethnic Unity and Progress Law (Xinhua, March 13). The law mandates patriotic education, the use of Mandarin language in schools and media, and historical preservation in order to promote a unitary "Chinese" national identity. In doing so, it seeks to eliminate alternative identities and assimilate all Chinese citizens to conform with a vision of Chineseness that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sanctions.
As its preamble makes clear, the law's ultimate purpose is to advance the Party's principal goal: national rejuvenation. The dominance of a single "Chinese" identity is critical to this project, as General Secretary Xi Jinping has noted repeatedly. At the Central Conference on Ethnic Affairs in 2021, he said that forging a strong sense of a Chinese community is an "inevitable requirement" for achieving national rejuvenation (Xinhua, August 28, 2021). The ethnic unity law follows this language closely. Its first article states its purpose as "to forge a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation, advance the building of a community for the Chinese nation, and advance national rejuvenation" (Xinhua, March 13).
Historical Foundations Underpin Unity Promotion
Reducing the salience of ethnic identity is central to the goal of national rejuvenation, even as other forms of identity fall victim to the same logic. Party leaders and theorists, including Xi Jinping, see the Soviet Union's collapse as a "cautionary tale", and attribute it in part to lack of social cohesion. They believe that the PRC can avoid the same fate by restricting diverse forms of identity (Party Building Online, January 8, 2018). Ma Rong, who later led a Ministry of Education-funded project on Soviet nationalities policy, wrote in 2004 that the Soviet Union collapsed because "the overlap between ethnic boundaries and administrative boundaries created the politicization of ethnicity and nationalism" (Ma, 2004; Baidu, accessed March 24, 2021)./[1]
Ma advocated for the "culturalization" of ethnicity, which would strip tangible cultural identifiers from ethnic groups while retaining the appearance of pluralism (Ma, 2004). This would entail eliminating non-Mandarin languages and sinicizing religions, two key elements of PRC policy now formalized in the ethnic unity law. The scholars Hu Angang and Hu Lianhe saw similar issues in 2011, blaming Stalin's continuation of what should have been a transitory nationalities policy as the source of failure. They recommended that the PRC "dilute citizens' ethnic consciousness" to avoid a similar fate (Hu and Hu, 2011)./[2]
Xi has translated these perspectives into official policy, but he also carries a unique view of Soviet failure. Highlighting weak political loyalty caused by "historical nihilism", he sees the "repudiation" of Soviet history and the history of the Soviet Communist Party as "a major cause" of its collapse (Party Building Online, January 8, 2018; China Brief, May 28, 2025). Xi has fused his analysis of historical nihilism with that of scholars who pinpoint the threat of ethnic autonomy through the passage of the ethnic unity law, as in the 2025 white paper titled "Guidelines for Governing Xinjiang in the New Era" (China Brief, October 5, 2025). The ethnic unity law acts as a conduit to further center the CCP, thereby addressing concerns around both historical nihilism and ethnic autonomy.
Resisting Alternative Identities
The Party believes that opposing historical nihilism and suppressing ethnic identity both contribute to achieving national rejuvenation. Enshrining these policies in law raises their issue salience for policymakers and Party officials.
Fear of historical nihilism is most clear in the law's provisions on education. Curriculum reform in May 2024 required Chinese university students to study a new textbook titled An Introduction to the Community of the Zhonghua Race, which shifted ethnic discourse from "Communist multiculturalism" toward Han nationalism (China Brief, May 24, 2024). The ethnic unity law expands this discourse and introduces it to students at all levels. Article 11 establishes that forging a national consciousness demands identification with the CCP and socialism, in addition to the "Chinese nation". Article 12 then specifies that "correct" views of the nation can only be achieved through Party-focused education; and Article 16 mandates that this framework must shape all curricula (Xinhua, March 13). Through these three articles, Xi seeks to inoculate the PRC against his diagnosis of the Soviet Union's fatal flaw.
Measures governing language, religious practices, and historical preservation align with Hu Angang and Hu Lianhe's recommendation to "dilute" ethnic consciousness. The law demands that all schools teach in Mandarin and that the state prioritize Mandarin for all official communications, eliminating any remaining linguistic symbols of ethnic identity./[3] It also frames the sinicization of religion as a goal to be accomplished by encouraging patriotism among religious communities, incorporating CCP efforts against historical nihilism as a means to counter distinct ethnic identities (Xinhua, March 13). Provisions on historical preservation, while less overt, follow the same logic. They call on local governments to protect "cultural relics and historical sites", but only those that advance state or Party goals (Xinhua, January 25, 2017; ASPI, September 25, 2020; Xinhua, March 13).
The law, despite its name, appears to advance more than just ethnic unity, as it includes provisions on Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Beijing's recent white paper on "Realizing National Security Under 'One Country, Two Systems' in Hong Kong" indicates that the central government continues to feel insecure about alternative identities, which can be represented by regional pride, non-Mandarin languages, or histories that do not align with official narratives (China Brief, March 6). The new law's section on Taiwan is relatively vague, but it serves as a reminder that the CCP intends to enforce its own laws in Taiwan in a post-unification scenario, just as it has done in recent years in Hong Kong, even under "one country, two systems." Article 20, for instance, states that "parents or guardians shall ... educate and guide children to love the CCP" (Xinhua, March 13). Should the CCP govern Taiwan, parents could face legal consequences if their children expressed Taiwanese identity.
Conclusion
The PRC's new ethnic unity law codifies the state's suppression of ethnic and religious identity in the pursuit of national rejuvenation. Xi clearly sees ethnic unity as a precondition for national rejuvenation, stating at a 2019 ethnic affairs conference that "the people of all ethnic groups being like one family is a fundamental guarantee that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will be realized" (Xinhua, August 25, 2021).
By enshrining these policies in law, Xi Jinping is taking another step toward combating historical nihilism and achieving his ideological ambitions. In doing so, he continues to ensure that unity in the PRC can only come from one source--the Party.
[1] Ma Rong, "Understanding New Thinking on Ethnic Relations: The 'De-Politicization' of Ethnic Minority Problems," Journal of Peking University (Humanities and Social Sciences), no. 6 (2004): 122-133.
[2] Hu Angang and Hu Lianhe, "Second Generation Ethnic Policy: Promoting Ethnic Integration and Shared Prosperity," Xinjiang Normal University Journal (Humanities and Social Sciences), no. 5 (2011).
[3] The law calls on all schools to use Mandarin in classroom instruction and for educational materials, but this has been the official policy in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) since 2010, and in Inner Mongolia since 2020 (CECC, May 10, 2011; Human Rights Watch, March 4, 2020, September 4, 2020). Renewed efforts are likely intended to standardize enforcement within and across regions and provinces.
* * *
Jonah Reisboard is an editorial assistant at the Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/ethnic-unity-law-codifies-chinese-identity/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Approvals for Minnesota's Paid Family and Medical Leave Scheme are Running 30% Above Forecast
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 28 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Approvals for Minnesota's Paid Family and Medical Leave scheme are running 30% above forecast
Since it launched, as and when the data have become available, I have been tracking the performance of Minnesota's Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) scheme against the forecasts on which it is based. Back in 2023, a daily rate of approvals of 352 (128,338 / 365)
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 28 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Approvals for Minnesota's Paid Family and Medical Leave scheme are running 30% above forecast
Since it launched, as and when the data have become available, I have been tracking the performance of Minnesota's Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) scheme against the forecasts on which it is based. Back in 2023, a daily rate of approvals of 352 (128,338 / 365)was forecast.
As of January 12, the actual daily rate of approvals was 550, or 56% above forecast. As I noted at the time, "I expected a surge of applications when the scheme launched and a higher daily rate of approvals because people can take time off in 2026 for events, such as having a child, which occurred in 2025."
By the end of January, the daily approval rate was 442, or 26% above forecast. Noting again that I expected an early surge of applications and approvals, I noted that "the longer the approval rate is above that 352 forecast, the further it will need to fall later to meet it."
By February 15, the daily approval rate was 435, or 24% above forecast. The scheme was moving in the right direction, albeit not quickly enough.
On Monday, the Grand Rapids Herald Review reported that:
"As of March 15, nearly 34,000 Minnesotans have been approved for leave since Minnesota's Paid Leave program began, according to new data release today by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)."
That works out at a daily approval rate of 459 (34,000 / 74), or 30% above forecast. The scheme is now moving in the wrong direction, as Figure 1 shows. To meet the forecast, the daily approval rate would need to drop to 324 immediately. Possible, but not likely.
Figure 1: Average daily approval rate for Paid Family and Medical Leave
"Minnesota Paid Leave is working according to plan," Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Commissioner Matt Varilek was quoted as saying.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/approvals-for-minnesotas-paid-family-and-medical-leave-scheme-are-running-30-above-forecast-2/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Conversation With Partisan Policy Networks Author Zachary Albert (Part 1 of 2)
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following recorded conversation on March 27, 2026, involving senior fellow Michael E. Hartmann and Brandeis University professor Zachary Albert:
* * *
A conversation with Partisan Policy Networks author Zachary Albert (Part 1 of 2)
The Brandeis University professor talks to Michael E. Hartmann about how so many think tanks have become partisan political organizations, including the role of their funding in the process.
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
* * *
Nonprofit public-policy research organizations--"think
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following recorded conversation on March 27, 2026, involving senior fellow Michael E. Hartmann and Brandeis University professor Zachary Albert:
* * *
A conversation with Partisan Policy Networks author Zachary Albert (Part 1 of 2)
The Brandeis University professor talks to Michael E. Hartmann about how so many think tanks have become partisan political organizations, including the role of their funding in the process.
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
* * *
Nonprofit public-policy research organizations--"thinktanks," in common parlance--have become much more politicized, partisan even, than when their creation and financial support were first legislatively incentivized by tax-code provisions. The incentivization was to encourage charity in general--including, relevant to this context in particular, furthering scholarly research to better inform policy debates and formulation.
Institutional and individual donors who fund these think tanks, who almost always benefit from the same or related tax-code provisions in the process, have played and continue to play a large role in creating and maintaining tension with, if not outright divergence from, this original legislative intent.
Zachary Albert's first book, Partisan Policy Networks: How Research Organizations Became Party Allies and Political Advocates, sheds much helpfully refulgent light, including in the form of facts and figures, on these phenomena.
Indicative data
Before a prime example, some necessary boilerplate tax-policy background. Policy-research organizations that seek and achieve the status of a public charity under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sec. 501(c)(3), of course, are subject to limits or outright prohibitions on their lobbying or electioneering efforts in order to get and keep that status. They are tax-exempt, and contributions to them are tax-deductible.
A growing number of these (c)(3) think tanks have created an affiliated entity for which they've sought and achieved the status of a social-welfare group under IRC Sec. 501(c)(4). These (c)(4) groups, according to Internal Revenue Service language that Albert quotes, "may engage in some political activities"--including "direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns"--if such efforts are not their "primary activity." They are tax-exempt too, recall, but contributions to them are not tax-deductible.
"The ability to engage in direct advocacy and activism while still retaining the legal and popular patina of a think tank is highly desirable for policy-demanding groups," Albert writes in Partisan Policy Networks, available at a discount from Penn Press by following these instructions. "For this reason, the tendency to form (or transform into) a politically active do-tank is increasingly pervasive ...."
The below chart, from a sample of 65 influential think tanks he compiled for the book, "shows the share of think tanks founded in each decade that can be considered 'politically active,' meaning they have engaged in lobbying or have an affiliated 501(c)(4)," as described by Albert, an assistant professor of politics at Brandeis University.
Politically active think tanks by founding decade
"The solid line tracks the cumulative percentage of all think tanks considered politically active over time," he continues. "The chart shows that the majority of think tanks founded prior to 1990 did not go on to engage directly in politics, with only two think tanks ... eventually becoming politically active. The vast majority of early think tanks started as and continue to be politically disinterested."
Then, nonprofit "think tanks founded since the 1990s are more likely than not to engage in direct political activism, often but not always through an affiliated advocacy organization," according to Albert.
These organizations are largely ideological and often have partisan policy preferences. There are some notable exceptions ... but in general those that seek to influence the political process in more direct ways also seek to move policy in a specific ideological direction and work through a single political party to do so. The ability to employ advocacy tactics through their affiliated 501(c)(4)s, or just engage in lobbying through their think tanks, allows them to provide direct and indirect subsidies to their preferred party, aid it in their joint policymaking efforts, and act as allies in the partisan policy network.
Later in the work, he also presents and explains data supporting the idea that partisan research organizations "rely far more on ideologically extreme donors, especially individuals."
Albert's next book--Small Donors in the US: Myths & Reality, co-authored with Raymond J. La Raja--will be released later this Spring by The University of Chicago Press.
He was kind enough to join me for a recorded conversation earlier this month. The 16-minute video below is the first part of our discussion; the second is here (https://thegivingreview.com/a-conversation-with-partisan-policy-networks-author-zachary-albert-part-2-of-2/). During the first part, we talk about how so many think tanks have become partisan political organizations, including the role of their funding in the process.
Decline of the technocratic, Progressive vision
Internally and externally, think tanks were originally thought of and seen, as the sayings go, as "ivory towers" or "universities without students." Their changed nature is "part of the broader, I think, decline in this early technocratic vision of what policy research should be, which came out of the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century," Albert tells me. "Of course, these groups were involved in political debates, but they were kind of anti-politics. They were opposed to the horse-trading and compromises and party bossism that dominated the period," and they "believed that you could use objective research to come up with the best solution to policy problems and advocate that in a very technocratic way.
"That started to diminish, that view, especially in the 1970s," he continues. "Conservatives, I think to some degree correctly, saw that technocratic vision as being a big part of the New Deal, as being a big part of liberal policy, and they started creating their own organizations"--reflecting their founders', and their funders', "perspective as being a virtuous corrective to what was going on." Then, "there's a liberal reaction in the early 2000s during the Bush Administration, as well.
"Some of what I document here is basically a path-dependency," Albert says. "There was this proof of concept" with The Heritage Foundation, which
was founded in the 1970s by former Congressional staffers who wanted a think tank that was active in politics, that was useful for politicians, that was meeting their demands and influencing outcomes. That was a highly successful model pretty much from the start. I think a lot of folks just saw that and wanted to start doing that type of stuff, as well.
This relates to patrons who are funding these organizations. They want to see impact increasingly.
Seed money and the light bill
In Partisan Policy Networks, Albert separates "what I would call institutional funders--which are corporations, government, private foundations, other nonprofits, and interest groups, and things like that--from individual donors," Albert tells me. "I separate them because I find that they actually behave in very different ways, and different types of think tanks rely on different sources of money.
"One of the things I look at are the funders of the seed money that helps found these groups," he continues. "The money is given in expectation of some form of politics, some particular viewpoint, and so that has a little bit of a path-dependent effect.
"But then I also look at ongoing fundraising," Albert says. "How do these think tanks keep the lights on, sustain their operations? The big difference that I find between more of the academic model and the more-political model is that the academic groups rely much more on institutional money, even if that money has a viewpoint, has a perspective." Institutional donors don't want research they fund "to be seen as totally biased and disregarded by decision-makers, and so they care about the processes and quality of the research a bit more than a lot of individual donors," often solicited by and responsive to direct-mail appeals or their now more technologized equivalents.
"[G]roups that rely on individual donors are very loud about proclaiming their independence and that they're not able to be bought" and they maintain "[t]here's not pay for 'pay-for-play' going on," he notes. "On the other hand though, right?, they need to keep their donor base happy, just as a political candidate would, as a political party would. So you are maybe replacing one form of bias, an institutional bias, with another--which is a bias towards the preferences of your" individual funders.
"The downside of that is that you are continually producing research products that are very public-facing, that are very short-term-focused, to appeal to the preferences of those individuals," Albert says, and "this is very highly correlated with a much more-partisan and much more-political approach to policy research."
Distinction without a difference, and dismissable decisions
Regarding the book's data about the (c)(3)-(c)(4) distinction--or, lack of one--that is indicative of this approach, "the people I talked to that worked at these places said, effectively, that that makes no difference, they work hand in glove, they're one organization with a common goal," according to Albert. "There's almost no firewall between the activities of the two. It's purely a technical and legal distinction."
Might that thus present a potential avenue for reform? Well, "most folks know next to nothing about think tanks and care even less about them, although that's probably not true of your readers," Albert answers, so it's difficult to interest policymakers in addressing the subject. And if and when "the enforcement agencies are required to make a subjective decision about whether that constitutes political activity that violates the law, it's easy to dismiss their decisions either way as politicized themselves, right?"
In the conversation's second part, he discusses differences in the two parties' policy networks, corporate support of both networks, and how to consider improving the research product available to policymakers and the public, including by strengthening parties.
* * *
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/a-conversation-with-partisan-policy-networks-author-zachary-albert-part-1-of-2/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on March 27, 2026
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on March 27, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on March 27, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) is an advocacy group that promotes state-level weather-dependent energy policies. REAP has previously received funding from the Alaska Conservation Foundation to fund energy initiatives, general operating support, and event planning. REAP has also received funding from the Harder Foundation, the Ocean Conservancy, the Westwind Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, and the Rasmuson Foundation.
* Free America is an activist movement founded by Women's March in 2026 to advocate against the Second Trump administration. The movement began with a series of walkout events in the United States and internationally on January 20, 2026. Free America's demands include "the abolition of ICE," an end to "MAGA's purges and power grabs," and "control over... gender-affirming care." Its listed partners include local chapters of the 50501 Movement and Indivisible, the American Association of University Professors, the Equal Justice Society, and National Nurses United.
* Cook Inletkeeper is an environmental advocacy group that opposes the development of traditional energy projects within Alaska's Cook Inlet watershed. The group has taken part in litigation against such projects with left-of-center groups including Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Cook Inletkeeper has received funding from the New Venture Fund, the World Wildlife Fund, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Harder Foundation, and the True North Foundation.
* Justice and Joy National Collaborative is an activist group that uses community organizing, research, and policy advocacy to "advance social, economic, and political justice with and for girls, young women, and gender-expansive young people of color." Its listed partner groups include the Aspen Institute, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Lake Research Partners, and the Vera Institute of Justice (VIJ). Its current and past funders have included the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the NoVo Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Women's Foundation of Minnesota.
* Voices for Racial Justice (VRJ) is a community activist group based in Minnesota that claims to be the "longest-running racial justice organizing training organization in the state." Initially founded in 1993 as the Organizing Apprenticeship Project, the group later changed its name to VRJ in 2014 to focus on "prioritizing initiatives that directly impacted racial justice movements." VRJ has received funding from the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, the Northwest Area Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Bush Foundation, and the Park Foundation.
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-03-27-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Olympic-Sized Win for Women, But the Fight's Not Over
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on March 27, 2026:
* * *
Olympic-Sized Win for Women, But the Fight's Not Over
The Athletes for America Coalition at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) celebrates the decision by the International Olympic Committee to no longer allow biological men to compete in women's sporting events. This decision was made in order to comply with an executive order signed by President Trump in February of 2025 ahead of the 2028 Olympic Games, which will be hosted in Los Angeles.
AFPI is working tirelessly
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on March 27, 2026:
* * *
Olympic-Sized Win for Women, But the Fight's Not Over
The Athletes for America Coalition at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) celebrates the decision by the International Olympic Committee to no longer allow biological men to compete in women's sporting events. This decision was made in order to comply with an executive order signed by President Trump in February of 2025 ahead of the 2028 Olympic Games, which will be hosted in Los Angeles.
AFPI is working tirelesslyto save women's sports, and level the playing field. AFPI is suing Oregon on behalf of female high school athletes to enforce the President's executive order and keep girls sports exclusively for females.
Frank Murphy, chair of Athletes for America, shared his thoughts on this win for fairness in sports:
"This is a major win for fairness, common sense, and the future of women's sports. As a father of two daughters and a former professional athlete, I've seen firsthand that biological differences between men and women matter in competition. That's not political, that's reality, no matter what you believe.
Women's sports were created to ensure female athletes have the opportunity to compete, earn scholarships, win titles, and pursue careers on a level playing field. Allowing biological males to compete in women's events undermines decades of progress. This decision reflects what most Americans already know: fairness in sports matters, and policies should protect opportunities for women and girls, not take them away."
AFPI's chief legal affairs officer, Leigh Ann O'Neill, applauds this commonsense decision, but highlighted that there is still work to be done:
"I'm relieved to see that women will no longer have their medals stolen by having to compete against men in the Olympics. But the fight is far from over. Our girls are still battling this at the college, high school, and even younger levels. In Oregon, we are proudly representing three young women who have suffered the harms of competing against a male in their high school track competitions."
AFPI will continue fighting to protect fairness for female athletes and keep men out of women's and girls' sports at every level of competition.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/olympic-sized-win-for-women-but-the-fights-not-over
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell - Election Integrity Requires Clear Ballot Deadlines
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on March 27, 2026:
* * *
The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell: Election Integrity Requires Clear Ballot Deadlines
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from the Honorable J. Ken Blackwell, Chair of the Center for Election Integrity, as the Supreme Court weighs Watson v. RNC, a case examining whether states can count ballots received after Election Day:
"Election integrity starts with clear, enforceable rules--and nothing is more basic than a deadline. Requiring all
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on March 27, 2026:
* * *
The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell: Election Integrity Requires Clear Ballot Deadlines
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from the Honorable J. Ken Blackwell, Chair of the Center for Election Integrity, as the Supreme Court weighs Watson v. RNC, a case examining whether states can count ballots received after Election Day:
"Election integrity starts with clear, enforceable rules--and nothing is more basic than a deadline. Requiring allballots to be received by Election Day is just common sense.
As the Supreme Court considers Watson v. RNC, a pivotal case that could define this standard once and for all, Americans deserve to know that every vote counted followed the same rules. It's Election Day--not Election Week, not Election Month, not Election Season. One day, one standard, for everyone."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/ken-blackwell-election-integrity-ballot-deadlines
[Category: ThinkTank]
