Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Local Authorities in Germany Make Proposals for Reducing Bureaucracy
MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 21 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Local Authorities in Germany Make Proposals for Reducing Bureaucracy
Financial managers in German cities and municipalities see a need for improvement in the allocation of state funding. That's according to an analysis by the ifo Institute from the KfW Municipal Panel. "Treasurers in Germany are particularly often in favor of simpler application procedures and fewer reporting and documentation requirements," says Sarah Necker, Director of the Ludwig Erhard ifo Center for the Social Market Economy in
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 21 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Local Authorities in Germany Make Proposals for Reducing Bureaucracy
Financial managers in German cities and municipalities see a need for improvement in the allocation of state funding. That's according to an analysis by the ifo Institute from the KfW Municipal Panel. "Treasurers in Germany are particularly often in favor of simpler application procedures and fewer reporting and documentation requirements," says Sarah Necker, Director of the Ludwig Erhard ifo Center for the Social Market Economy inFurth.
Public funding programs play a central role in financing municipal investments. Almost 90 percent of all local authorities rely on funding from the German government, the individual German states, and the EU. Overall, funding accounts for a fifth of all municipal investments. "The complex requirements of the funding process pose challenges for local authorities. They are extensive and, in the view of many local authorities, disproportionate to the funding rate. Added to that is the uncertainty as to whether submitted applications will actually be approved," says Necker.
Just under half of the treasurers surveyed (48 percent) emphasize the desire for a simple application process. Every third response (33 percent) mentions simplified documentation requirements and abolishing detailed reporting obligations at the end of the funding process. Slightly less than a third (31 percent) state that funding guidelines are often too complex. One in five respondents would like to see more flexibility in the use of funds and deadlines (22 percent), as well as faster processing and approval (20 percent). While many responses are formulated in neutral terms, the wording of some responses indicates that the local authorities perceive the bureaucracy in the funding process as burdensome. "Reducing bureaucracy won't be achieved through blanket demands but rather by addressing concrete measures in detail. Many answers provide starting points for that," says Necker.
The respondents mentioned the following less frequently: longer application deadlines (18 percent), good accessibility of contact persons (15 percent) and less own funds for funding programs (14 percent). 12 percent of treasurers criticize the first come, first served principle, whereby funds are allocated according to the order in which applications are received. Only 11 percent think that funding programs should focus more on local requirements.
The study is based on open text responses from 509 financial managers (treasuries) from the KfW Municipal Panel 2025 on the topic of funding programs. The KfW Municipal Panel is a Germany-wide representative survey of cities, municipalities and districts with more than 2,000 inhabitants. It has been held annually since 2009. As part of the survey, key figures and assessments of the local authorities' financial situation and investments are collected. The special questions on funding were about funding programs, in other words, earmarked subsidies or grants from the public budget, and explicitly not about development loans from development banks such as KfW, or the regional development banks, or municipal financial equalization.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Was offentliche Forderprogramme praktikabel macht: Zehn Kriterien aus der Perspektive kommunaler Kammerer
Sebastian Blesse, Malte Borghorst-Dilangu, Stefanie Brilon, Sarah Necker, Christian Raffer
ifo Schnelldienst, 2026, 79, Nr. 2 48-55
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publikationen/2026/aufsatz-zeitschrift/was-oeffentliche-foerderprogramme-praktikabel-macht-zehn-kriterien)
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Schnelldienst 02/2026: Narratives as a management tool
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/journal-complete-issue/ifo-schnelldienst-022026-narratives-management-tool)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-02-20/local-authorities-germany-make-proposals-reducing-bureaucracy
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Scholars React to the Supreme Court's Ruling on Trump Tariffs
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on Feb. 20, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Scholars React to the Supreme Court's Ruling on Trump Tariffs
Today, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's authority to use tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in its ruling on Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump.
Stefan Padfield, a principal of the Free Enterprise Initiative at The Heritage Foundation and senior legal fellow, made the following statement:
"President Trump imposed across-the-board tariffs to get countries that impose trade barriers
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on Feb. 20, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Scholars React to the Supreme Court's Ruling on Trump Tariffs
Today, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's authority to use tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in its ruling on Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump.
Stefan Padfield, a principal of the Free Enterprise Initiative at The Heritage Foundation and senior legal fellow, made the following statement:
"President Trump imposed across-the-board tariffs to get countries that impose trade barriersagainst American companies and workers to come to the table and is negotiating tariff and trade deals on a country-by-country basis. The president is the ultimate dealmaker because he uses every tool available. Although the decision takes away one tool, as Justice Kavanaugh lays out in his dissent, it is ultimately a speed bump because the president can likely still end up roughly where he wants to go on tariffs using other legal authorities, but it will just take longer to get there.
"While the Court has ruled the President cannot use IEEPA to implement tariffs, Congress has delegated similar authority via the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301), the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232), the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338), and the Trading with the Enemy Act, which have more procedural hurdles to clear, but can be used to make our international trade relationships freer, fairer, and more secure."
EJ Antoni, PhD, acting director of Heritage's Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and chief economist, added:
"In light of this decision, we strongly encourage Congress to get off the sidelines and work with the White House to make America more competitive by rebalancing international commerce, achieving freer, fairer, and more secure trade. Likewise, Congress should build on the OBBB Act to make more reforms to regulation, taxation, and spending since government overreach in these areas has been the primary drag on our economy."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-scholars-react-the-supreme-courts-ruling-trump-tariffs
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on Feb. 20, 2026
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Feb. 20, 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, Feb. 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Feb. 20, 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:
* The Center for American Liberty (CAL) is a right-of-center organization that engages in public advocacy and litigation on cases related to freedom of speech, religious freedoms, parental rights, and claims of discrimination. It has received funding from the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, and the National Christian Charitable Foundation. As of 2026 CAL's founder, Harmeet Dhillon, is the U.S. Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division for the Second Trump Administration.
* The VF Foundation is the private grantmaking foundation of the VF Corporation, a publicly-traded outdoor apparel and footwear company. According to its website, the foundation's program areas include "Thriving Outside, Protecting Our Planet, Powering Potential and Humanitarian Relief." Organizations that have received funding from the VF Foundation include the Trust for Public Land, the United Nations Foundation, the National Forest Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, the Biomimicry Institute, and the World Wildlife Fund.
* Textron Inc. is a conglomerate known for aviation, defense, and industrial products. Its reported revenue in 2025 was approximately $14.8 billion. Between 2008 and 2025, the company was awarded over 62,000 contracts from U.S. government agencies including the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Justice.
* The International Wilderness Leadership Foundation, also known as the WILD Foundation or WILD, is a conservation group that advocates for left-of-center environmental policies. Its listed partner organizations include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Parks Canada, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas in Mexico, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Its 2024 donors included the Hillman Family Foundations, ImpactAssets Inc, the Chicago Community Trust, the Schmidt Family Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the Amalgamated Charitable Foundation.
* The Giniw Collective is a left-of-center activist group that advocates for "land defense, decolonization, and carrying our words into action." In 2024, it was one of over 400 groups to sign a letter calling on energy company Energy Transfer to drop its lawsuit against Greenpeace over its role in helping to fund and organize the Dakota Access Pipeline protests between 2016 and 2017. The Giniw Collective has received funding through its parent organization Unkitawa, including from the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, the Common Counsel Foundation, and ImpactAssets.
* * *
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. He edits entries and content of the InfluenceWatch website and contributes new content.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-02-20-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Great Union Inflection Point or Dead Cat Bounce? Parsing the 2025 BLS Union Members Survey
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Michael Watson, research director and managing editor for InfluenceWatch:
* * *
Great union inflection point or dead cat bounce? Parsing the 2025 BLS union members survey
Union membership ticked back up to 10.0 percent in 2025 in the federal government's shutdown-affected survey data. Don't expect this to herald a resurgence in trade unionism.
*
Every year, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics releases survey data on union membership in the United States. In recent years, the release has
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Michael Watson, research director and managing editor for InfluenceWatch:
* * *
Great union inflection point or dead cat bounce? Parsing the 2025 BLS union members survey
Union membership ticked back up to 10.0 percent in 2025 in the federal government's shutdown-affected survey data. Don't expect this to herald a resurgence in trade unionism.
*
Every year, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics releases survey data on union membership in the United States. In recent years, the release hasbeen a source of mirth and gloating for opponents of organized labor (including your correspondent), as they put to rest breathless media reporting on organized labor's Miami Dolphins-style predictions that "this is our year." But this year, the government shutdown-affected survey showed union density trended up; has the ghost of Don Shula come to lead the Fish back to the Promised Land?
No. Don Shula is not coming to save the Dolphins. And there's no evidence that Big Labor is rising again either.
By the numbers
The headline bump in union density, the proportion of the workforce consisting of union members, isn't much of one: From 9.9 percent to 10.0 percent, which the BLS press release characterizes as "little changed from the prior year." Most importantly, the private-sector union-membership rate did not budge, remaining at 5.9 percent, and the total number of private-sector union members (7.4 million) was nearly passed by government-worker total (7.3 million) for the first time since the 2020 pandemic year.
Most is otherwise roughly as it was last year, when we used the BLS report to interrogate who actually constitutes Big Labor. But there's more, as Washington Post editorialist Dominic Pino posted to the website formerly known as Twitter (I have cleaned up the formatting and omitted quotations):
* For the first time ever, the federal government employs more union members than the entire manufacturing sector.
* Local government is by far the largest employer of union members.
* State government is second.
* 7% of transportation and utilities workers... 88.9% of construction workers... 92.3% of manufacturing workers... and 95.3% of mining and extraction workers... ...are not union members.
A pertinent question
Based on data like the data Pino highlights, last year I wrote:
* * *
The Current American Plurality that elected the present federal government is deeply interested in advancing the interests of men without college degrees. This is because many of them are men without college degrees: Exit pollsters broke down white voters without degrees by sex and found 69 percent of white men without a degree voted Republican compared with 57 percent of white voters overall. This has made policy entrepreneurs interested in serving (and perhaps one day leading) the Current American Plurality, especially susceptible to the special-interest politics of Teamsters Union boss Sean O'Brien and other, less Everything Leftist union bosses who offer strengthening Big Labor as a way to help that group.
But there's a problem with that, and readers who have made it this far can probably already guess the problem from the information already presented. Labor union members are not much more male than the workforce as a whole, and other data show that they tend to be better educated. The BLS reports that men's unionization rate is 0.7 percentage points higher than women. That ends up meaning that while 51.75 percent of the workforce is male, 53.5 percent of union members are--not a huge difference.
I concluded:
If the Current American Plurality wants to hold together, it will need to find ways to support workers as a whole, not cheaply chase the union members that BLS and other data reveal to be unripe for recruitment by throwing more traditional members of the coalition under the bus. The Taft-Hartley Consensus approach to labor relations, which Republicans have advanced for 80 years, offers the opportunity for those workers who freely choose to organize unions to continue to do so while protecting the rights of workers who choose not to form unions or choose to work independently. It should not be cheaply abandoned in service to myths about whom the conservative movement is seeking to court.
* * *
It is time to heed those warnings, and to their credit, some are. Manhattan Institute president Reihan Salam commented, "Part of why it's so absurd when Republicans decide they should swear allegiance to the leadership of the Teamsters" in response to Pino highlighting how low unionization is in various manual-labor industries.
The supposed "demand" on the right for appeasement of Big Labor comes from politicians hunting for political support for union bosses (an old, and failed, Republican tradition) and nonprofit groups funded by a gigantic progressive foundation based in San Francisco. It is not grassroots, and the BLS numbers on who union members are show why.
* * *
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch.
* * *
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: U.S.-India Energy Trade Deal - Is It Achievable?
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Shuting Pomerleau, director of energy and environmental policy, and trade policy analyst Jacob Jensen:
* * *
U.S.-India Energy Trade Deal: Is It Achievable?
Executive Summary
* The United States and India have reached a trade agreement in which India is expected to purchase $500 billion worth of goods including energy, technology, and other products from the United States over the next five years.
* In 2025, U.S. goods exports to India were nearly $39 billion, with energy exports accounting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Shuting Pomerleau, director of energy and environmental policy, and trade policy analyst Jacob Jensen:
* * *
U.S.-India Energy Trade Deal: Is It Achievable?
Executive Summary
* The United States and India have reached a trade agreement in which India is expected to purchase $500 billion worth of goods including energy, technology, and other products from the United States over the next five years.
* In 2025, U.S. goods exports to India were nearly $39 billion, with energy exports accountingfor about a third of the total. Based on historical trends, these exports are projected to total $261 billion over the next five years, leaving a $239 billion gap relative to the trade deal's target; even if India doubled its U.S.-imports growth rate, a $152 billion gap would remain.
* This insight summarizes the U.S.-India trade deal, analyzes the energy market dynamics between the two nations, and explains why India is unlikely to meet the trade deal's target - whether through total imports from the United States, or the specific goods outlined in the agreement.
Introduction
The United States and India have reached a trade agreement in which India is intended to purchase $500 billion worth of goods including energy, technology, and other products from the United States over the next five years. This deal also eliminates the 25-percent U.S. punitive tariffs on India that had been put in place to discourage the country's purchase of Russian oil.
Total U.S. goods exports to India were just shy of $39 billion in 2025, and are projected to reach about $261 billion over the next five years. But this would leave a massive U.S. import shortage of $239 billion for India to fulfill the trade deal. Even if India were to double the growth rate of its goods imports from the United States, there would still be a $152-billion gap.
This insight summarizes the U.S.-India trade deal, analyzes the energy market dynamics between the two nations, and explains why India is unlikely to meet the deal's ambitious target - whether through total imports from the United States, or the specific goods outlined in the agreement.
The U.S.-India Trade Agreement
On February 9, the White House released a fact sheet on the recently announced what it billed as a "historic trade deal" with India that "will open up India's market of over 1.4 billion people to American products." According to the document, India "intends to buy more American products and purchase over $500 billion of U.S. energy, information and communication technology, coal, and other products" over the next five years.
The fact sheet is light on details and does not specify which energy products would be purchased or a purchase amount by product category. Whether this includes natural gas, oil, or other energy-related products remains to be seen.
The U.S.-India joint statement released on February 6 provided a slightly more detailed description of the "framework for an interim agreement" the two countries have reached. Its key provisions are: 1) India intends to purchase "$500 billion of U.S. energy products, aircraft and aircraft parts, precious metals, technology products, and coking coal over the next 5 years"; and 2) the United States intends to eliminate the 25-percent punitive tariffs on India which had been put in place to discourage the country's purchases of Russian oil. Within the agreement, India has committed to stop purchasing Russian oil by swapping these imports with those of the United States and potentially Venezuela.
U.S.-India Trade
Total bilateral trade
The trade relationship between the United States and India has experienced steady growth over the past decade, with total bilateral trade increasing by roughly 135 percent. In 2025, estimated U.S. goods exports to India are estimated to have totaled just under $39 billion, while U.S. imports from India were close to $105 billion, both of which were a notable uptick from 2024. The primary U.S. export categories to India have been precious metals, mineral fuels, aircraft, mechanical appliances, machinery, and medical instruments. Since 2018, the number-one U.S. export category has been mineral fuels and other energy related products. The top U.S. import categories from India include electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, precious metals, and organic chemicals. and organic chemicals.
Energy Trade
In 2024, the United States exported $11.4 billion worth of energy products to India, representing 33 percent of total U.S. exports to India. This amount only accounted for about 3 percent of total U.S. energy exports, however. Based on data from January to November, energy exports to India in 2025 are expected to have been $12.8 billion.
The largest categories of U.S. energy exports included crude petroleum, coking coal, and natural gas. As displayed in Figure 1, U.S. energy exports to India have remained relatively flat since 2022 despite a large growth spurt between 2015-2021.
* * *
[View Chart 1 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
In 2023, India imported nearly 40 percent of its crude oil from Russia at approximately 1.8 million barrels per day. This was a drastic increase compared to 2021 before Russia's invasion of Ukraine when India imported just 2.5 percent of its oil or 100,000 barrels per day from Russia (see Figure 2).
* * *
[View Chart 2 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
The primary reason for this increase was that Russian oil was sanctioned by both the United States and European Union, meaning Russia heavily discounted the price of its oil to those that would make the purchase. For instance, discounts were between $20 to $25 per barrel at the onset of the war in Ukraine and are currently at around $12. As of February 2026, Russia has widened the discount offered to China to about $9, likely to incentivize Chinese buyers to replace lower sales to India.
By comparison, just 4 percent of India's crude oil came from the United States. Furthermore, 14 percent of its liquified natural gas (LNG) imports and 8 percent of its coal imports came from the United States. India primarily imports LNG from Qatar (50 percent) and coal from Indonesia (42 percent) while Russia has not been a significant supplier of these specific energy products.
Trade Deal Practicality
The Trump Administration's objective to export $500 billion to India within five years is a tall order and likely an impractical target to achieve based on historical export growth rates. Over the past decade, both the average and median annual growth in U.S. exports to India has been right around 10 percent. This means that over the next five years, total U.S. exports to India are expected to total $261 billion, representing a $239 billion gap (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Even if U.S. exports to India grow by double the historical rate over the next five years, there would still be a $152 billion gap. Notably, these figures represent the sum of all U.S. exports to India rather than the discrete product categories identified in the trade deal, which suggests the U.S.-India trade agreement is more of a symbolic and political agreement than a realistic and binding trade pact.
* * *
[View Chart 3 in the link at bottom.]
[View Chart 4 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
India's Energy Consumption
In 2023, India ranked the third globally in terms of its total energy consumption, behind China and the United States. In 2024, India surpassed the United States to become the second-largest energy consumer in the world.
India has substantial demand for fossil fuel, which accounted for almost 95 percent of its energy consumption in 2023. In that year coal accounted for 59 percent of its energy consumption, petroleum and other liquids, 29 percent, and natural gas, 6 percent. The country consumed only a small amount of clean energy, with renewables at 4 percent and nuclear energy at 2 percent. In the same year, it was the world's third-highest consumer of petroleum and other liquids, and the fourth-biggest importer of LNG.
As shown in Figure 5, India has been relying on imports for most of its energy consumption. Its petroleum and other liquids production were flat from 2014-2023, while energy imports and total energy consumption trended steadily upward from 2020-2023.
* * *
[View Chart 5 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Despite its large coal deposits and status as one of the world's top coal energy producers, India imports coal to meet its soaring electricity demand. It is estimated that coal will continue to be the major energy source for power generation in India through 2030.
About one quarter of India's coal consumption is for industrial purposes such as manufacturing steel. The coal used for generating power--thermal coal-- is different from metallurgical or coking coal, which is used to make steel. Coking coal typically contains more carbon than thermal coal.
Although India has vast coal reserves, it has a significant shortage of coking coal. More than 90 percent of India's consumption of coking coal comes from imports. As the second-largest producer of crude steel, India plans to double its steel production between now and 2030. India's coking coal imports are estimated to reach 160 million tons by 2030. Top countries exporting coking coal to India include Australia, the United States, and Russia.
India's large demand for coking coal and a lack of domestic production capabilities give the United States an opportunity to continue to grow its exports of coking coal to the country. This may explain why coking coal is specifically mentioned in the joint statement as one product that India intends to purchase from the United States. The U.S. coal energy industry currently has strong support from the administration through a series of executive orders and a production tax credit included in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Conclusion
Given the U.S.-India energy market dynamics and trade relationship, it is unlikely that India will be able to achieve the intended imports target within the next five years. The trade deal's $500 billion number for the selected traded products seems to be symbolic rather than practical.
* * *
Shuting Pomerleau is the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the American Action Forum
Jacob Jensen is the Trade Policy Analyst at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/u-s-india-energy-trade-deal-is-it-achievable/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Townhall: Transparency Is Public Safety - Medicaid Oversight and Honest Governance Matter
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by political strategist Zach Freimark to Townhall:
* * *
Transparency Is Public Safety: Medicaid Oversight and Honest Governance Matter
On March 7, 2025, 39-year-old Rick Clemmer was found dead in his East Side St. Paul, Minnesota apartment after several days without contact from medical providers paid to oversee his care. The medical examiner attributed his death to an enlarged heart. But for his mother, Mickey Clemmer, that explanation left the most troubling question unanswered:
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by political strategist Zach Freimark to Townhall:
* * *
Transparency Is Public Safety: Medicaid Oversight and Honest Governance Matter
On March 7, 2025, 39-year-old Rick Clemmer was found dead in his East Side St. Paul, Minnesota apartment after several days without contact from medical providers paid to oversee his care. The medical examiner attributed his death to an enlarged heart. But for his mother, Mickey Clemmer, that explanation left the most troubling question unanswered:how did a man enrolled in a Medicaid-funded program designed to provide daily supervision end up entirely alone?
Rick Clemmer had long struggled with severe mental illness and substance-use disorder. For most of his adult life, he lived in regulated environments where court-ordered treatment plans and routine monitoring helped keep him stable. In the summer of 2024, he transitioned to independent housing through Minnesota's Integrated Community Supports (ICS) program--a Medicaid benefit intended to provide daily, one-on-one assistance with medication adherence, safety checks, meal preparation, and basic household management for individuals with complex behavioral health needs.
According to reported billing records, his provider, Ultimate Home Health Services LLC, charged Medicaid roughly $462 per day--equivalent to about 12 hours of care. That is more than double the average daily Medicaid expenditure per beneficiary in Minnesota. Yet according to family accounts, those services were never delivered. Clemmer died unnoticed while payments continued. His mother has described the episode not as a paperwork failure, but as abandonment financed by taxpayer dollars.
To read the full article, click here (https://townhall.com/columnists/zachary-freimark/2026/02/20/transparency-is-public-safety-medicaid-oversight-and-honest-governance-matter-n2671528).
* * *
Zach Freimark is a seasoned political strategist and lifelong Minnesotan, born and raised in Stillwater.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/transparency-is-public-safety-medicaid-oversight-and-honest-governance-matter
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Learning Resources vs. Trump
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Feb. 20, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump
Today, Leigh Ann O'Neill, Chief Legal Affairs Officer at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump:
"AFPI strongly supports the America First trade agenda and President Trump's authority to defend American workers and supply chains. For decades, foreign competitors have exploited unfair trade practices while Washington
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Feb. 20, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump
Today, Leigh Ann O'Neill, Chief Legal Affairs Officer at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump:
"AFPI strongly supports the America First trade agenda and President Trump's authority to defend American workers and supply chains. For decades, foreign competitors have exploited unfair trade practices while Washingtonlooked the other way. President Trump changed that, and American workers are better off because of it.
While we disagree with the Court's ruling regarding presidential authority under IEEPA, this decision does not weaken the case for tariffs or the President's broader authority to use them. As AFPI argued in an amicus brief, the President retains clear authority to impose tariffs under other laws, including Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. AFPI will continue to support the use of every lawful tool available to put American workers first. America First trade policies work, and we will continue fighting to ensure they endure."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh referenced the president's authority to issue tariffs under Section 338 and concluded, "So the Court's decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward."
AFPI proudly stands with President Trump on this issue and remains committed to advancing new policy solutions to strengthen American workers and build the strongest economy in the world.
Read AFPI's commentary on preserving the successes of IEEPA, available here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/preserving-liberation-day-successes).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-responds-to-scotus-ruling-in-learning-resources-v-trump
[Category: ThinkTank]
