Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to The Atlantic: Absurdity of New York City's Pied-a-Terre Tax
NEW YORK, Sept. 4 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by fellow Ken Girardin to The Atlantic:
* * *
The Absurdity of New York City's Pied-a-Terre Tax
Zohran Mamdani has wasted an opportunity to address the city's real long-term fiscal problems.
-
New York City's new pied-a-terre tax provokes strong opinions. Supporters argue that the nation's first tax on luxury second homes will help balance the city's budget and improve "a fundamentally unfair system" that "hurts working New Yorkers," as Mayor Zohran Mamdani has put it.
Opponents warn ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 4 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by fellow Ken Girardin to The Atlantic: * * * The Absurdity of New York City's Pied-a-Terre Tax Zohran Mamdani has wasted an opportunity to address the city's real long-term fiscal problems. - New York City's new pied-a-terre tax provokes strong opinions. Supporters argue that the nation's first tax on luxury second homes will help balance the city's budget and improve "a fundamentally unfair system" that "hurts working New Yorkers," as Mayor Zohran Mamdani has put it. Opponents warnthat the tax will alienate the rich people who power the city's economy. Some homeowners fear that the new tax treats them as "guilty until proven resident."
But Mamdani's backers and detractors alike are missing the bigger picture. The new tax was created because the city has been spending more than it takes in. That problem has not gone away. Neither has the dysfunctional property-tax system that made the tax so enticing in the first place.
New York's political class would do well to focus on solving these long-term financial challenges before they metastasize into a crisis. By spending political capital on a controversial but largely symbolic policy change, Mamdani has made that task even more difficult.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/09/mamdani-pied-a-terre-tax/688482)
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/the-absurdity-of-new-york-citys-pied-a-terre-tax
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
The Absurdity of New York City's Pied-a-Terre Tax
Zohran Mamdani has wasted an opportunity to address the city's real long-term fiscal problems.
-
New York City's new pied-a-terre tax provokes strong opinions. Supporters argue that the nation's first tax on luxury second homes will help balance the city's budget and improve "a fundamentally unfair system" that "hurts working New Yorkers," as Mayor Zohran Mamdani has put it.
Opponents warn ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 4 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by fellow Ken Girardin to The Atlantic: * * * The Absurdity of New York City's Pied-a-Terre Tax Zohran Mamdani has wasted an opportunity to address the city's real long-term fiscal problems. - New York City's new pied-a-terre tax provokes strong opinions. Supporters argue that the nation's first tax on luxury second homes will help balance the city's budget and improve "a fundamentally unfair system" that "hurts working New Yorkers," as Mayor Zohran Mamdani has put it. Opponents warnthat the tax will alienate the rich people who power the city's economy. Some homeowners fear that the new tax treats them as "guilty until proven resident."
But Mamdani's backers and detractors alike are missing the bigger picture. The new tax was created because the city has been spending more than it takes in. That problem has not gone away. Neither has the dysfunctional property-tax system that made the tax so enticing in the first place.
New York's political class would do well to focus on solving these long-term financial challenges before they metastasize into a crisis. By spending political capital on a controversial but largely symbolic policy change, Mamdani has made that task even more difficult.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/09/mamdani-pied-a-terre-tax/688482)
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/the-absurdity-of-new-york-citys-pied-a-terre-tax
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to New York Post: Albany's Allergy To Merit Hits Top High Schools Where It Hurts - in Their Ranking
NEW YORK, Sept. 4 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by adjunct fellow Wai Wah Chin to the New York Post:
* * *
Albany's Allergy To Merit Hits Top High Schools Where It Hurts - in Their Ranking
Albany has plenty of ways to punish great students and schools - and now it's found a new one.
When state bureaucrats chose to deny US News & World Report the data it uses to rank nearly 18,000 public schools on its 2026-27 Best High Schools list, it was a move that harmed New York's top performers.
Parents are getting a perverse lesson in accountability: ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 4 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by adjunct fellow Wai Wah Chin to the New York Post: * * * Albany's Allergy To Merit Hits Top High Schools Where It Hurts - in Their Ranking Albany has plenty of ways to punish great students and schools - and now it's found a new one. When state bureaucrats chose to deny US News & World Report the data it uses to rank nearly 18,000 public schools on its 2026-27 Best High Schools list, it was a move that harmed New York's top performers. Parents are getting a perverse lesson in accountability:A school can give thousands of students college-level exams, and see them pass in extraordinary numbers -- only to have the state stifle news of its success.
The stakes are high. USNWR rankings are known as reliable, standardized comparisons of performance.
Families consider them to choose schools and neighborhoods, colleges review them to assess candidates, and schools themselves use them to advertise or improve.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The New York Post (https://nypost.com/2026/09/01/opinion/albanys-allergy-to-merit-hits-top-high-schools-where-it-hurts)
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/albanys-allergy-to-merit-hits-top-high-schools-where-it-hurts-in-their-rankings
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Albany's Allergy To Merit Hits Top High Schools Where It Hurts - in Their Ranking
Albany has plenty of ways to punish great students and schools - and now it's found a new one.
When state bureaucrats chose to deny US News & World Report the data it uses to rank nearly 18,000 public schools on its 2026-27 Best High Schools list, it was a move that harmed New York's top performers.
Parents are getting a perverse lesson in accountability: ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 4 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by adjunct fellow Wai Wah Chin to the New York Post: * * * Albany's Allergy To Merit Hits Top High Schools Where It Hurts - in Their Ranking Albany has plenty of ways to punish great students and schools - and now it's found a new one. When state bureaucrats chose to deny US News & World Report the data it uses to rank nearly 18,000 public schools on its 2026-27 Best High Schools list, it was a move that harmed New York's top performers. Parents are getting a perverse lesson in accountability:A school can give thousands of students college-level exams, and see them pass in extraordinary numbers -- only to have the state stifle news of its success.
The stakes are high. USNWR rankings are known as reliable, standardized comparisons of performance.
Families consider them to choose schools and neighborhoods, colleges review them to assess candidates, and schools themselves use them to advertise or improve.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The New York Post (https://nypost.com/2026/09/01/opinion/albanys-allergy-to-merit-hits-top-high-schools-where-it-hurts)
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/albanys-allergy-to-merit-hits-top-high-schools-where-it-hurts-in-their-rankings
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute Raises Growth Forecast for Germany to 1.4% for 2026
MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 4 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026:
* * *
ifo Institute Raises Growth Forecast for Germany to 1.4 Percent for 2026
In its latest forecast, the ifo Institute projects growth of 1.4 percent in gross domestic product (GDP) for this year. The economic experts expect growth of 1.2 percent for 2027, and 0.8 percent for 2028. "Significant impetus from abroad and increased spending on infrastructure, climate, and defense in Germany are preventing a more severe economic slowdown due to the energy price shock and low water levels in rivers. There ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 4 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026: * * * ifo Institute Raises Growth Forecast for Germany to 1.4 Percent for 2026 In its latest forecast, the ifo Institute projects growth of 1.4 percent in gross domestic product (GDP) for this year. The economic experts expect growth of 1.2 percent for 2027, and 0.8 percent for 2028. "Significant impetus from abroad and increased spending on infrastructure, climate, and defense in Germany are preventing a more severe economic slowdown due to the energy price shock and low water levels in rivers. Thereare rays of hope, especially for the crisis-stricken industry sector," says Timo Wollmershauser, Head of Forecasts at ifo. "The German economy is continuing to recover."
Compared to the previous forecast, the ifo Institute has raised the growth rate for this year by 0.6 percentage points and 0.4 percentage points for next year. A revision of past data by Germany's Federal Statistical Office and a reassessment of the underlying economic dynamic in Germany contributed to that. In the current forecast, primarily the economic driving forces - in other words, the stimulus from fiscal policy and from abroad - are assessed as stronger, while the dampening effects of the energy price shock are assessed as weaker.
The expansionary fiscal policy is causing the government's financing deficits to swell strongly. The budget deficit is expected to increase from 3.0 percent of GDP in 2025 to 4.6 percent in 2028. In the same period, gross debt is expected to rise from 62.7 percent to 67.9 percent of economic output.
According to the forecast, the inflation rate in this year and the next will rise to 2.8 percent this year and 3.0 percent next year. Inflation is not expected to move back toward the European Central Bank's target of 2.3 percent until 2028. "Inflation driven by heating oil and fuel is expected to decline over the remainder of the forecast period. However, consumer prices particularly for electricity and gas are likely to rise again this winter," says Wollmershauser, adding that, overall, consumer spending remains subdued due to high inflation.
* * *
Table: Key Forecast Figures for Germany
* * *
Forecast (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-09-03/ifo-economic-forecast-autumn-2026-recovery-forces-gain-upper-hand)
Publication (in German) (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/ifo-konjunkturprognose-herbst-2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-09-03/ifo-institute-raises-growth-forecast-germany
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
ifo Institute Raises Growth Forecast for Germany to 1.4 Percent for 2026
In its latest forecast, the ifo Institute projects growth of 1.4 percent in gross domestic product (GDP) for this year. The economic experts expect growth of 1.2 percent for 2027, and 0.8 percent for 2028. "Significant impetus from abroad and increased spending on infrastructure, climate, and defense in Germany are preventing a more severe economic slowdown due to the energy price shock and low water levels in rivers. There ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 4 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026: * * * ifo Institute Raises Growth Forecast for Germany to 1.4 Percent for 2026 In its latest forecast, the ifo Institute projects growth of 1.4 percent in gross domestic product (GDP) for this year. The economic experts expect growth of 1.2 percent for 2027, and 0.8 percent for 2028. "Significant impetus from abroad and increased spending on infrastructure, climate, and defense in Germany are preventing a more severe economic slowdown due to the energy price shock and low water levels in rivers. Thereare rays of hope, especially for the crisis-stricken industry sector," says Timo Wollmershauser, Head of Forecasts at ifo. "The German economy is continuing to recover."
Compared to the previous forecast, the ifo Institute has raised the growth rate for this year by 0.6 percentage points and 0.4 percentage points for next year. A revision of past data by Germany's Federal Statistical Office and a reassessment of the underlying economic dynamic in Germany contributed to that. In the current forecast, primarily the economic driving forces - in other words, the stimulus from fiscal policy and from abroad - are assessed as stronger, while the dampening effects of the energy price shock are assessed as weaker.
The expansionary fiscal policy is causing the government's financing deficits to swell strongly. The budget deficit is expected to increase from 3.0 percent of GDP in 2025 to 4.6 percent in 2028. In the same period, gross debt is expected to rise from 62.7 percent to 67.9 percent of economic output.
According to the forecast, the inflation rate in this year and the next will rise to 2.8 percent this year and 3.0 percent next year. Inflation is not expected to move back toward the European Central Bank's target of 2.3 percent until 2028. "Inflation driven by heating oil and fuel is expected to decline over the remainder of the forecast period. However, consumer prices particularly for electricity and gas are likely to rise again this winter," says Wollmershauser, adding that, overall, consumer spending remains subdued due to high inflation.
* * *
Table: Key Forecast Figures for Germany
* * *
Forecast (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-09-03/ifo-economic-forecast-autumn-2026-recovery-forces-gain-upper-hand)
Publication (in German) (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/ifo-konjunkturprognose-herbst-2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-09-03/ifo-institute-raises-growth-forecast-germany
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Report: Enemies of Energy - Sierra Club
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 (TNSLrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report on Sept. 3, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun:
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Sierra Club
The oldest of the enemies of energy, the Sierra Club was once an advocate for emissions free, reliable nuclear power. The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 (TNSLrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report on Sept. 3, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun: * * * Enemies of Energy: Sierra Club The oldest of the enemies of energy, the Sierra Club was once an advocate for emissions free, reliable nuclear power. The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding. Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the CapitalResearch Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.
-
Founded in 1892 by naturalist John Muir and his allies to protect the boundaries of Yosemite National Park, the Sierra Club is one of America's original conservationist nonprofits and for a long time the most influential. Sierra deserves partial credit for the establishment of some of our oldest national parks, a badge of honor few if any other modern American NGOs can claim.[i]
The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit that is affiliated with the Sierra Club Foundation, a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit, and Sierra Club Independent Action, a political committee. In the IRS filing covering 2024 the Sierra Club reported revenue of $169 million.[ii]
The latest publicly available IRS filings show the combined net assets of the Sierra Club advocacy and educational nonprofits to be $291.9 million. (Unusual among the richest anti-energy NGOs, Sierra lists large net assets parked in both its advocacy and educational nonprofits, which is why they were combined for this analysis.)[iii][iv]
Today's Sierra Club has drifted a long way from the conservation-focused mission described above. One hint is the image on the "About the Sierra Club" webpage that is used to depict the NGO's "4,500 rallies and events." It is a picture of protesters holding Sierra-branded signs about ... gender equity.[v]
A lot of this behavior may be driven by the Progressive Workers Union (PWU), a radical-left labor union that represents more than 500 employees at left-wing NGOs. It was started at the Sierra Club in 1992 and represents more than 300 workers there.[vi]
A good example of the PWU agenda was a June 2023 vote in favor of a resolution denouncing "Israel's oppressive apartheid rule" of the "Palestinian People." The resolution was supported by 86 percent of the Sierra Club's PWU members who voted on it. The vote followed a decision by the Sierra Club to reinstate its educational trips to Israel, despite the PWU's opposition to same.[vii]
Anti-energy evolution
Time magazine reported "that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy--one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking--to help fund the Club's Beyond Coal campaign."
For most of its long history the Sierra Club wasn't so radical and could not be easily pigeonholed as an anti-energy NGO.
In 1966 the Sierra Club board voted 9-1 to support construction of California's Diablo Canyon nuclear power station. Pacific Gas & Electric had previously hoped to build the plant on Nipomo Dunes, a site the Sierra Club opposed for conservation reasons. PG&E and representatives from the Sierra Club took this as an opportunity to reason together, rather than fight, and compromised on the Diablo Canyon site instead.[viii]
William Siri was the Sierra Club board president during the 1966 vote and was a supporter of nuclear power. A biophysicist who studied radiation, Siri defended the Diablo vote, arguing that "we are an energy-based society" and that "consumption of energy has for decades accurately followed projections of need and nothing short of world-wide disaster could alter the growing power needs of the nation."[ix][x]
Under Siri's leadership, Sierra was not an anti-energy group.
But today, the NGO's website proclaims that the "Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy." Following that introduction, the Sierra Club's "Nuclear Free Future" web page adds this conventional and scientifically illiterate scaremongering:[xi]
Besides reactor safety, both nuclear proliferation and the required long-term storage of nuclear waste (which remains lethal for more than 100,000 years) make nuclear power a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity. Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources. Help us work to phase out nuclear as quickly as possible.[xii]
The 1966 vote to approve the Diablo Canyon compromise touched off what Siri later referred to as a "civil war" within the Sierra Club. An anti-Diablo board was elected in 1968, and by 1979 the Sierra Club had voted to oppose all new nuclear power and even rescind its support for Diablo Canyon. [xiii]
One of Siri's allies on the Sierra Club board was legendary nature photographer Ansel Adams, who argued the Diablo deal was an example of "constructive cooperation" between conservationists and industry. Later in the 1980s Adams told an interviewer that "nuclear energy is the future," the "only practical alternative that we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal," and that "you are at infinitely more risk driving around in your car than you are around any nuclear plant." [xiv] [xv]
By that point Adams was no longer on the Sierra Club board. Today the profile page for him on the Sierra Club website does not mention the Diablo controversy and his support for nuclear power. [xvi]
A prominent voice on the other side was David Brower, longtime executive director of the Sierra Club. By his own admission, Brower had been "pro-nuclear for twenty-three years." But during the Diablo dispute, Brower morphed into a "born-again anti-nuclearist." He resigned in May 1969 and went off to form another anti-energy NGO: Friends of the Earth. In his final speech, Brower denounced America's "addiction to growth," foreshadowing today's anti-energy Sierra Club.[xvii]
The "constructive cooperation" with the energy industry that Ansel Adams championed for the Sierra Club later became hypocritical cooperation.
"The national Sierra Club is one of natural gas's biggest boosters," reported the Wall Street Journal, in December 2009. "Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director, has traveled the country promoting natural gas's environmental benefits, sometimes alongside Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the biggest U.S. gas companies by production."[xviii]
The Journal further explained: "Some activists, such as Mr. Pope, believe increased drilling -- with appropriate safeguards -- is the best way to wean the U.S. off coal, which they see as the greater environmental threat."[xix]
The sincerity of this claim was obliterated in 2012, when Time magazine reported "that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy--one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking--to help fund the Club's Beyond Coal campaign."[xx]
Michael Brune replaced Carl Pope as the Sierra Club executive director in 2010. The Time report noted that fracking "wasn't really on the environmental radar" when Sierra was taking the loot from Chesapeake. Even Al Gore, in his 2000 presidential campaign, pledged to "promote expanded exploration for cleaner burning natural gas."[xxi][xxii]
But a lot had changed by 2012. Fracking was turning America into a natural gas superpower and, not coincidentally, the burgeoning anti-energy movement--Al Gore included--was turning against gas. "It's time to stop thinking of natural gas as a 'kinder, gentler' energy source," wrote Michael Brune on the Sierra Club website, hours after the Time report posted.[xxiii]
Sierra has since added a "Beyond Gas" campaign to the "Beyond Coal" effort that was funded by the natural gas industry. "'Natural gas' is what the fossil fuel industry calls methane gas to make it sound safer for the environment and our health," claims the Sierra Club today, conveniently forgetting their recent public relations with and financial support from the "fossil fuel industry."[xxiv][xxv]
Like all anti-energy NGOs, the only energy production Sierra supports now is that which comes from weather dependent, unreliable, wind turbines and solar panels.
This too produces moments of comical irony. A January 13, 2026, Sierra Club news release praised a wind energy project in the ocean off Rhode Island as a source of "steady, affordable energy." Exactly two weeks later another Sierra news release blasted the Trump administration for "trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters" by expanding offshore oil and natural gas drilling leases. "These lease sales are privatization in everything but name," claimed Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford, who failed to note whether leasing the ocean to a Big Wind corporation is also privatization.[xxvi]
The turmoil years
The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding.
Ms. Blackford was permanently appointed executive director in September 2025, after holding the post on an interim basis since August 2025. A long-time official with Sierra Club, Blackford became the fourth person within four years to hold the post, following yet another period of turmoil at the Sierra Club.[xxvii]
In August 2021, the findings of a damning report from an independent consulting firm commissioned by the Sierra Club was leaked. The investigation was launched in September 2020, following a rape allegation against a prominent figure at the NGO. Politico quoted from the report's findings:[xxviii]
"One of the most prevalent themes we heard was that there was generally a culture at the Sierra Club that tolerated, excused, or failed to correct those managers and leaders who regularly displayed anger and aggression -- yelling, berating, shaming, and otherwise demonstrating unprofessional and abusive behavior in the workplace," the executive summary said. "It became clear that many of these individuals were well-known for engaging in this behavior and that nothing was done to meaningfully curb the behavior."[xxix]
A former employee from the era told E&E News that too many employees from the "social justice warrior segment" had made the Sierra Club "an intolerable hothouse" and toxic work environment.[xxx]
The Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, resigned in August 2021 after 11 years on the job. The Sierra Club news release that announced this departure did not mention the existence of the still-secret investigation but did name two people to fill in for Brune on an interim basis. Less than a week later, Politico broke the story about the internal investigation.[xxxi]
In January 2023 Sierra named Ben Jealous as the new executive director. Widely described as the first "person of color" to lead the NGO, Jealous had been the president of the left-wing activist group People for the American Way, and before that president of the NAACP.[xxxii]
But this didn't work out either. In August 2025, the Sierra board fired Jealous for cause after an "extensive evaluation of his conduct." No specific details were officially provided by the Sierra Club.xxxiii]
Shortly afterward, Bloomberg and E&E News separately reported that a sexual harassment complaint had been made against Jealous. Then in April 2026 a sexual harassment lawsuit was filed by a former direct report of Jealous. The Sierra Club has maintained radio silence regarding the specific reason for the termination, citing the legal proceeding, but noting that "we handled the matter with sensitivity and care, in line with our values, policies, and the law." Jealous responded to the firing and the allegations by denying them and accusing his former employer of "racial retaliation" and "personal attacks."[xxxiv]
A former Sierra Club board member (not involved in the decision to fire Jealous) said the firing "smells of retaliation" because it occurred right after Jealous had filed "a very lengthy complaint of harassment" against members of Sierra's executive committee. Similarly, Al Sharpton warned the world that the firing of Jealous might lead to "serious racial implications."[xxxv]
Adding to the scandal, the New York Times reported revenue shortfalls, disgruntled staff and an irritated labor union as factors that preceded the firing:[xxxvi]
In a statement, Erica Dodt, president of the Progressive Workers Union, which represents Sierra Club employees, said, "We hope that his departure will open the door for a stronger relationship between workers and management, and allow the Sierra Club to better focus our efforts on fighting the Trump administration and protecting the environment." [xxxvii]
Facing a $40 million funding deficit left to him by his predecessors, Jealous had announced layoffs in May 2023, including the Sierra Club's entire "equity team." This was the beginning of a dispute between Jealous and PWU that lasted for the rest of his time at Sierra.[xxxviii][xxxix]
In a November 2023 interview Jealous accused the PWU of being "uniquely destructive," running a "campaign against the Sierra Club for years" and spreading "racist tropes about Black leadership" (Jealous is Black). In June 2024, the PWU announced the first strike authorization in its history, issuing a news release accusing the Sierra Club and Jealous of "union-busting." Additional layoffs over the following year led to a June 2025 decision by the PWU to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board that accused the Sierra Club (i.e.: Jealous) of targeting PWU members in the layoffs.[xl][xli]
"This is not the first time we have been tested in our 133-year history," said Blackford in September 2025. "And we will meet this moment by rising together to carry our mission forward with even greater strength and clearer sense of purpose than ever before."[xlii]
The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding.
* * *
Endnotes
[i] "Historical Accomplishments." Sierra Club. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/accomplishments
[ii] Sierra Club. (EIN: 94-1153307) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941153307
Sierra Club Foundation. (EIN: 94-6069890) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/946069890
[iii] Sierra Club. (EIN: 94-1153307) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941153307
Sierra Club Foundation. (EIN: 94-6069890) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/946069890
[iv] Most anti-energy NGOs are primarily 501(c)(3) nonprofits and store most of their wealth there. But in 1966 the Sierra Club (then a 501(c)(3) educational NGO) transitioned to an advocacy nonprofit after the IRS accused it of too much lobbying and revoked its tax exemption. See here for more details: Hartmann, Michael E. "IRS revokes Sierra Club's (c)(3) status in 1966. The Giving Review. April 29, 2025. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://thegivingreview.com/irs-revokes-sierra-clubs-c3-status-in-1966/
[v] "About the Sierra Club." Sierra Club. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/about-sierra-club
[vi] "About." Progressive Workers Union. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://pwunion.org/about/
[vii] Arria, Michael. "The Shift: Sierra Club workers pass historic Palestine resolution." June 29, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/06/the-shift-sierra-club-workers-pass-historic-palestine-resolution/
[viii] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[ix] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[x] Wellock, Thomas Raymond. Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1978. University of Wisconsin Press. 1998. Accessed February 6, 2026.https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Masses-Opposition-Nuclear-California/dp/0299158500
[xi] "Nuclear Free Future." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free
[xii] "Nuclear Free Future." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free
[xiii] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[xiv] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[xv] Hayward, Steven. "Ansel Adams on Nuclear Power (Updated)." Powerline. September 21, 2013. (Quotes from a Playboy interview of Adams that occurred sometime during the first term of the Reagan administration.) Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/ansel-adams-on-nuclear-power.php
[xvi] "Ansel Adams." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/library/ansel-adams
[xvii] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[xviii] Casselman, Ben. "Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma." Wall Street Journal. December 22, 2009. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126135534799299475
[xix] Casselman, Ben. "Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma." Wall Street Journal. December 22, 2009. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126135534799299475
[xx] Walsh, Bryan. "Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry--and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]." Time. February 2, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
[xxi] Walsh, Bryan. "Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry--and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]." Time. February 2, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
[xxii] "Al Gore 2000 On The Issues: Environment." 4President Corporation. Accessed February 10, 2026 at the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20101130202026/http://www.4president.org/issues/gore2000/gore2000environment.htm
[xxiii] Walsh, Bryan. "Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry--and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]." Time. February 2, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
[xxiv] "Beyond Gas." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/beyond-gas
[xxv] "Fossil Fuels." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/issues/climate/fossil-fuels
[xxvi] "Judge Overrules Revolution Wind Stop Work Order, Again." Sierra Club. January 13, 2026. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/01/judge-overrules-revolution-wind-stop-work-order-again
"Hundreds of Thousands of People Across U.S. Voice Opposition to Trump's Plan to Expand Offshore Drilling." Sierra Club. January 27, 2026. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/01/hundreds-thousands-people-across-us-voice-opposition-trump-s-plan-expand
"Renewable Energy." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/issues/climate/renewable-energy
[xxvii] "Sierra Club Celebrates Loren Blackford as its Next Executive Director." Sierra Club. September 13, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/09/sierra-club-celebrates-loren-blackford-its-next-executive-director
[xxviii] Colman, Zack. "Sierra Club culture tolerated 'anger and aggression,' report finds." Politico. August 19, 2021. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/19/sierra-club-culture-report-506330
[xxix] Colman, Zack. "Sierra Club culture tolerated 'anger and aggression,' report finds." Politico. August 19, 2021. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/19/sierra-club-culture-report-506330
[xxx] Colman, Zack. "Sierra Club culture tolerated 'anger and aggression,' report finds." Politico. August 19, 2021. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/19/sierra-club-culture-report-506330
[xxxi] "Michael Brune Stepping Down as Sierra Club Executive Director." Sierra Club. August 12, 2021. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/08/michael-brune-stepping-down-sierra-club-executive-director
[xxxii] "Sierra Club leader Ben Jealous on tackling climate crises." LA Times Today. March 28, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/la-times-today/2023/03/28/sierra-club-leader-ben-jealous-on-tacking-climate-crises
Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
PONTEROTTO, JASON. "Ben Jealous fired as Sierra Club's first Black executive director; many say racism at play." Amsterdam News (New York). August 14, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2025/08/14/ben-jealous-fired-as-sierra-club-first-black-exeutive-director/
[xxxiii] "Sierra Club leader Ben Jealous on tackling climate crises." LA Times Today. March 28, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/la-times-today/2023/03/28/sierra-club-leader-ben-jealous-on-tacking-climate-crises
Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
PONTEROTTO, JASON. "Ben Jealous fired as Sierra Club's first Black executive director; many say racism at play." Amsterdam News (New York). August 14, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2025/08/14/ben-jealous-fired-as-sierra-club-first-black-exeutive-director/
[xxxiv] Bravender, Robin. "Ex-Sierra Club boss was subject of harassment complaint." E&E News (Politico). September 4, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/ex-sierra-club-boss-was-subject-of-harassment-complaint/
King, Pamela. "Ex-Sierra Club chief of staff sues Ben Jealous for sexual harassment." E&E News (Politico). April 29, 2026. Accessed May 1, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/ex-sierra-club-chief-of-staff-sues-ben-jealous-for-sexual-harassment/
[xxxv] Bravender, Robin. "Ex-Sierra Club boss was subject of harassment complaint." E&E News (Politico). September 4, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/ex-sierra-club-boss-was-subject-of-harassment-complaint/
[xxxvi] Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
[xxxvii] Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
[xxxviii] Bravender, Robin. "Sierra Club's boss is at war with his staff. He blames them." E&E News (Politico). November 9, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/sierra-clubs-boss-is-at-war-with-his-staff-he-blames-them/
[xxxix] "Sierra Club Union Authorizes First-Ever Strike to Counter Union-Busting." Progressive Workers Union. June 27, 2024. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://pwunion.org/sierra-club-union-authorizes-first-ever-strike-to-counter-union-busting/
[xl] Bravender, Robin. "Sierra Club's boss is at war with his staff. He blames them." E&E News (Politico). November 9, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/sierra-clubs-boss-is-at-war-with-his-staff-he-blames-them/
[xli] Bravender, Robin. "Sierra Club union says layoffs broke the law." Politico PRO. June 24, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/06/24/sierra-club-union-says-layoffs-broke-the-law-00420824
[xlii] "Sierra Club Celebrates Loren Blackford as its Next Executive Director." Sierra Club. September 13, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/09/sierra-club-celebrates-loren-blackford-its-next-executive-director
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Report Link: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-sierra-club/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Sierra Club
The oldest of the enemies of energy, the Sierra Club was once an advocate for emissions free, reliable nuclear power. The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 (TNSLrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report on Sept. 3, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun: * * * Enemies of Energy: Sierra Club The oldest of the enemies of energy, the Sierra Club was once an advocate for emissions free, reliable nuclear power. The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding. Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the CapitalResearch Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.
-
Founded in 1892 by naturalist John Muir and his allies to protect the boundaries of Yosemite National Park, the Sierra Club is one of America's original conservationist nonprofits and for a long time the most influential. Sierra deserves partial credit for the establishment of some of our oldest national parks, a badge of honor few if any other modern American NGOs can claim.[i]
The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit that is affiliated with the Sierra Club Foundation, a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit, and Sierra Club Independent Action, a political committee. In the IRS filing covering 2024 the Sierra Club reported revenue of $169 million.[ii]
The latest publicly available IRS filings show the combined net assets of the Sierra Club advocacy and educational nonprofits to be $291.9 million. (Unusual among the richest anti-energy NGOs, Sierra lists large net assets parked in both its advocacy and educational nonprofits, which is why they were combined for this analysis.)[iii][iv]
Today's Sierra Club has drifted a long way from the conservation-focused mission described above. One hint is the image on the "About the Sierra Club" webpage that is used to depict the NGO's "4,500 rallies and events." It is a picture of protesters holding Sierra-branded signs about ... gender equity.[v]
A lot of this behavior may be driven by the Progressive Workers Union (PWU), a radical-left labor union that represents more than 500 employees at left-wing NGOs. It was started at the Sierra Club in 1992 and represents more than 300 workers there.[vi]
A good example of the PWU agenda was a June 2023 vote in favor of a resolution denouncing "Israel's oppressive apartheid rule" of the "Palestinian People." The resolution was supported by 86 percent of the Sierra Club's PWU members who voted on it. The vote followed a decision by the Sierra Club to reinstate its educational trips to Israel, despite the PWU's opposition to same.[vii]
Anti-energy evolution
Time magazine reported "that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy--one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking--to help fund the Club's Beyond Coal campaign."
For most of its long history the Sierra Club wasn't so radical and could not be easily pigeonholed as an anti-energy NGO.
In 1966 the Sierra Club board voted 9-1 to support construction of California's Diablo Canyon nuclear power station. Pacific Gas & Electric had previously hoped to build the plant on Nipomo Dunes, a site the Sierra Club opposed for conservation reasons. PG&E and representatives from the Sierra Club took this as an opportunity to reason together, rather than fight, and compromised on the Diablo Canyon site instead.[viii]
William Siri was the Sierra Club board president during the 1966 vote and was a supporter of nuclear power. A biophysicist who studied radiation, Siri defended the Diablo vote, arguing that "we are an energy-based society" and that "consumption of energy has for decades accurately followed projections of need and nothing short of world-wide disaster could alter the growing power needs of the nation."[ix][x]
Under Siri's leadership, Sierra was not an anti-energy group.
But today, the NGO's website proclaims that the "Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy." Following that introduction, the Sierra Club's "Nuclear Free Future" web page adds this conventional and scientifically illiterate scaremongering:[xi]
Besides reactor safety, both nuclear proliferation and the required long-term storage of nuclear waste (which remains lethal for more than 100,000 years) make nuclear power a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity. Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources. Help us work to phase out nuclear as quickly as possible.[xii]
The 1966 vote to approve the Diablo Canyon compromise touched off what Siri later referred to as a "civil war" within the Sierra Club. An anti-Diablo board was elected in 1968, and by 1979 the Sierra Club had voted to oppose all new nuclear power and even rescind its support for Diablo Canyon. [xiii]
One of Siri's allies on the Sierra Club board was legendary nature photographer Ansel Adams, who argued the Diablo deal was an example of "constructive cooperation" between conservationists and industry. Later in the 1980s Adams told an interviewer that "nuclear energy is the future," the "only practical alternative that we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal," and that "you are at infinitely more risk driving around in your car than you are around any nuclear plant." [xiv] [xv]
By that point Adams was no longer on the Sierra Club board. Today the profile page for him on the Sierra Club website does not mention the Diablo controversy and his support for nuclear power. [xvi]
A prominent voice on the other side was David Brower, longtime executive director of the Sierra Club. By his own admission, Brower had been "pro-nuclear for twenty-three years." But during the Diablo dispute, Brower morphed into a "born-again anti-nuclearist." He resigned in May 1969 and went off to form another anti-energy NGO: Friends of the Earth. In his final speech, Brower denounced America's "addiction to growth," foreshadowing today's anti-energy Sierra Club.[xvii]
The "constructive cooperation" with the energy industry that Ansel Adams championed for the Sierra Club later became hypocritical cooperation.
"The national Sierra Club is one of natural gas's biggest boosters," reported the Wall Street Journal, in December 2009. "Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director, has traveled the country promoting natural gas's environmental benefits, sometimes alongside Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the biggest U.S. gas companies by production."[xviii]
The Journal further explained: "Some activists, such as Mr. Pope, believe increased drilling -- with appropriate safeguards -- is the best way to wean the U.S. off coal, which they see as the greater environmental threat."[xix]
The sincerity of this claim was obliterated in 2012, when Time magazine reported "that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy--one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking--to help fund the Club's Beyond Coal campaign."[xx]
Michael Brune replaced Carl Pope as the Sierra Club executive director in 2010. The Time report noted that fracking "wasn't really on the environmental radar" when Sierra was taking the loot from Chesapeake. Even Al Gore, in his 2000 presidential campaign, pledged to "promote expanded exploration for cleaner burning natural gas."[xxi][xxii]
But a lot had changed by 2012. Fracking was turning America into a natural gas superpower and, not coincidentally, the burgeoning anti-energy movement--Al Gore included--was turning against gas. "It's time to stop thinking of natural gas as a 'kinder, gentler' energy source," wrote Michael Brune on the Sierra Club website, hours after the Time report posted.[xxiii]
Sierra has since added a "Beyond Gas" campaign to the "Beyond Coal" effort that was funded by the natural gas industry. "'Natural gas' is what the fossil fuel industry calls methane gas to make it sound safer for the environment and our health," claims the Sierra Club today, conveniently forgetting their recent public relations with and financial support from the "fossil fuel industry."[xxiv][xxv]
Like all anti-energy NGOs, the only energy production Sierra supports now is that which comes from weather dependent, unreliable, wind turbines and solar panels.
This too produces moments of comical irony. A January 13, 2026, Sierra Club news release praised a wind energy project in the ocean off Rhode Island as a source of "steady, affordable energy." Exactly two weeks later another Sierra news release blasted the Trump administration for "trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters" by expanding offshore oil and natural gas drilling leases. "These lease sales are privatization in everything but name," claimed Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford, who failed to note whether leasing the ocean to a Big Wind corporation is also privatization.[xxvi]
The turmoil years
The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding.
Ms. Blackford was permanently appointed executive director in September 2025, after holding the post on an interim basis since August 2025. A long-time official with Sierra Club, Blackford became the fourth person within four years to hold the post, following yet another period of turmoil at the Sierra Club.[xxvii]
In August 2021, the findings of a damning report from an independent consulting firm commissioned by the Sierra Club was leaked. The investigation was launched in September 2020, following a rape allegation against a prominent figure at the NGO. Politico quoted from the report's findings:[xxviii]
"One of the most prevalent themes we heard was that there was generally a culture at the Sierra Club that tolerated, excused, or failed to correct those managers and leaders who regularly displayed anger and aggression -- yelling, berating, shaming, and otherwise demonstrating unprofessional and abusive behavior in the workplace," the executive summary said. "It became clear that many of these individuals were well-known for engaging in this behavior and that nothing was done to meaningfully curb the behavior."[xxix]
A former employee from the era told E&E News that too many employees from the "social justice warrior segment" had made the Sierra Club "an intolerable hothouse" and toxic work environment.[xxx]
The Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, resigned in August 2021 after 11 years on the job. The Sierra Club news release that announced this departure did not mention the existence of the still-secret investigation but did name two people to fill in for Brune on an interim basis. Less than a week later, Politico broke the story about the internal investigation.[xxxi]
In January 2023 Sierra named Ben Jealous as the new executive director. Widely described as the first "person of color" to lead the NGO, Jealous had been the president of the left-wing activist group People for the American Way, and before that president of the NAACP.[xxxii]
But this didn't work out either. In August 2025, the Sierra board fired Jealous for cause after an "extensive evaluation of his conduct." No specific details were officially provided by the Sierra Club.xxxiii]
Shortly afterward, Bloomberg and E&E News separately reported that a sexual harassment complaint had been made against Jealous. Then in April 2026 a sexual harassment lawsuit was filed by a former direct report of Jealous. The Sierra Club has maintained radio silence regarding the specific reason for the termination, citing the legal proceeding, but noting that "we handled the matter with sensitivity and care, in line with our values, policies, and the law." Jealous responded to the firing and the allegations by denying them and accusing his former employer of "racial retaliation" and "personal attacks."[xxxiv]
A former Sierra Club board member (not involved in the decision to fire Jealous) said the firing "smells of retaliation" because it occurred right after Jealous had filed "a very lengthy complaint of harassment" against members of Sierra's executive committee. Similarly, Al Sharpton warned the world that the firing of Jealous might lead to "serious racial implications."[xxxv]
Adding to the scandal, the New York Times reported revenue shortfalls, disgruntled staff and an irritated labor union as factors that preceded the firing:[xxxvi]
In a statement, Erica Dodt, president of the Progressive Workers Union, which represents Sierra Club employees, said, "We hope that his departure will open the door for a stronger relationship between workers and management, and allow the Sierra Club to better focus our efforts on fighting the Trump administration and protecting the environment." [xxxvii]
Facing a $40 million funding deficit left to him by his predecessors, Jealous had announced layoffs in May 2023, including the Sierra Club's entire "equity team." This was the beginning of a dispute between Jealous and PWU that lasted for the rest of his time at Sierra.[xxxviii][xxxix]
In a November 2023 interview Jealous accused the PWU of being "uniquely destructive," running a "campaign against the Sierra Club for years" and spreading "racist tropes about Black leadership" (Jealous is Black). In June 2024, the PWU announced the first strike authorization in its history, issuing a news release accusing the Sierra Club and Jealous of "union-busting." Additional layoffs over the following year led to a June 2025 decision by the PWU to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board that accused the Sierra Club (i.e.: Jealous) of targeting PWU members in the layoffs.[xl][xli]
"This is not the first time we have been tested in our 133-year history," said Blackford in September 2025. "And we will meet this moment by rising together to carry our mission forward with even greater strength and clearer sense of purpose than ever before."[xlii]
The conservation movement might not have evolved into an anti-energy movement if the Sierra Club had stuck to the sense of purpose they had at their founding.
* * *
Endnotes
[i] "Historical Accomplishments." Sierra Club. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/accomplishments
[ii] Sierra Club. (EIN: 94-1153307) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941153307
Sierra Club Foundation. (EIN: 94-6069890) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/946069890
[iii] Sierra Club. (EIN: 94-1153307) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941153307
Sierra Club Foundation. (EIN: 94-6069890) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/946069890
[iv] Most anti-energy NGOs are primarily 501(c)(3) nonprofits and store most of their wealth there. But in 1966 the Sierra Club (then a 501(c)(3) educational NGO) transitioned to an advocacy nonprofit after the IRS accused it of too much lobbying and revoked its tax exemption. See here for more details: Hartmann, Michael E. "IRS revokes Sierra Club's (c)(3) status in 1966. The Giving Review. April 29, 2025. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://thegivingreview.com/irs-revokes-sierra-clubs-c3-status-in-1966/
[v] "About the Sierra Club." Sierra Club. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/about-sierra-club
[vi] "About." Progressive Workers Union. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://pwunion.org/about/
[vii] Arria, Michael. "The Shift: Sierra Club workers pass historic Palestine resolution." June 29, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/06/the-shift-sierra-club-workers-pass-historic-palestine-resolution/
[viii] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[ix] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[x] Wellock, Thomas Raymond. Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1978. University of Wisconsin Press. 1998. Accessed February 6, 2026.https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Masses-Opposition-Nuclear-California/dp/0299158500
[xi] "Nuclear Free Future." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free
[xii] "Nuclear Free Future." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free
[xiii] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[xiv] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[xv] Hayward, Steven. "Ansel Adams on Nuclear Power (Updated)." Powerline. September 21, 2013. (Quotes from a Playboy interview of Adams that occurred sometime during the first term of the Reagan administration.) Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/ansel-adams-on-nuclear-power.php
[xvi] "Ansel Adams." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/library/ansel-adams
[xvii] Schrepfer, Susan R. "Diablo Canyon and the Transformation of the Sierra Club, 1965-1985." California History. Summer 1992, Volume LXXI, No. 2. Reposted at FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archve. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.foundsf.org/Diablo_Canyon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Sierra_Club,_1965-1985
[xviii] Casselman, Ben. "Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma." Wall Street Journal. December 22, 2009. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126135534799299475
[xix] Casselman, Ben. "Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma." Wall Street Journal. December 22, 2009. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126135534799299475
[xx] Walsh, Bryan. "Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry--and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]." Time. February 2, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
[xxi] Walsh, Bryan. "Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry--and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]." Time. February 2, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
[xxii] "Al Gore 2000 On The Issues: Environment." 4President Corporation. Accessed February 10, 2026 at the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20101130202026/http://www.4president.org/issues/gore2000/gore2000environment.htm
[xxiii] Walsh, Bryan. "Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry--and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]." Time. February 2, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
[xxiv] "Beyond Gas." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/beyond-gas
[xxv] "Fossil Fuels." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/issues/climate/fossil-fuels
[xxvi] "Judge Overrules Revolution Wind Stop Work Order, Again." Sierra Club. January 13, 2026. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/01/judge-overrules-revolution-wind-stop-work-order-again
"Hundreds of Thousands of People Across U.S. Voice Opposition to Trump's Plan to Expand Offshore Drilling." Sierra Club. January 27, 2026. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/01/hundreds-thousands-people-across-us-voice-opposition-trump-s-plan-expand
"Renewable Energy." Sierra Club. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/issues/climate/renewable-energy
[xxvii] "Sierra Club Celebrates Loren Blackford as its Next Executive Director." Sierra Club. September 13, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/09/sierra-club-celebrates-loren-blackford-its-next-executive-director
[xxviii] Colman, Zack. "Sierra Club culture tolerated 'anger and aggression,' report finds." Politico. August 19, 2021. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/19/sierra-club-culture-report-506330
[xxix] Colman, Zack. "Sierra Club culture tolerated 'anger and aggression,' report finds." Politico. August 19, 2021. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/19/sierra-club-culture-report-506330
[xxx] Colman, Zack. "Sierra Club culture tolerated 'anger and aggression,' report finds." Politico. August 19, 2021. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/19/sierra-club-culture-report-506330
[xxxi] "Michael Brune Stepping Down as Sierra Club Executive Director." Sierra Club. August 12, 2021. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/08/michael-brune-stepping-down-sierra-club-executive-director
[xxxii] "Sierra Club leader Ben Jealous on tackling climate crises." LA Times Today. March 28, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/la-times-today/2023/03/28/sierra-club-leader-ben-jealous-on-tacking-climate-crises
Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
PONTEROTTO, JASON. "Ben Jealous fired as Sierra Club's first Black executive director; many say racism at play." Amsterdam News (New York). August 14, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2025/08/14/ben-jealous-fired-as-sierra-club-first-black-exeutive-director/
[xxxiii] "Sierra Club leader Ben Jealous on tackling climate crises." LA Times Today. March 28, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/la-times-today/2023/03/28/sierra-club-leader-ben-jealous-on-tacking-climate-crises
Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
PONTEROTTO, JASON. "Ben Jealous fired as Sierra Club's first Black executive director; many say racism at play." Amsterdam News (New York). August 14, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2025/08/14/ben-jealous-fired-as-sierra-club-first-black-exeutive-director/
[xxxiv] Bravender, Robin. "Ex-Sierra Club boss was subject of harassment complaint." E&E News (Politico). September 4, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/ex-sierra-club-boss-was-subject-of-harassment-complaint/
King, Pamela. "Ex-Sierra Club chief of staff sues Ben Jealous for sexual harassment." E&E News (Politico). April 29, 2026. Accessed May 1, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/ex-sierra-club-chief-of-staff-sues-ben-jealous-for-sexual-harassment/
[xxxv] Bravender, Robin. "Ex-Sierra Club boss was subject of harassment complaint." E&E News (Politico). September 4, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/ex-sierra-club-boss-was-subject-of-harassment-complaint/
[xxxvi] Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
[xxxvii] Brown, Claire. "Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director." New York Times. August 12, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20250812185655/www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/climate/sierra-club-ben-jealous-fired-executive-director.html
[xxxviii] Bravender, Robin. "Sierra Club's boss is at war with his staff. He blames them." E&E News (Politico). November 9, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/sierra-clubs-boss-is-at-war-with-his-staff-he-blames-them/
[xxxix] "Sierra Club Union Authorizes First-Ever Strike to Counter Union-Busting." Progressive Workers Union. June 27, 2024. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://pwunion.org/sierra-club-union-authorizes-first-ever-strike-to-counter-union-busting/
[xl] Bravender, Robin. "Sierra Club's boss is at war with his staff. He blames them." E&E News (Politico). November 9, 2023. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/sierra-clubs-boss-is-at-war-with-his-staff-he-blames-them/
[xli] Bravender, Robin. "Sierra Club union says layoffs broke the law." Politico PRO. June 24, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/06/24/sierra-club-union-says-layoffs-broke-the-law-00420824
[xlii] "Sierra Club Celebrates Loren Blackford as its Next Executive Director." Sierra Club. September 13, 2025. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/09/sierra-club-celebrates-loren-blackford-its-next-executive-director
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Report Link: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-sierra-club/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: U.S.-Africa Trade at a Crossroads - Moment for New Thinking
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Sept. 3, 2026, by director and senior fellow Oge Onubogu and deputy director and fellow Aaron Stanley, both of the Africa Program:
* * *
U.S.-Africa Trade at a Crossroads: A Moment for New Thinking
In 2000, when the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed, less than 1 percent of Africans had internet access, the continent's overall GDP per capita was one-third of today's, and over half of all African exports went to Europe and North America, primarily as raw commodities.
More ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Sept. 3, 2026, by director and senior fellow Oge Onubogu and deputy director and fellow Aaron Stanley, both of the Africa Program: * * * U.S.-Africa Trade at a Crossroads: A Moment for New Thinking In 2000, when the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed, less than 1 percent of Africans had internet access, the continent's overall GDP per capita was one-third of today's, and over half of all African exports went to Europe and North America, primarily as raw commodities. Morethan two decades later, AGOA's early promise of market access and industrial diversification has produced uneven and limited results. At the same time, dynamics across the African continent have drastically changed--Asia dominates as a destination for African goods; internet access has increased to approximately 36 percent of the continent; and, while African exports still rely heavily on raw commodities, they are increasingly built on value addition, services, and digital integration.
The recent passage of AGOA by the House and Senate as part of a continuing budget resolution extends the trade preference program until December 31, 2028. Following this legislative success, what is needed is to take stock of shifting global trends and changes in the structure of the African economy, while broadening the examination of the U.S.-Africa trade relationship. AGOA's extension provides an opening to proactively develop a future-forward policy framework, with goals aligned with African partners that can be realized within the next two years to match the scale of the commercial ambitions of the United States and African countries.
Changing Macro-Positions
AGOA was not specifically designed to compete with Chinese trade. The trade preference program was intended to support sub-Saharan African countries' access to and integration into global markets, with the expectation that it would spur private-sector-led growth, international investment, and industrialization. Trade preferences under the program have supported real manufacturing growth in Kenya, Madagascar, Lesotho, and elsewhere, but they have been limited to sector- and country-specific gains.
Still, evaluating a foundational part of the U.S.-African trade relationship is hard without examining the current macro-environment. In 2025, China-Africa trade reached a record $348 billion, more than three times the roughly $104.9 billion in U.S.-Africa trade. However, these numbers cover the full continent, while AGOA trade preferences apply only to sub-Saharan Africa. Trade between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa is about equal to China's trade with South Africa alone. Regardless of the geographic frame, China-Africa trade has grown significantly, while U.S.-Africa trade has remained relatively stagnant. Washington began the century with a commanding advantage. It now trades with the continent at a third of Beijing's volume.
The gap is only increasing in the sectors most likely to define international relations going forward. On critical minerals, Chinese companies control the supply chain and global processing capacity for rare earths even though they directly own or operate only a small percentage of African mines. Chinese dominance remains as the U.S. government and American firms have increased negotiations for new access arrangements. On digital infrastructure, Chinese vendors such as Huawei and ZTE are commonly cited as having built an estimated half of Africa's 3G and approximately 70 percent of its 4G networks. Chinese AI models are also emerging as local favorites due to their ease of use, low cost, and accessibility, while Chinese companies are reportedly offering free computing to companies and governments across the continent.
The data raises a bigger question surrounding U.S.-Africa trade policy. AGOA is focused on sub-Saharan African countries, treating Africa as a collection of individual markets rather than as increasingly integrated. Since 2000, when AGOA was signed, Africa has moved toward deeper integration through regional economic communities and, more recently, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Again, none of this means AGOA has failed on its own terms. Yet, from a broader perspective, relitigating AGOA provisions misses larger economic shifts and will not, by itself, create the trade relationship Americans and Africans want.
African-Led Commerce
Critical to the conversation are the diversity of African perspectives and initiatives to expand African commerce and support countries' economic development goals. At the official level, trade ministers from AGOA-eligible countries have long called for renewing and enhancing the program. But they are seeking specific advances, including alignment with the AfCFTA so that AGOA and the AfCFTA reinforce rather than compete with each other, as well as expanded coverage in agriculture, textiles, and minerals.
Beneath that official position on AGOA, there are deeper structural debates. African leaders and economists increasingly describe a move toward economic autonomy and diversification anchored in the AfCFTA. These discussions are evident in deliberate efforts to increase intra-African trade, which increased to over $192 billion in 2023. Similarly, the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System, the continental payment infrastructure, is designed explicitly to reduce dependence on foreign currencies, reduce payment friction, and increase intra-African trade.
Some analysts go further, arguing that a deeper limitation is not market access but capital. They believe that the continent's long-term interest lies in resilient, local economic systems, which require increased access to capital and diversified investment. Efforts to reform current credit rating processes, as well as the establishment of the African Credit Rating Agency by the African Union and the African Peer Review Mechanism, align with goals of securing more affordable credit.
A focus on the relationship between resilient local economies and capital reflects a desire to increase domestic value addition, moving African economies beyond raw mineral and unprocessed agricultural exports up the supply chain to capture a larger share of value. Over time, African economists argue, this will increase jobs, decrease exposure to global shocks, and build long-term wealth.
Yet, with intra-African trade still representing only 15 to 18 percent of the continent's total trade, the aspiration toward self-reliance is still being developed, with opportunities to complement this vision.
Looking Long Term
AGOA has been a pillar of the U.S.-Africa trade relationship for a quarter century. If the legislation's longevity, compounded by the challenges of enacting and updating the legislation over that period, is representative of the future legislative process, then a forward-looking perspective is required. The longer-term case for a restructured U.S.-Africa commercial framework needs to rest on three structural realities.
Africa's demographic trajectory is the first. By 2050, the continent's working-age population will exceed 1.1 billion--the largest expansion of any labor market in the world. Sub-Saharan Africa alone will need to create an estimated 15 million jobs annually by 2030 just to absorb new entrants. AGOA's manufacturing provisions generated real employment in select countries, but the scale required is categorically different. Any credible commercial framework must treat job creation as an explicit design criterion, centering on sectors with high labor absorption--light manufacturing, services, and the digital economy--rather than leaving employment gains as residual benefits.
Second, there is recognition of growing complexity, speed, and the need for coordination. Trade preferences address tariff barriers but leave a broader set of constraints on business access untouched. Standards compliance, regulatory complexity, trade finance, asymmetries between U.S. buyers and African small- and medium-sized enterprises, digital payment systems, and other factors represent frictions that duty-free access alone does not eliminate. A serious business access agenda requires a more holistic approach that includes investment facilitation, standards harmonization support, insurance and loan guarantees, and bilateral regulatory engagement, among other measures. Programs such as Prosper Africa the opportunities that arise when coordinated resources and engagement are mobilized. At a minimum, lessons from those experiences can provide a framework to spur thinking about future alternatives.
Finally, as African counterparts recognize and regularly point out, a significant, but not the only, structural bottleneck is capital. Insufficient capital limits the ability to turn market-access opportunities into competitive exports. AGOA was a market-access tool, not a finance instrument, and the combination of risk-averse private capital markets and limitations to public investment has left a significant gap. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), and U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) represent meaningful instruments, but their deployment to Africa has been modest relative to the scale of the opportunity and the competition.
Toward New Thinking
Taken together, these trends suggest that Washington needs to expand the focus and scale of its commercial ambitions with African partners. African governments are not waiting for the outcome of AGOA's modernization to determine their trade strategy, nor will AGOA's two-year extension alone be the solution. African countries are pursuing continental integration, diversified partnerships, and tools such as alternative payment systems, regardless of the United States' ultimate engagement.
While AGOA produced real gains in certain sectors and countries, the data suggest that ensuring a relevant, expanding commercial partner requires a trade preference program embedded within a broader framework of investment and trade facilitation. Washington needs to reckon honestly with the fact that African countries are building a trade future, in part, on their own terms.
The United States has the opportunity to build on institutions, tools, and learning to facilitate new trade partnerships. Trade preferences and market access are certainly part of the solution. However, what is needed, ultimately, is a broader framework that reflects where African integration is actually headed and how U.S. commercial and investment partnerships can advance it. The DFC, MCC, USTDA, and EXIM, among other institutions and mechanisms, remain strong instruments for trade, investment, and finance. What has been missing is the political coordination and sustained commitment to deploy them at the scale the moment demands. The question now is whether the United States can take this opportunity to build the relationship that the next quarter century requires.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-africa-trade-crossroads-moment-new-thinking
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
U.S.-Africa Trade at a Crossroads: A Moment for New Thinking
In 2000, when the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed, less than 1 percent of Africans had internet access, the continent's overall GDP per capita was one-third of today's, and over half of all African exports went to Europe and North America, primarily as raw commodities.
More ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Sept. 3, 2026, by director and senior fellow Oge Onubogu and deputy director and fellow Aaron Stanley, both of the Africa Program: * * * U.S.-Africa Trade at a Crossroads: A Moment for New Thinking In 2000, when the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed, less than 1 percent of Africans had internet access, the continent's overall GDP per capita was one-third of today's, and over half of all African exports went to Europe and North America, primarily as raw commodities. Morethan two decades later, AGOA's early promise of market access and industrial diversification has produced uneven and limited results. At the same time, dynamics across the African continent have drastically changed--Asia dominates as a destination for African goods; internet access has increased to approximately 36 percent of the continent; and, while African exports still rely heavily on raw commodities, they are increasingly built on value addition, services, and digital integration.
The recent passage of AGOA by the House and Senate as part of a continuing budget resolution extends the trade preference program until December 31, 2028. Following this legislative success, what is needed is to take stock of shifting global trends and changes in the structure of the African economy, while broadening the examination of the U.S.-Africa trade relationship. AGOA's extension provides an opening to proactively develop a future-forward policy framework, with goals aligned with African partners that can be realized within the next two years to match the scale of the commercial ambitions of the United States and African countries.
Changing Macro-Positions
AGOA was not specifically designed to compete with Chinese trade. The trade preference program was intended to support sub-Saharan African countries' access to and integration into global markets, with the expectation that it would spur private-sector-led growth, international investment, and industrialization. Trade preferences under the program have supported real manufacturing growth in Kenya, Madagascar, Lesotho, and elsewhere, but they have been limited to sector- and country-specific gains.
Still, evaluating a foundational part of the U.S.-African trade relationship is hard without examining the current macro-environment. In 2025, China-Africa trade reached a record $348 billion, more than three times the roughly $104.9 billion in U.S.-Africa trade. However, these numbers cover the full continent, while AGOA trade preferences apply only to sub-Saharan Africa. Trade between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa is about equal to China's trade with South Africa alone. Regardless of the geographic frame, China-Africa trade has grown significantly, while U.S.-Africa trade has remained relatively stagnant. Washington began the century with a commanding advantage. It now trades with the continent at a third of Beijing's volume.
The gap is only increasing in the sectors most likely to define international relations going forward. On critical minerals, Chinese companies control the supply chain and global processing capacity for rare earths even though they directly own or operate only a small percentage of African mines. Chinese dominance remains as the U.S. government and American firms have increased negotiations for new access arrangements. On digital infrastructure, Chinese vendors such as Huawei and ZTE are commonly cited as having built an estimated half of Africa's 3G and approximately 70 percent of its 4G networks. Chinese AI models are also emerging as local favorites due to their ease of use, low cost, and accessibility, while Chinese companies are reportedly offering free computing to companies and governments across the continent.
The data raises a bigger question surrounding U.S.-Africa trade policy. AGOA is focused on sub-Saharan African countries, treating Africa as a collection of individual markets rather than as increasingly integrated. Since 2000, when AGOA was signed, Africa has moved toward deeper integration through regional economic communities and, more recently, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Again, none of this means AGOA has failed on its own terms. Yet, from a broader perspective, relitigating AGOA provisions misses larger economic shifts and will not, by itself, create the trade relationship Americans and Africans want.
African-Led Commerce
Critical to the conversation are the diversity of African perspectives and initiatives to expand African commerce and support countries' economic development goals. At the official level, trade ministers from AGOA-eligible countries have long called for renewing and enhancing the program. But they are seeking specific advances, including alignment with the AfCFTA so that AGOA and the AfCFTA reinforce rather than compete with each other, as well as expanded coverage in agriculture, textiles, and minerals.
Beneath that official position on AGOA, there are deeper structural debates. African leaders and economists increasingly describe a move toward economic autonomy and diversification anchored in the AfCFTA. These discussions are evident in deliberate efforts to increase intra-African trade, which increased to over $192 billion in 2023. Similarly, the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System, the continental payment infrastructure, is designed explicitly to reduce dependence on foreign currencies, reduce payment friction, and increase intra-African trade.
Some analysts go further, arguing that a deeper limitation is not market access but capital. They believe that the continent's long-term interest lies in resilient, local economic systems, which require increased access to capital and diversified investment. Efforts to reform current credit rating processes, as well as the establishment of the African Credit Rating Agency by the African Union and the African Peer Review Mechanism, align with goals of securing more affordable credit.
A focus on the relationship between resilient local economies and capital reflects a desire to increase domestic value addition, moving African economies beyond raw mineral and unprocessed agricultural exports up the supply chain to capture a larger share of value. Over time, African economists argue, this will increase jobs, decrease exposure to global shocks, and build long-term wealth.
Yet, with intra-African trade still representing only 15 to 18 percent of the continent's total trade, the aspiration toward self-reliance is still being developed, with opportunities to complement this vision.
Looking Long Term
AGOA has been a pillar of the U.S.-Africa trade relationship for a quarter century. If the legislation's longevity, compounded by the challenges of enacting and updating the legislation over that period, is representative of the future legislative process, then a forward-looking perspective is required. The longer-term case for a restructured U.S.-Africa commercial framework needs to rest on three structural realities.
Africa's demographic trajectory is the first. By 2050, the continent's working-age population will exceed 1.1 billion--the largest expansion of any labor market in the world. Sub-Saharan Africa alone will need to create an estimated 15 million jobs annually by 2030 just to absorb new entrants. AGOA's manufacturing provisions generated real employment in select countries, but the scale required is categorically different. Any credible commercial framework must treat job creation as an explicit design criterion, centering on sectors with high labor absorption--light manufacturing, services, and the digital economy--rather than leaving employment gains as residual benefits.
Second, there is recognition of growing complexity, speed, and the need for coordination. Trade preferences address tariff barriers but leave a broader set of constraints on business access untouched. Standards compliance, regulatory complexity, trade finance, asymmetries between U.S. buyers and African small- and medium-sized enterprises, digital payment systems, and other factors represent frictions that duty-free access alone does not eliminate. A serious business access agenda requires a more holistic approach that includes investment facilitation, standards harmonization support, insurance and loan guarantees, and bilateral regulatory engagement, among other measures. Programs such as Prosper Africa the opportunities that arise when coordinated resources and engagement are mobilized. At a minimum, lessons from those experiences can provide a framework to spur thinking about future alternatives.
Finally, as African counterparts recognize and regularly point out, a significant, but not the only, structural bottleneck is capital. Insufficient capital limits the ability to turn market-access opportunities into competitive exports. AGOA was a market-access tool, not a finance instrument, and the combination of risk-averse private capital markets and limitations to public investment has left a significant gap. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), and U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) represent meaningful instruments, but their deployment to Africa has been modest relative to the scale of the opportunity and the competition.
Toward New Thinking
Taken together, these trends suggest that Washington needs to expand the focus and scale of its commercial ambitions with African partners. African governments are not waiting for the outcome of AGOA's modernization to determine their trade strategy, nor will AGOA's two-year extension alone be the solution. African countries are pursuing continental integration, diversified partnerships, and tools such as alternative payment systems, regardless of the United States' ultimate engagement.
While AGOA produced real gains in certain sectors and countries, the data suggest that ensuring a relevant, expanding commercial partner requires a trade preference program embedded within a broader framework of investment and trade facilitation. Washington needs to reckon honestly with the fact that African countries are building a trade future, in part, on their own terms.
The United States has the opportunity to build on institutions, tools, and learning to facilitate new trade partnerships. Trade preferences and market access are certainly part of the solution. However, what is needed, ultimately, is a broader framework that reflects where African integration is actually headed and how U.S. commercial and investment partnerships can advance it. The DFC, MCC, USTDA, and EXIM, among other institutions and mechanisms, remain strong instruments for trade, investment, and finance. What has been missing is the political coordination and sustained commitment to deploy them at the scale the moment demands. The question now is whether the United States can take this opportunity to build the relationship that the next quarter century requires.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-africa-trade-crossroads-moment-new-thinking
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Reject Arbitrary Firearm Feature Bans in Viramontes Vs. Cook County
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Reject Arbitrary Firearm Feature Bans in Viramontes v. Cook County
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed an amicus brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. At issue is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Court will hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County during its upcoming term ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026: * * * AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Reject Arbitrary Firearm Feature Bans in Viramontes v. Cook County The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed an amicus brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. At issue is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Court will hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County during its upcoming termwhich begins next month.
In its amicus brief, AFPI argues that so-called feature tests violate the Second Amendment by targeting ordinary design characteristics such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds. Those features can improve a firearm's safety, accuracy or ease of use, but they do not change its basic operation: One pull of the trigger fires one round.
"Cook County can attach whatever label they want to the most common rifles in America, but their label does not erase the protections inherent to the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights does not grant the government latitude to turn ordinary design improvements into a constitutional off switch. As with any natural right, Americans should not lose their constitutional protections any time technology evolves," said Knox Williams, Senior Fellow for Second Amendment Policy.
AFPI's brief traces centuries of firearm innovation and explains that the Constitution protects modern arms just as the First Amendment protects modern communications. Because feature bans lack a historical analogue and reach firearms commonly possessed for lawful purposes, AFPI urges the Court to reverse the decision.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-urges-supreme-court-to-reject-arbitrary-firearm-feature-bans-in-viramontes-v-cook-county
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Reject Arbitrary Firearm Feature Bans in Viramontes v. Cook County
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed an amicus brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. At issue is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Court will hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County during its upcoming term ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026: * * * AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Reject Arbitrary Firearm Feature Bans in Viramontes v. Cook County The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed an amicus brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. At issue is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Court will hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County during its upcoming termwhich begins next month.
In its amicus brief, AFPI argues that so-called feature tests violate the Second Amendment by targeting ordinary design characteristics such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds. Those features can improve a firearm's safety, accuracy or ease of use, but they do not change its basic operation: One pull of the trigger fires one round.
"Cook County can attach whatever label they want to the most common rifles in America, but their label does not erase the protections inherent to the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights does not grant the government latitude to turn ordinary design improvements into a constitutional off switch. As with any natural right, Americans should not lose their constitutional protections any time technology evolves," said Knox Williams, Senior Fellow for Second Amendment Policy.
AFPI's brief traces centuries of firearm innovation and explains that the Constitution protects modern arms just as the First Amendment protects modern communications. Because feature bans lack a historical analogue and reach firearms commonly possessed for lawful purposes, AFPI urges the Court to reverse the decision.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-urges-supreme-court-to-reject-arbitrary-firearm-feature-bans-in-viramontes-v-cook-county
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Brief Defends Parents' Role in Children's Mental Health Decisions
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Brief Defends Parents' Role in Children's Mental Health Decisions
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Legal Team filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, who serves as Director of American Values at AFPI. The brief urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a permanent injunction protecting parents from school policies that conceal and facilitate a child's social transition without parental involvement.
Dr. Bauwens' amicus brief ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026: * * * AFPI Brief Defends Parents' Role in Children's Mental Health Decisions The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Legal Team filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, who serves as Director of American Values at AFPI. The brief urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a permanent injunction protecting parents from school policies that conceal and facilitate a child's social transition without parental involvement. Dr. Bauwens' amicus briefin Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta, et al. explains that social transition is a mental health intervention with potential consequences for a child's identity, well-being and the possible future physical, irreversible treatment. School employees lack the clinical training, the legal authority and a license to practice--all of which are necessary to apply a psychological intervention--and the Constitution protects parents' primary role in decisions affecting their children's care and upbringing.
"Schools should not make consequential mental health decisions for a child behind the backs of parents. Social transition can have devastating effects on a child's mental health-their identity formation, and their ability to sustain healthy relationships. Teachers and administrators have neither the clinical role nor the constitutional and legal authority to chart that course while excluding the people who know and love the child most," said Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, Director of American Values at AFPI.
Leigh Ann O'Neill, AFPI's Chief Legal Affairs Officer, added: "This practice violates parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, with potential impacts--and loss of parental control--across many other student-school interactions."
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the injunction for the parent class in March while the appeal proceeds. AFPI urges the Ninth Circuit to preserve that protection and affirm that schools cannot push parents out of decisions with lasting consequences for their children.
Amicus Brief: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/AFPI_Bauwens_amicus_brief_9th_Cir.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-brief-defends-parents-role-in-childrens-mental-health-decisions
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Brief Defends Parents' Role in Children's Mental Health Decisions
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Legal Team filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, who serves as Director of American Values at AFPI. The brief urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a permanent injunction protecting parents from school policies that conceal and facilitate a child's social transition without parental involvement.
Dr. Bauwens' amicus brief ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Sept. 3, 2026: * * * AFPI Brief Defends Parents' Role in Children's Mental Health Decisions The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Legal Team filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, who serves as Director of American Values at AFPI. The brief urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a permanent injunction protecting parents from school policies that conceal and facilitate a child's social transition without parental involvement. Dr. Bauwens' amicus briefin Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta, et al. explains that social transition is a mental health intervention with potential consequences for a child's identity, well-being and the possible future physical, irreversible treatment. School employees lack the clinical training, the legal authority and a license to practice--all of which are necessary to apply a psychological intervention--and the Constitution protects parents' primary role in decisions affecting their children's care and upbringing.
"Schools should not make consequential mental health decisions for a child behind the backs of parents. Social transition can have devastating effects on a child's mental health-their identity formation, and their ability to sustain healthy relationships. Teachers and administrators have neither the clinical role nor the constitutional and legal authority to chart that course while excluding the people who know and love the child most," said Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, Director of American Values at AFPI.
Leigh Ann O'Neill, AFPI's Chief Legal Affairs Officer, added: "This practice violates parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, with potential impacts--and loss of parental control--across many other student-school interactions."
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the injunction for the parent class in March while the appeal proceeds. AFPI urges the Ninth Circuit to preserve that protection and affirm that schools cannot push parents out of decisions with lasting consequences for their children.
Amicus Brief: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/AFPI_Bauwens_amicus_brief_9th_Cir.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-brief-defends-parents-role-in-childrens-mental-health-decisions
[Category: ThinkTank]