Featured Stories
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Private School Choice Enrolls Higher Share of Students With Disabilities Than Public Schools
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Nov. 10 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Private school choice enrolls higher share of students with disabilities than public schools
Written by Catrin Wigfall | November 9, 2026
One oft-repeated claim about private school choice programs (such as vouchers and education savings accounts) is that they exclude students with special needs.
But new research has found the opposite.
In "Good News! Students with Disabilities are Overrepresented
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Nov. 10 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Private school choice enrolls higher share of students with disabilities than public schools
Written by Catrin Wigfall | November 9, 2026
One oft-repeated claim about private school choice programs (such as vouchers and education savings accounts) is that they exclude students with special needs.
But new research has found the opposite.
In "Good News! Students with Disabilities are Overrepresentedin Private School Choice Programs," authors Patrick Wolf, John Kristof, Alex Wolf, and Alli Aldis counted students with disabilities in disability-specific choice programs and conservatively estimated their numbers in programs open to all students. They found that over a quarter of a million students with disabilities (258,844) participate in private school choice, or 17.2 percent of all choice participants nationally, compared with 15 percent of public school students.
The "push" and the "pull"
Families choose private school choice programs for two main reasons, Wolf et al. explain. Some are "pushed" out of a public school that isn't meeting their child's learning needs. Others are "pulled" toward choice programs with educational options designed for their atypical learner. Several of the country's first private school choice programs were created specifically for students with disabilities.
Groves Academy in St. Louis Park and Franklin Academy in Golden Valley offer a glimpse of what this looks like in practice, as these private schools specifically serve neurodiverse learners. Expanding school choice in Minnesota could build out the supply side, as has happened in states like Arizona and Florida, attracting new education vendors and increasing the number and types of similar schools and service providers in the state. It would also help remove financial barriers that keep families from accessing alternatives, including families waitlisted for a tuition-free charter option like Spero Academy due to limited capacity.
There are two federal laws governing special education: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both aim to "ensure that every child with a disability has access to a free appropriate public education," but as Wolf et al. put it, IDEA's "enforcement is largely left up to parents, who must advocate for their children and seek redress through legal and bureaucratic channels." The authors describe this system as one where "proceduralism and compliance rule."
I saw the system from both ends as a teacher. I helped develop students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and then implement the services and accommodations they called for. My small charter school had the same federal requirements as any district, which means meetings and paperwork still, but the process felt less bureaucratic. We could adjust services quickly when something wasn't working.
Adam Peshek of Stand Together notes that while Congress envisioned a collaborative IEP process, "and in many cases it is," school officials have the final say over the document's content and the services a child receives. This was true at my school too, but parents could take their child elsewhere if we weren't delivering.
Families who make that move aren't giving up their children's rights in the way school choice critics often claim, according to Wolf et al. It is often more nuanced, and it varies by state:
- Rather, the full procedural guarantees under IDEA are placed in abeyance. If a student returns to the public school system, their rights under IDEA (or Section 504) are immediately back in full force.
- Second, in some states, such as Louisiana and Tennessee, students with disabilities retain all their rights under IDEA and Section 504 when they switch to a private school through participation in a choice program. Other states, such as Maryland, ensure that certain rights transfer when a student with disabilities participates in a choice program.
Every type of learning environment is not perfect, and not every private school choice program is perfect either. Wolf et al. acknowledge this, pointing out ways that states and their programs could improve in serving students with disabilities -- from adjusting funding to account for special needs to disclosing rights and protections clearly to families before they enroll.
Many families will continue to stay with their local public school because they are satisfied with their IEP team and the services their child is getting. The predictions, though, that private school choice on a large scale would result in public schools with high concentrations of students with disabilities haven't materialized. There are also examples of public school districts unable to meet all the needs of students with disabilities, and those students are placed in separate schools (public or private) for support.
Regardless of what learning environment is selected, the focus, as stated in the name of the federal law, should be on the needs of individual students. If a family believes their child participating in a private school choice program will serve them better, they are voluntarily choosing that, and high levels of satisfaction exist among those families regarding their choices.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/private-school-choice-enrolls-higher-share-of-students-with-disabilities-than-public-schools/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Google Continues to Give School Districts No-win Choices
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Nov. 10 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Google continues to give school districts no-win choices
Written by Josiah Padley | November 9, 2026
The motto "Don't be evil" has been downplayed at Google for about a decade now, but it's still a relevant concern for the corporation that's one of the largest companies in the world.
Earlier this week, Google announced that it will be rolling out a new Guided Learning AI tool that could reshape the
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Nov. 10 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Google continues to give school districts no-win choices
Written by Josiah Padley | November 9, 2026
The motto "Don't be evil" has been downplayed at Google for about a decade now, but it's still a relevant concern for the corporation that's one of the largest companies in the world.
Earlier this week, Google announced that it will be rolling out a new Guided Learning AI tool that could reshape theclassroom, alongside a bait-and-switch announcement promising new AI administrative tools for school districts.
An extremely high majority of K-12 students in America have a school-issued personal device, and Google is easily the largest provider of laptops. Google products shape the classroom experience for almost every American student.
Districts often struggle to reconcile the need for students to learn how to interact with the digital world and the reality that ed-tech like Chromebooks often creates a time-wasting black box. While limited administrative controls do exist for Chromebooks, they have not yet prevented catastrophic average levels of wasted classroom time.
So far, Google hasn't been a helpful ally to districts. In August, Google unexpectedly made the AI tool Google Gemini available within the Google Classroom app to all students, of all ages, in districts that had permitted some AI tools elsewhere. This switch caught many districts flat-footed, raising concerns that technology implementation in the classroom was controlled by Big Tech production schedules instead of thoughtful district policies.
According to Edweek, Google has faced increasing political pressure over ed-tech. U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., gave Google until Nov. 2 to answer nine questions, including the question "Why has Google set A.I. product integration as the default and, in some cases, made it impossible to disable these features on licensed education devices?" The open letter raised several strong concerns, such as why Google seemed to be fully aware of the negative effects of AI on young students and yet continued to push the products to school districts.
Google's new announcement
Google hasn't answered the letter, but it did announce on Nov. 3 that the Gemini chatbot tool and the Google Search function will now be off on school Chromebooks by default. Administrators will have to turn the features on manually.
This may seem like a step in the right direction, but the announcement was a bait-and-switch. According to Google vice president Chris Phillips, the Google Search function and AI are so deeply integrated that schools won't have the option to let their students search without AI integration.
It's hard to believe that those tech geniuses over at Google really can't figure out how to let students use Google Search without using Google AI. Many schools, in all likelihood, will feel forced into letting their students access AI to preserve their ability to research using Google Search.
The announcement, understandably, has raised concern in many school districts.
A new transformative technology
The announcement of that Faustian bargain (Google Search for integrated AI) has overshadowed the second, equally impactful part of Google's Nov. 3 presentation: the new Guided Learning AI function.
Guided Learning is a just-announced AI function that will shake established classroom rhythms.
The tool coaches students through the steps of a problem instead of giving them the answer straightaway. It's available to students both through Google Search and through Google Classroom.
While Google' s announcement frames the new tool as a helpful alternative to AI bots that simply solve homework questions for the student, the company has also designed Google Classroom integration that allows conversations with the Guided Learning chatbot to be assigned to students as a routine part of their coursework.
The process is streamlined and easy. Teachers will be able to assign students Guided Learning AI activities through the Google Classroom portal. Teachers can feed the Guided Learning AI classroom materials for more context. [Example of a student assignment page below.]
[View chart in the link at bottom]
Afterwards, teachers will simply observe as students receive bespoke homework tips and reassuring comments from the chatbots. [Example of a student AI Guided Learning chat below.]
[View chart in the link at bottom]
Teachers can view transcripts of the conversation and receive AI-generated summaries of how students are performing after the assigned AI conversations are complete. [Example of the Guided Learning teacher view below.]
[View chart in the link at bottom]
The ability to provide personalized coaching to students through the Guided Learning platform is a huge mass technological change in the classroom. It mirrors the technology provided at institutions like Alpha School, which uses AI technology to deliver coursework to students. If Guided Learning becomes a standard assignment, concerns about teacher preparedness and efficacy could fade into the background as the bot takes primary control of student guidance.
There are many unanswered questions about the new Guided Learning tool. Will students be able to "break" this tool to answer their homework without putting in effort? Will they be able to access off-task information through Guided Learning? What are the consequences for using an AI chatbot to coach students through new concepts instead of a human teacher?
And the big one: Is this an effective learning tool, or just another way for Google to make money?
Concerns for districts
It's important for districts to remember that Google is not a student advocacy group. While Guided Learning could be an amazing supplemental tool for teachers, it could just as easily usurp the role of teacher altogether. Since Google has already globally released Guided Learning into Google Classroom, districts don't have much time to plan and discuss.
The company isn't winning too much trust. Since Google has coupled AI integration and Google Search, the company is forcing many school districts to choose between basic search abilities coupled with Guided Learning or no search abilities at all.
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission, correctly remarked that Google is attempting "to coerce schools into adopting AI."
Why now? Google is continuing to force stronger AI integration in the classroom just as many districts are shying away from it or requesting higher administrative controls.
Very real concerns about how this ed-tech is reshaping the school experience for the worse have led some districts to put strict limits on screen time and AI use in the classroom. For example, the Los Angles school district recently chose to move away from a 1:1 device classroom model, adding significant AI and screen time limits.
It's hard to believe that concerned parents and districts will feel more comfortable after this rollout.
Big Tech production timelines shouldn't control classroom technology implementation. Students deserve thoughtful administrative tech policies, and currently they're getting yanked about by the whims of tech creators. Google must learn to give deference to administrators if the company wants to avoid frustrating conversations with lawmakers.
Google's (minute) rollback of automatic AI integration shows that the company is sensitive to public pressure from districts and lawmakers. Lawmakers should continue to ask hard questions until Google produces technology that is truly safe for students and gives the maximum amount of authority to administrators.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/google-continues-to-give-school-districts-no-win-choices/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: 1st Amendment for Me, Not for Thee
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Nov. 10 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
1st Amendment for me, not for thee
Written by Bill Glahn | November 9, 2026
The ongoing Don Lemon/James O'Keefe court cases provide for an illuminating contrast. From FOX-9 TV,
- Don Lemon, other independent journalists seek to have St. Paul church protest case dismissed.
You will recall the incident, which occurred at the height of Operation Metro Surge,
- Lemon was present when protesters disrupted
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Nov. 10 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
1st Amendment for me, not for thee
Written by Bill Glahn | November 9, 2026
The ongoing Don Lemon/James O'Keefe court cases provide for an illuminating contrast. From FOX-9 TV,
- Don Lemon, other independent journalists seek to have St. Paul church protest case dismissed.
You will recall the incident, which occurred at the height of Operation Metro Surge,
- Lemon was present when protesters disrupteda service at Cities Church in St. Paul in January.
"Present"? Lemon wasn't attending the service, he was disrupting it. The text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads,
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Lemon, important media person, gets to prohibit the parishioners of Cities Church from freely exercising their religion by invading their sanctuary during a regularly-scheduled service. His first amendment rights are more important than their first amendment rights. Lemon is a TV star, they don't count.
Lemon is one of 39 defendants in the federal case filed after the church invasion. He is Defendant No. 4. The case is moving towards a courtroom trial and to that end, there have been a series of court hearings both this week and last at the federal courthouse in downtown St. Paul.
The case is being heard by district Judge Jerry Blackwell, a Biden-appointee. Blackwell is all but guaranteed to side with Lemon and toss the case before it can see a jury.
Compare the likely fate of independent, conservative journalist James O'Keefe. You will recall that O'Keefe, in costume, visited Minneapolis back in August to draw attention to the state's ridiculous no ID "vouching" system for voting. For his troubles, he and another journalist have been charged with two felonies apiece by soft-on-crime county prosecutor Mary Moriarty.
O'Keefe is due in court on November 16. The first test will be whether Moriarty insists on pre-trial detention for O'Keefe. The complaint filed against O'Keefe, 42, includes his home address in Florida, down to the apartment number.
The county prosecutor assigned to the case is Morgan Kunz, who you may recall from my report of the Edina townhall on suburban disturbances.
Given the far-left orientation of Hennepin County judges, and the lopsided political orientation of the Hennepin County jury pool, there is a chance that O'Keefe will be sent to state prison.
* * *
Bill Glahn is a Policy Fellow with Center of the American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/1st-amendment-for-me-not-for-thee/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Mind the Gap - Keeping Export Compliance Within Reach as BIS Focuses on Enforcement
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary:
* * *
Mind the Gap: Keeping Export Compliance Within Reach as BIS Focuses on Enforcement
Commentary by Kate Koren, Kevin Kurland, Joshua Massey, and Ryan Powers
November 9, 2026
On September 30, 2026, the CSIS Economics Program and the University of Georgia's Benson-Bertsch Center for International Trade and Security convened the Technology Export Controls Conference, bringing together officials from government, compliance professionals from industry, and scholars from academia for a
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary:
* * *
Mind the Gap: Keeping Export Compliance Within Reach as BIS Focuses on Enforcement
Commentary by Kate Koren, Kevin Kurland, Joshua Massey, and Ryan Powers
November 9, 2026
On September 30, 2026, the CSIS Economics Program and the University of Georgia's Benson-Bertsch Center for International Trade and Security convened the Technology Export Controls Conference, bringing together officials from government, compliance professionals from industry, and scholars from academia for aday of discussion on the state of U.S. export controls. Across the panels, a consistent picture emerged: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is moving from a posture of proactive engagement toward one focused on enforcement, and in doing so it is transferring much of the day-to-day burden of compliance onto the companies it regulates.
That shift is not inherently a problem. Government has always been responsible for administering and enforcing export controls while industry has always borne ultimate responsibility for compliance, and an enforcement-minded BIS is a responsible approach to the current contested technology landscape. But compliance is a collaborative endeavor. The combination of rising expectations and receding government engagement creates a widening knowledge gap that falls most heavily on small- and medium-sized companies that may not be able to afford dedicated compliance staff. It also risks uneven access to government policymakers and an exacerbated paucity of clear guidance to industry as they seek to uphold their compliance responsibilities.
To ensure that the United States has an export control policy that advances U.S. national security without impairing U.S. technology leadership and needlessly limiting legitimate international commerce, this enforcement-forward BIS approach should be accompanied by:
1. Efforts to compile, synthesize, and update existing government compliance guidance so it is clear, findable, and usable, especially for smaller firms.
2. Intra-industry collaboration to fill the guidance gap with jointly developed best-practice recommendations for compliance measures, such as screening and red-flag analysis.
3. Building a pipeline of export control professionals through updated university curricula, accredited certification programs, and public workforce funding.
4. Deploying AI for screening with humans in the loop, and partnering with frontier AI labs so widely available models provide reliable, source-linked, and regularly updated export control knowledge that users can verify, with appropriate guardrails.
These efforts will promote a collaborative culture among government, industry, and academia while ensuring companies of all sizes are better able to understand and manage their compliance responsibilities. Better management of compliance responsibilities and coordination between government and industry on export controls will support U.S. national security.
An Enforcement-First BIS
BIS is increasingly leading with enforcement rather than engagement. Rules are changing in less predictable ways (e.g., through website postings and letters to individual companies rather than publishing new regulations), and the penalties for getting them wrong are rising. BIS is expected to get a significant budget increase, especially for law enforcement agents and overseas export control officers. For companies, this requires additional diligence--and resources--from compliance teams to remain abreast of current controls and ensure that internal systems are correctly aligned.
Companies have always been legally responsible for complying with export controls, but the government is now assigning them a larger role in vetting transactions by not updating the Entity List, Unverified List, or red-flag guidance. BIS is asking industry to make more judgment calls while offering little guidance on how to make them, and what guidance exists is often dense, dated, or difficult to find.
Because BIS engagement has receded, universities and companies of all sizes, especially small- and medium-sized ones, are not always aware when risks and best practices change at all. And the problem is not confined to the government-industry relationship; firms need to communicate compliance expectations and risk tolerance more clearly with their own partners, suppliers, and distributors.
Closing the Knowledge Gap
None of this means BIS should back off from its enforcement posture. But if the government is going to seat industry with more responsibility while engaging with it less, the cost of compliance has to come down and the knowledge gap has to stop growing. The conference discussions highlighted four lines of effort that civil society, industry, and state and local governments can pursue now, without waiting for federal government action.
1. Compile and synthesize existing government publications and update outdated content where possible. A great deal of useful BIS guidance exists, but it is scattered across disparate sources and often written for specialists. Resource-constrained compliance teams and smaller companies that cannot sustain a developed compliance program rarely have the time to collate this information, let alone the experience and expertise to interpret it. A single-source repository of published BIS and related government agency documents, paired with plain-language summaries for readers unfamiliar with the nuances of compliance, could greatly improve industry understanding.
Some guidance, such as "Export Compliance Guidelines: The Elements of an Effective Export Compliance Program" (2017) and "Don't Let This Happen to You" (last updated in 2024), could also be updated to reflect recent enforcement outcomes and technology advances, such as AI-enabled screening, without creating new policy or regulatory interpretations that could conflict with BIS policymaking.
2. Industry collaboration on best-practice recommendations. With gray lists rendered obsolete almost as soon as they are published and official guidance out of date, compliance officers are left without a reliable reference. Companies and industry associations collectively hold the expertise to fill that void. Jointly developed best-practice recommendations on screening methodologies and red-flag analysis--delivered through webinars, online training programs, and hypothetical case studies--would give compliance officers both a resource and a forum for problem-solving.
3. Build a pipeline of export control professionals. There is no universally recognized career track for export compliance officers, leaving companies and universities without a baseline standard of competence. U.S. colleges and universities training students for roles in international business and policy should update their curricula to include export control compliance. Employers and professionals alike would benefit from accredited training and certification programs that build the skills to interpret and comply with U.S. export control regulations, whether for current employees, those changing roles, or those needing to refresh their knowledge.
Leveraging federal and state resources could help make such training more cost-effective, especially for small- and medium-sized firms. For example, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds local Workforce Development Boards, which could provide small businesses with a financially accessible path to rigorous compliance training. In addition, many public U.S. colleges and universities have public service and outreach mandates, making them a key source of cost-effective workforce development training.
4. Deploy AI for screening, but keep humans in the loop. AI is well suited to the pattern recognition at the heart of screening, and adopting it could rapidly lower compliance costs. AI tools could, for example, improve a company's ability to spot red flags, incorporate up-to-the-minute information from BIS policy or enforcement actions, and detect inconsistencies across invoices, shipping records, and end-use statements. However, AI cannot and should not substitute for trained judgment. The standard set of AI cautions applies: hallucinations, misread context, and difficulty with genuinely complex cases mean that trained compliance officers need to check the model's work.
Identifying best practices for the use of AI from both a governance and transactional review perspective could help lower compliance costs without undercutting compliance programs. Additionally, collaboration between the U.S. government, think tanks, universities, and frontier AI labs to incorporate export control guidance into generally available models could enable broad access to export compliance knowledge and expertise that is currently only available at high cost from consultants and law firms.
For export controls to be effective, companies need to understand and properly implement them. BIS's heightened focus on enforcement raises the stakes for getting compliance right at precisely the moment it is becoming harder to know what "right" looks like. Industry, academia, and civil society cannot close that gap on the government's behalf, but they can keep it from widening. The insights surfaced at the conference made clear that the tools to do so are already within reach.
* * *
Kate Koren is deputy director of the Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Kevin Kurland is a senior technical expert (non-resident) with the CSIS Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business. Joshua Massey is the director of the Master of International Policy program at the University of Georgia (UGA) and a senior research associate at the Benson-Bertsch Center for International Trade and Security at UGA. Ryan Powers is the Gary K. Bertsch director of the Benson-Bertsch Center for International Trade and Security at UGA.
This analysis is made possible through generous support from the 2430 Group.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/mind-gap-keeping-export-compliance-within-reach-bis-focuses-enforcement
[Category: ThinkTank]
As Corporate Accountability Fight Heats Up, Groundwork Adds Senate, White House Veterans to Its Ranks
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
As Corporate Accountability Fight Heats Up, Groundwork Adds Senate, White House Veterans to Its Ranks
November 9, 2026
The corporate watchdog and economic think tank's recent hires bring new legal and digital firepower to its work to expose Fortune 500 companies gouging working families and plot the future of progressive economic policy
-
Groundwork Collaborative, the economic policy shop that has made K Street sweat and forced C-Suites to scramble by holding
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
As Corporate Accountability Fight Heats Up, Groundwork Adds Senate, White House Veterans to Its Ranks
November 9, 2026
The corporate watchdog and economic think tank's recent hires bring new legal and digital firepower to its work to expose Fortune 500 companies gouging working families and plot the future of progressive economic policy
-
Groundwork Collaborative, the economic policy shop that has made K Street sweat and forced C-Suites to scramble by holdingcorporations accountable for ripping off working families, has added senior strategists to their team. These hires come as demands ramp up for bold, fresh economic policy proposals to address the cost-of-living crisis, artificial intelligence, and corruption.
Liz Brown - with previous stints in the White House, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the office of Senator Elizabeth Warren - comes on board as the Director of Legal Policy. Andres Roa - formerly a video producer for the Senate Strategic Communications Committee and Senator Cory Booker - joins Groundwork as the Director of Video Strategy and Content.
Groundwork's President and CEO, Lindsay Owens, said:
"Voters have made it clear that they want Washington to hold corporations accountable for ripping them off. Delivering on that requires people who can build the legal case against corporate abuse and make sure every American hears about it. I'm thrilled to welcome Liz and Andres - two of the best in the game - to Groundwork at this critical moment. They're joining a team that has already put corporate executives and their lobbyists on notice, and we're not letting up."
Brown is a policy expert specializing in consumer protection, tax, housing, and regulatory policy. Prior to joining Groundwork, she served as a Legal Fellow in Senator Elizabeth Warren's office and as an editor at the Law and Political Economy Project. She previously held roles at the White House Domestic Policy Council and at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the Biden-Harris Administration. Originally from North Carolina, Brown holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, an M.P.A from Princeton SPIA, and a B.A. from Duke University.
"For too long, corporations have been skirting consumer protection laws and padding their profits at the expense of working families. Groundwork is changing that," said Brown. "I'm proud to join a team that's already proven it can win and to help build the legal case for an economy that works for everyone."
Roa is a digital communications expert and end-to-end production specialist. Before joining Groundwork, he served as a Video Producer for the Strategic Communications Committee in the Senate, where he helped pioneer the committee's long-form video program, and as Video Producer for Senator Cory Booker. He brings to Groundwork a decade of video production experience and over a decade as a professional theatre actor and teacher. Born in Bogota, Colombia and a resident of Rockville, Roa holds an MFA in Classical Theatre from the University of Houston's Professional Actor Training Program.
"My career has taught me that people don't remember facts, they remember stories," said Roa. "Groundwork has the facts on what's making life unaffordable for average Americans. I'm thrilled to help turn those facts into new stories about the economy that demand the attention they deserve."
* * *
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/as-corporate-accountability-fight-heats-up-groundwork-adds-senate-white-house-veterans-to-its-ranks/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Carolina Journal: N.C. Must Build on Its Crime Decline
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary to the Carolina Journal:
* * *
NC must build on its crime decline
November 6, 2026
During President Trump's Greenville visit last month, the White House touted North Carolina's falling crime, and the numbers back it up. State figures show that murders fell 12% in the first half of 2026, robberies 18%, and car thefts 23% compared with a year earlier. Charlotte ended 2025 with violent crime down 21% and 14 fewer homicides. These declines mean lives saved and families spared a loss they would
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary to the Carolina Journal:
* * *
NC must build on its crime decline
November 6, 2026
During President Trump's Greenville visit last month, the White House touted North Carolina's falling crime, and the numbers back it up. State figures show that murders fell 12% in the first half of 2026, robberies 18%, and car thefts 23% compared with a year earlier. Charlotte ended 2025 with violent crime down 21% and 14 fewer homicides. These declines mean lives saved and families spared a loss they wouldcarry forever.
North Carolinians should be able to work and raise families without planning their lives around crime. The election may be over, but the responsibility to keep North Carolinians safe is not.
To read the full article, click here (https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/nc-must-build-on-its-crime-decline/).
Originally published by The Carolina Journal (https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/nc-must-build-on-its-crime-decline/)
* * *
Greg Glod
Director, Law and Justice
Kevin Daniels
Executive Director America First North Carolina
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/nc-must-build-on-its-crime-decline/
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Files Amicus Brief Supporting Executive Privilege in Peter Navarro Case
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Files Amicus Brief Supporting Executive Privilege in Peter Navarro Case
November 9, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has filed an amicus brief on behalf of former Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt in support of Peter Navarro's petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.
AFPI's amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to hear Navarro's case, while addressing important questions surrounding senior presidential advisors' ability to rely
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Files Amicus Brief Supporting Executive Privilege in Peter Navarro Case
November 9, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has filed an amicus brief on behalf of former Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt in support of Peter Navarro's petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.
AFPI's amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to hear Navarro's case, while addressing important questions surrounding senior presidential advisors' ability to relyon executive privilege in objecting to congressional subpoenas seeking to improperly pry into confidential communications with the President.
"The Constitution and the Supreme Court are clear: Senior advisors to the President should not be prosecuted for objecting to complying with a congressional subpoena that improperly seeks the disclosure of confidential information protected by executive privilege," said former Department of the Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. "This protection ensures the President gets candid advice and facilitates an effective and efficient decision-making process."
"For years, Congress has tried to frustrate the separation of powers by weaponizing their subpoena power and dangling the threat of prosecution over the heads of presidential advisors," said Chad Mizelle, Chair of Litigation at AFPI and former chief of staff at the Department of Justice. "If the days of compromise and negotiation are behind us, the Supreme Court must step in to defend the American people from the predations of an overreaching legislature."
AFPI is committed to defending the Constitution, preserving separation of powers, and ensuring that the executive branch can fulfill its obligations to the American people.
Read AFPI's full amicus brief here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-474/432197/20261109115908306_261104a%20AC%20for%20efiling.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-files-amicus-brief-supporting-executive-privilege-in-peter-navarro-case/
[Category: ThinkTank]
