Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Winery Sues Santa Barbara Over Unconstitutional Mandate
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Winery Sues Santa Barbara Over Unconstitutional Mandate
*
It's a bedrock constitutional principle: the government can't compel a private business to fund speech it disagrees with-but that's exactly what's happened to Flying Goat Cellars, a small Santa Barbara, Calif., winery. Now, with the help of the Goldwater Institute, Flying Goat is fighting back and suing the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for forcing it to fund a trade association that doesn't have Flying Goat's best interests
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Winery Sues Santa Barbara Over Unconstitutional Mandate
*
It's a bedrock constitutional principle: the government can't compel a private business to fund speech it disagrees with-but that's exactly what's happened to Flying Goat Cellars, a small Santa Barbara, Calif., winery. Now, with the help of the Goldwater Institute, Flying Goat is fighting back and suing the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for forcing it to fund a trade association that doesn't have Flying Goat's best interestsat heart.
For more than two decades, Flying Goat founders Norm Yost and Kate Griffith have built their family-owned winery into one of the region's most innovative and celebrated producers-pursuing their own vision of what their winery should be along the way. But last year, county officials and the leaders of the local vintners' association decided that they know what's best for Flying Goat.
In February 2025, the board created a wine "Business Improvement District," or Wine BID, requiring all local wineries to pay a 1% assessment on sales to fund regional marketing efforts. The ordinance also forces wineries to become members of the Santa Barbara County Vintners' Association, which controls how the money is spent.
The vintners' association has long sought to force local wineries to join its ranks-its lobbying efforts to establish the Wine BID and to compel membership date back to 2019. Prior to the creation of the Wine BID, most Santa Barbara wineries were not members.
The problem is, Norm and Kate don't want anything to do with the Wine BID because they don't agree with its marketing or lobbying activities-including paying for overseas trips for its leaders.
"Flying Goat's success is built on building direct relationships with the customers who walk through our winery's doors, not on international markets and the kinds of broad campaigns the vintners' association favors," Norm said. "Our vision for Flying Goat and the vintners' association's vision for the Santa Barbara wine industry are not the same."
The good news-the law is on Flying Goat's side.
"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot force Americans to subsidize speech they disagree with," said Goldwater Institute Senior Staff Attorney Adam Shelton, who represents Flying Goat Cellars. "It has also recognized a fundamental right not to be compelled into private associations. Santa Barbara County's mandate violates both principles."
In addition to the First Amendment concerns, the mandated fee also violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by redirecting Flying Goat's revenue to a private organization without a legitimate public use.
In February, the Goldwater Institute sent a letter to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors urging officials to make the 1% fee and vintners' association membership voluntary. The board has not responded, leaving Flying Goat and Goldwater with no choice but to pursue legal action.
Flying Goat's lawsuit comes as many California wineries are at a tipping point-rising production costs, increased competition, and shifting consumer habits have made this the most challenging time for the wine industry since Prohibition. Flying Goat Cellars says the county's mandate could accelerate the squeeze on smaller, independent producers.
"On the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country, I'm proud to defend the First and Fifth amendment rights that my Patriot ancestors fought hard to establish," Kate said. "I will do whatever I can to prevent the government from forcing our affiliation with an organization we don't want to join, as well as from taking money from our coffers for that organization."
Flying Goat's lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Barbara County Vintners' Association.
The Goldwater Institute is proud to fight for Flying Goat's First and Fifth Amendment rights and won't stop until the county ends its unconstitutional ordinance.
Read Flying Goat Cellars' lawsuit here.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/winery-sues-santa-barbara-over-unconstitutional-mandate/
The future of development studies? Debates in Nairobi
BRIGHTON, England, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news:
* * *
The future of development studies? Debates in Nairobi
*
Last month a series of events were held at the University of Nairobi to celebrate 60 years of IDS together with alumni and other partners. The host was our namesake the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, which
... Show Full Article
BRIGHTON, England, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news:
* * *
The future of development studies? Debates in Nairobi
*
Last month a series of events were held at the University of Nairobi to celebrate 60 years of IDS together with alumni and other partners. The host was our namesake the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, whichcelebrated its 60th anniversary last year.
The joint celebrations offered a moment to reflect on the future of development studies by two sibling institutions born in a very different era.
A podcast was recorded on this theme, featuring commentaries by Professors Ian Scoones, from Sussex-based IDS, and Paul Kamau, Research Director at IDS Nairobi. The podcast was hosted Dr Tahira Mohamed, alumna of IDS Sussex and currently working with the Jameel Observatory at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi and Dr Rahma Hassan, IDS Nairobi alumna and working with the Centre for Research and Development in Drylands in Marsabit and Tufts University. While acknowledging the current challenges, all contributors offered some hopeful directions for the future.
Listen to the podcast
At an event hosted by IDS Nairobi entitled, "Rethinking disasters and development: from control to care", Ian Scoones presented the keynote drawing on his work on uncertainty and pastoralism, with Paul Kamau giving the introductions, and a great panel drawn from IDS Sussex alumni and others discussed the implications.
The panel included Collins Aseka (National Treasury, Government of Kenya and IDS at Sussex Kenya alumni ambassador; Dr Rose Oronje (Deputy Executive Director, African Institute for Development Policy and IDS at Sussex alumna); Sharone Houssenaly (European Union trainee and IDS at Sussex alumna); Dr Jackson Wachira (Research Fellow, Centre for Humanitarian Change, UoN alumnus) and Elvin Nyukuri (Climate change/environmental governance researcher, lecturer at IDS at UoN).
Watch the event
Introducing the event, Prof Paul Kamau said:
"This is an important occasion for our two institutes to celebrate our milestone, to look at what we have achieved, and also to begin to rethink what the future holds for us."
Discussing his book, Navigating Uncertainty, Prof Ian Scoones said:
"We remain stuck - still - in quite a linear, mechanistic, risk-based control orientated paradigm which has guided the type of modernist, technocratic, state-led vision of development in the post-independence era when our institutions were both founded. This perspective fails to address some of this dynamic complexity of today's turbulent world. This, I argue, is problematic, and sometime actually dangerous. Further, with its focus on modernising projects as the mechanism for development its not necessarily compatible with the post-aid conditions of contemporary geopolitics."
The co-organisers of the event, Andrew Adwera (Electricity Sector Association of Kenya and IDS at Sussex alumnus) and Lorraine Njeri (Kenya Green Hydrogen) have put together a blog offering some highlights.
Read the blog
Overall, the discussions across the day showed how important development studies continues to be, recast and reimagined for a new era. The importance of partnerships was also highlighted - with alumni, research partners and other like-minded institutions with similar histories and values. We look forward to continued collaboration between the IDS siblings from different continents in the coming years.
***
Original text here: https://www.ids.ac.uk/news/the-future-of-development-studies-debates-in-nairobi/
New Report: Arizona's Past Is Being Buried by Political Correctness
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] (TNSrep) -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
New Report: Arizona's Past Is Being Buried by Political Correctness
*
Arizona has long been a hub of archaeological discovery, helping scholars uncover the history of the ancient Southwest. But a new Goldwater Institute report warns that ideological activists are twisting a well-intentioned federal law aimed at ensuring the respectful treatment of Native American ancestral remains and using it to bury Arizona's past, with disastrous consequences for science.
In The Reburial
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] (TNSrep) -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
New Report: Arizona's Past Is Being Buried by Political Correctness
*
Arizona has long been a hub of archaeological discovery, helping scholars uncover the history of the ancient Southwest. But a new Goldwater Institute report warns that ideological activists are twisting a well-intentioned federal law aimed at ensuring the respectful treatment of Native American ancestral remains and using it to bury Arizona's past, with disastrous consequences for science.
In The Reburialof the Southwest: Closing Off Native History and Archaeology, anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss, Ph.D., warns that Arizona's history is being erased through the intentional distortion of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA. Repatriation activists are weaponizing the law to rebury (i.e. destroy) ancient materials that once formed the foundation of archaeological research and are emptying museums of modern Native American artwork under the banner of decolonization. Meanwhile, female scholars are facing increased discrimination thanks to a Biden-era NAGPRA regulation that requires universities and museums to defer to tribes about the "appropriate" handling of cultural artifacts.
"As institutions move to repatriate materials, restrict access to collections, and defer to activist interpretations of cultural affiliation, entire areas of anthropological research may be shutting down," Weiss writes. "In effect, a significant field of scientific inquiry has been placed at risk by an overzealous activist movement using the regulatory power of the state to pressure museums and universities into compliance with its demands."
Passed in 1990 to address legitimate concerns, NAGPRA was intended as a compromise that allowed tribes to repatriate and reclaim legitimate ancestral remains and cultural items while preserving scientific research. But activists and regulators have expanded the law far beyond its original purpose. The result: ancient remains too old to be credibly connected to modern tribes have been slated for reburial, replicas and commercial artworks have been removed from public access, and ordinary research materials-including soil, plant samples, animal bones, and even fossilized feces-are being treated as sacred objects.
Arizona shows the stakes clearly. State law designates the Arizona State Museum at the University of Arizona as the reporting authority when human remains or archaeological artifacts at least 50 years old are discovered. But the museum has moved from allowing carefully designed research proposals to broadly denying research access to ancient remains, while still allowing access for traditional religious activities.
That turns a research institution's mission upside down. Scientific inquiry is blocked, while spiritual and political claims receive priority.
The Biden administration's 2023 NAGPRA regulations made the problem worse by requiring museums to defer to tribal "traditional knowledge" and obtain consent before allowing exhibition, access, or research on covered materials. In practice, vague cultural claims are overriding the law's written limits.
Beyond limiting research and access to collections, the new rules also raise civil rights concerns. By requiring museums to accommodate tribal "traditional knowledge," the regulations have imported sex-based restrictions into public institutions. Some tribal practices bar women from handling certain artifacts, leaving female researchers excluded from work their male colleagues can perform at taxpayer-funded museums and universities.
The path forward lies not in abandoning NAGPRA but in restoring the balance Congress intended. That means challenging the sweeping regulatory changes implemented by the Biden administration and reaffirming that repatriations must adhere strictly to the law's definitions of sacred objects, funerary objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.
An exhibit at the San Diego Museum of Us, pictured above, shows where human remains were once displayed but were removed as "part of our decolonization process."
Museums and universities exist to preserve, study, and explain the past. The loss of archaeological research carries consequences far beyond museum collections.
"As Arizona loses archaeology, it loses its ability to train the next cultural resource managers who can save the past from destruction," Weiss writes. "We lose our capacity to train the next generation of forensic anthropologists, whose job it is to help bring closure to families of crime victims. We also lose our ability to understand the past, which should not be tainted by creation myths or tribal activist propaganda, and instead should be framed in a way that enables us to truly understand history and pre-history in ways that unify people."
Perhaps most importantly, Weiss writes, "it is the job of archaeologists, as scientists, to educate-not to toe the line of political correctness."
Arizona cannot understand its own history if the evidence is buried or destroyed. Its ancient past should be preserved, studied, celebrated, and passed on to future generations, not removed from public view.
Read The Reburial of the Southwest: Closing Off Native History and Archaeology here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-reburial-of-the-southwest/).
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/new-report-arizonas-past-is-being-buried-by-political-correctness/
Goldwater Institute Issues Letter to Columbia (Mo.) Mayor Buffaloe
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 26 (TNSletter) -- The Goldwater Institute issued the following letter to Columbia, Missouri, Mayor Barbara Buffaloe:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
May 12, 2026
Mayor Barbara Buffaloe
City of Columbia, Missouri
701 East Broadway
Columbia, Missouri 65205
Mayor@CoMo.gov
Re: Air Service Agreement in Violation of Missouri Gift Clause, Mo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 23
Dear Mayor Buffaloe and City Council Members:
The Goldwater Institute is a public policy and public interest litigation organization with extensive experience in the public policy implications of government
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 26 (TNSletter) -- The Goldwater Institute issued the following letter to Columbia, Missouri, Mayor Barbara Buffaloe:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
May 12, 2026
Mayor Barbara Buffaloe
City of Columbia, Missouri
701 East Broadway
Columbia, Missouri 65205
Mayor@CoMo.gov
Re: Air Service Agreement in Violation of Missouri Gift Clause, Mo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 23
Dear Mayor Buffaloe and City Council Members:
The Goldwater Institute is a public policy and public interest litigation organization with extensive experience in the public policy implications of governmentsubsidies and the legal safeguards that can limit or prevent them. We write with concerns about the City of Columbia's Air Service Agreement, CLT-COU, with American Airlines, Inc. ("AA"), dated February 13, 2026 ("Agreement"). Specifically, the Agreement raises concerns under the Missouri Constitution's Gift Clause, Mo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 23.
The Missouri Constitution prohibits municipalities from granting public money or lending their credit to any private organizations and individuals. It reads:
No county, city or other political corporation or subdivision of the state shall own or subscribe for stock in any corporation or association, or lend its credit or grant public money or thing of value to or in aid of any corporation, association or individual, except as provided in this constitution.
Art. VI, Sec. 23 ("Gift Clause"). See Salamun v. Camden Cnty. Clerk, 694 S.W.3d 424, 431 (Mo. banc 2024) (invalidating statute that granted public money to a private entity). As you are aware, the Agreement requires the City to guarantee AA certain minimum revenues for each calendar month for the duration of the Agreement. If in any given month AA's daily route between Columbia and Charlotte, North Carolina fails to generate those minimum revenues, the City will pay AA an amount sufficient to cover the shortfall, up to a total of $1.5 million.1 The City will owe these payments to AA regardless of any profits the daily route generates for AA in any other calendar month.2 Thus, the Agreement exposes the City's taxpayers to a risk of significant financial loss, without any prospect of recovering a share of the profits that AA may reap from operating this daily route.3
This arrangement likely violates the Gift Clause. As an initial matter, the mere promise to insure AA against potential financial losses it might realize from operating a daily route between Columbia and Charlotte effectively lends the City's credit to AA, allowing AA to take financial risks it otherwise might deem unwise because the City has promised that taxpayers will absorb any resulting financial losses. Any direct outlay of public funds to AA under the Agreement would also violate the Gift Clause.
To be clear, the Goldwater Institute believes the Gift Clause would allow the Agreement to proceed if the only funds exposed to the risk of AA's financial losses are those contributed by private entities to the Central Missouri Air Service fund; the Missouri Constitution does not prevent private parties from voluntarily choosing to assume such a risk. Accordingly, to comply with the Gift Clause, the City must take steps to ensure that only privately-contributed funds are used to pay any invoices AA submits under the Agreement, and under no circumstances may it use taxpayer funds for that purpose.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact us at (602) 462-5000 or at droland@goldwaterinstitute.org or tnapolitano@goldwaterinstitute.org.
Sincerely,
Tony Napolitano, Senior Attorney, Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute
Dave Roland, Director of Allied Litigation, Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Air-Services-Agreement-Letter.pdf
News Release here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/taxpayers-shouldnt-be-responsible-for-airlines-losses/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Common Cause Issues Letter to Members of Congress
WASHINGTON, May 26 (TNSletter) -- Common Cause Senior issued the following letter to members of Congress:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
May 15, 2026
Dear Member of Congress:
When the president files a spurious lawsuit against the United States, he should derive no benefit: not a monetary payment, not audit relief, and not a slush fund for political allies. All of these disturbing possibilities have been floated in recent days as potential resolutions for Trump v. IRS - and all of them deserve forceful Congressional condemnation.
As our organization and other watchdog groups conveyed
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 26 (TNSletter) -- Common Cause Senior issued the following letter to members of Congress:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
May 15, 2026
Dear Member of Congress:
When the president files a spurious lawsuit against the United States, he should derive no benefit: not a monetary payment, not audit relief, and not a slush fund for political allies. All of these disturbing possibilities have been floated in recent days as potential resolutions for Trump v. IRS - and all of them deserve forceful Congressional condemnation.
As our organization and other watchdog groups conveyedto Congress a month ago, we have profound concerns with Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. 1 The lawsuit presents an inherent conflict of interest, as both sides of the litigation are effectively controlled by Trump. Any settlement in this case would further undermine the independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and open the door to even more baseless lawsuits and brazen power grabs.
We welcomed the introduction on Tax Day of the Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act (S.4299 and H.R.8309). This bill would prevent the president from collecting settlement payments from the United States while in office--addressing a key vector for corruption.
We also were encouraged to see the concerns raised by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams over whether Trump and the government are "sufficiently adverse" for this case to proceed. Judge Williams ordered the parties to submit briefs on this issue next week and she appointed independent attorneys to advise on the matter2 - a key request in the amicus briefs that several of our organizations filed.3
Now Trump and DOJ appear to be rushing to settle this case to avoid an embarrassing judicial ruling - a cynical attempt to escape accountability. Reports suggest that the settlement options include a commitment for the IRS not to audit the president or his family members - a massive breach of protocol that would readily invite tax evasion.4 Other reports suggest the president is seeking the establishment of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden Administration's "weaponization" of the legal system, including violent January 6th insurrectionists.5 The fund would reportedly operate with no oversight, no transparency, and no limits on presidential control - essentially, a slush fund for Trump's favored allies, many of whom violently attacked the Capitol and assaulted police officers who tried to protect it. This would be an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer funds, with huge corruption risks, would open DOJ lawyers up to serious questions of professional ethics, and appears to contradict DOJ's own settlement guidelines.6 Moreover, this potential sham settlement would have nothing to do with the actual legal claims that Trump brought regarding allegedly improper disclosure of his tax returns. Instead, it appears to be an excuse for DOJ to bypass Congress to establish a $1.7 billion slush fund that it has no authority to create.
Congress must step in. Issue statements making clear that DOJ should offer no settlement in this bogus lawsuit. Convene oversight hearings to demand DOJ represent the public interest in this case - not the president's interests. And move swiftly to pass the Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act - to deter any president, from any party, from corruptly abusing his power. While ordinary Americans are struggling to pay for gas, food and healthcare, it is unconscionable for taxpayer funds to be squandered in this way. Since last night, 26,000 of our members have already spoken out on this matter - and they expect their representatives to take action.
Sincerely,
Abigail Bellows, Senior Policy Director for Anti-Corruption and Accountability, Common Cause
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Common-Cause-Letter-on-Trump-v.-IRS-%E2%80%93-2026-05-15-Final.pdf
News Release here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/trump-v-irs-settlement-would-be-an-abuse-of-presidential-power/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Buckeye Institute to SCOTUS: Unconstitutional Carbon Tax Would Devastate U.S. Economy
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 26 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute to SCOTUS: Unconstitutional Carbon Tax Would Devastate U.S. Economy
*
On Thursday, The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop climate activists from using the courts to dictate America's energy policy and impose a de facto nationwide carbon tax.
"Failing
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 26 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute to SCOTUS: Unconstitutional Carbon Tax Would Devastate U.S. Economy
*
On Thursday, The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop climate activists from using the courts to dictate America's energy policy and impose a de facto nationwide carbon tax.
"Failingto achieve a carbon tax through the normal legislative process, this case represents the latest effort of climate activists to implement their preferred policy-net-zero carbon emissions-through litigation rather than legislation," said Andrew M. Grossman, counsel of record on this brief, senior legal fellow at The Buckeye Institute, and partner in the Washington, D.C., office of BakerHostetler LLP.
Climate activists have tried various means to achieve net-zero carbon emissions-this most recent attempt through public nuisance litigation-with one legal advisor to the plaintiffs in this case admitting that the end goal of their legal strategy amounts to "an indirect carbon tax."
In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that Boulder County's lawsuit is tantamount to a de facto carbon tax and shares Buckeye's own research, which found that an $800 billion annual carbon tax would cost every American $2,900 annually and devastate the U.S. economy, resulting in $1.2 trillion in economic loss in 2034. The Buckeye Institute further asserts that this unconstitutional carbon tax violates the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and it interferes with the president's prerogative to set foreign policy.
"This case is just one of a rash of public nuisance climate lawsuits spreading across the nation in a dangerous attempt to use the courts to impose a nationwide carbon tax," said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute. "The Buckeye Institute's own economic modeling confirms the devastating economic effects of this unconstitutional tax."
***
Original text here: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/research/detail/the-buckeye-institute-to-scotus-unconstitutional-carbon-tax-would-devastate-us-economy
Big Oil Boasts About Iran War Windfall While Working Families Struggle to Fill Up Their Tanks
WASHINGTON, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
Big Oil Boasts About Iran War Windfall While Working Families Struggle to Fill Up Their Tanks
*
As Trump's war in Iran drives up gas, grocery, and travel prices for Americans, oil executives are celebrating the $23 billion in windfall profits created by the crisis
As President Trump's war with Iran strains working family budgets, Groundwork Collaborative today released a new analysis exposing how major oil companies are exploiting the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
Big Oil Boasts About Iran War Windfall While Working Families Struggle to Fill Up Their Tanks
*
As Trump's war in Iran drives up gas, grocery, and travel prices for Americans, oil executives are celebrating the $23 billion in windfall profits created by the crisis
As President Trump's war with Iran strains working family budgets, Groundwork Collaborative today released a new analysis exposing how major oil companies are exploiting thecrisis to boost profits, reward shareholders, and keep prices high.
Oil prices have surged above $100 per barrel, helping the world's largest oil and gas companies rake in an estimated $23 billion in excess profits during the first month of the war. Gas prices have climbed to roughly $4.50 per gallon, inflation rose to 3.8% in April, and wholesale prices jumped 6% as higher fuel and transportation costs ripple throughout the economy. Airfare prices also rose nearly 3% in April alone and more than 20% over the past year as jet fuel prices surged.
Yet instead of investing to increase supply or lower prices for consumers, oil executives are boasting to investors about how much money they can make from the instability.
Lindsay Owens, Executive Director of Groundwork Collaborative, reacted to Big Oil's war profiteering, saying:
"While consumers struggle, Big Oil celebrates. These companies want Americans to believe price spikes are simply the unavoidable result of global events, but their own executives are openly telling investors that volatility, conflict, and supply disruptions are good for business. They are choosing buybacks over production, shareholder payouts over affordability, and corporate profiteering over the economic security of working families."
On Q1 2026 Earnings Calls, Executives Openly Celebrate War-Driven "Volatility"
* "I think our operational performance, in particular in times of volatility, leveraging our trading, does mean that we are able to create real value and drive cash at times like this, which is something which I think we can do better than, I would argue, anyone else." - Wael Sawan, CEO, Shell
* "I was very happy that we had established that capability, and it was in place in March when all this broke out." -Darren Woods, CEO, ExxonMobil
* "We've really encouraged the organization to keep on keeping on in that space." -Darren Woods, CEO, ExxonMobil, referring to trading operations profiting off oil volatility.
* One Morgan Stanley analyst even asked executives at BP whether the company was "becoming a trading company with assets" rather than "an asset company with some trading" as profits tied to supply disruptions surged.
Oil Giants Prioritize Shareholders, Not Production While Consumers Get Squeezed
* ExxonMobil reported $8.8 billion in adjusted first quarter profits and is on pace for $20 billion in stock buybacks this year. CEO Darren Woods said the company's strategy would remain "grounded in value, not volume."
* Shell earned $6.9 billion in quarterly profits, more than double the previous quarter, while continuing massive dividend payouts and buybacks. CEO Wael Sawan said the company's commitment to returning 40% to 50% of cash flow to shareholders is "sacrosanct."
* Chevron said growing the dividend remains its " first and foremost " priority, continuing its 39-year streak of dividend increases alongside approximately $3 billion in quarterly buybacks.
Working Families Bear the Costs
* Gas prices have surged to roughly $4.50 per gallon, with lower-income households increasing fuel spending by more than 12%.
* Inflation climbed to 3.8% in April while wholesale prices jumped 6%, driven heavily by energy and transportation costs.
* Airfare rose nearly 3% in April alone and more than 20% over the past year because of soaring jet fuel prices.
***
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/big-oil-boasts-about-iran-war-windfall-while-working-families-struggle-to-fill-up-their-tanks/
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Tracker - The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds rate,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds rate,the short-term interest rate that determines how much it costs for banks to lend to each other overnight. The 2007-2008 financial crisis, however, demonstrated that even lowering the interest rate to zero was considered insufficient to shore up economies in freefall, and the Fed turned to more unusual tactics.
One of these measures was what the Fed refers to as "large-scale asset purchases," which is more commonly known as "quantitative easing." Under this process, the Fed enters the market to buy securities, typically mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and Treasuries, injecting both capital and liquidity into the market. This approach is not without risks - for the first time in its history, the Fed is regulator, supervisor, and now participant in the economy.
The development of quantitative easing as a go-to tool for the Fed in times of crisis has led to an unprecedented focus on one of its traditionally unremarkable aspects - the Fed total assets. Just as with any other firm, securities that the Fed purchases are considered assets and therefore are represented on the Fed's balance sheet.
This therefore is the most reflective guide of the state of quantitative easing and, by extension, the degree to which the Fed has deemed it necessary to intervene in the economy.
Each week, the Federal Reserve publishes its balance sheet, typically on Wednesday afternoon around 4:30 p.m.
As of May 20, the Fed's assets stand at $6.7 trillion, down nearly $15 billion from the prior week but up nearly $25 billion from a year ago.
Sources:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSHOMCB
* * *
Thomas Kingsley is the Director of Financial Services Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute: America Wins With Higher Education's New Accreditation Rules
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 22, 2026:
* * *
America wins with Higher Education's New Accreditation Rules
AFPI congratulates Secretary McMahon and the Department of Education for achieving consensus yesterday at the final meeting of its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee's negotiated rulemaking sessions.
The sessions brought together experts and stakeholders representing a wide range of perspectives to craft new rules responding to President Trump's executive orders, which directed the department
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 22, 2026:
* * *
America wins with Higher Education's New Accreditation Rules
AFPI congratulates Secretary McMahon and the Department of Education for achieving consensus yesterday at the final meeting of its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee's negotiated rulemaking sessions.
The sessions brought together experts and stakeholders representing a wide range of perspectives to craft new rules responding to President Trump's executive orders, which directed the departmentto restore common sense, quality, flexibility, and accountability to the nation's higher education regulatory system.
"This is a tremendous step forward for American students, families, and workers.
It brings transparency to higher education, creates incentives to keep college costs down, and refocuses the sector's regulatory energy on student success rather than bureaucratic bloat," said Dr. Michael Shires, AFPI vice chair for Education Opportunity, who represented taxpayers and the public interest in the negotiations.
"The new rules also open the door to innovation and competition by simplifying the very processes that prior administrations used to protect the status quo and block accountability and change in American higher education."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-wins-with-higher-educations-new-accreditation-rules
[Category: ThinkTank]
