Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Family Businesses in Europe Expect a Better Financial Year in 2026
MUNICH, Germany, Jan. 31 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Family Businesses in Europe Expect a Better Financial Year in 2026
The majority of family businesses in Germany, France, Italy and Spain expect a better economic development. That's according to a survey by the Foundation for Family Businesses of 2,000 family businesses, conducted by Edelman Data & Intelligence in collaboration with the ifo Institute. In the four economically strongest countries in Europe, more than one in two (55 percent) family businesses surveyed expect their business situation to get better
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, Jan. 31 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Family Businesses in Europe Expect a Better Financial Year in 2026
The majority of family businesses in Germany, France, Italy and Spain expect a better economic development. That's according to a survey by the Foundation for Family Businesses of 2,000 family businesses, conducted by Edelman Data & Intelligence in collaboration with the ifo Institute. In the four economically strongest countries in Europe, more than one in two (55 percent) family businesses surveyed expect their business situation to get betterin the first half of 2026. Less than a third expect the situation to remain the same. Only 13 percent in Germany expect it to get worse.
"Companies are even more optimistic about the next five years. Around two thirds of family businesses in Germany, France, Spain and Italy expect economic development to improve," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. The share of companies expecting better long-term business development is 66 percent in Germany, 72 percent in Spain, 67 percent in Italy, and 63 percent in France.
For two thirds of the family businesses surveyed, the most important EU reforms to improve their own competitiveness are reduced bureaucracy, and faster and simpler approval procedures. "Even though family businesses in Europe are critical of the EU's many bureaucratic projects for their own competitiveness, the majority rate the EU's work over the last five years as positive," says Wohlrabe.
The survey also examined the risks that family businesses see for their own competitiveness within the next five years. Respondents most frequently cited rising energy prices, closely followed by the shortage of skilled workers and IT security risks. Geopolitical risks, tariffs and trade barriers as well as various facets of regulation and bureaucracy were next. In Germany in particular, bureaucracy costs are mentioned more frequently than in the other countries.
The survey was conducted between May 28 and July 7, 2025. The analysis covers a total of just under 2,000 family businesses. Each of the four countries is represented with around 500 companies.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Stimmungsbild der Familienunternehmen in Europa: Evidenz aus den vier groBten Volkswirtschaften
Annette von Maltzan, Barbara-Natalie Unger, Klaus Wohlrabe
ifo Schnelldienst digital, 2026, 7, Nr. 1 01-07
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/stimmungsbild-der-familienunternehmen-europa)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-01-30/family-businesses-europe-expect-better-financial-year-2026
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Foundation to Match Up to $2,500 Per Child for Employee Trump Accounts
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Foundation to Match Up to $2,500 per Child for Employee Trump Accounts
The Heritage Foundation today announced a new commitment to match employee contributions to Trump Accounts for newborns, ensuring Heritage employees' children begin life with a strong foundation for long-term financial security. Under the initiative, Heritage will match employee contributions up to $2,500 per child.
Heritage President Dr. Kevin Roberts announced the commitment to staff, stating:
"Heritage
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Foundation to Match Up to $2,500 per Child for Employee Trump Accounts
The Heritage Foundation today announced a new commitment to match employee contributions to Trump Accounts for newborns, ensuring Heritage employees' children begin life with a strong foundation for long-term financial security. Under the initiative, Heritage will match employee contributions up to $2,500 per child.
Heritage President Dr. Kevin Roberts announced the commitment to staff, stating:
"Heritageis putting its values into action by investing directly in the next generation. We are proud to announce that we will invest in Trump Accounts for our employees and their children, committing to match employee contributions up to $2,500 per child. This initiative reflects our belief that financial security should begin at birth--not years down the road."
Starting with a one-time contribution, Heritage will contribute to Trump Accounts for employees who have children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, offering a match of up to $2,500 per child. This initiative reflects Heritage's strong belief in thriving families and its ongoing commitment to supporting employees as they invest in their children's futures from day one. The program also aligns with Heritage's broader focus on promoting financial wellness and literacy, and will be well-positioned as part of Heritage's family-forward benefits strategy.
E.J. Antoni, chief economist for Heritage said:
"Trump accounts are a great way to give Main Street more access to Wall Street and help young Americans get a financial head start on life via the power of compounding returns. If parents take full advantage of the Heritage Foundation's matching contribution, and continuing to invest the maximum allowed contribution, their child's Trump account will have over $300,000 in it by the time their newborn turns 18, and that's just with average market returns, while waiting until age 28 means the Trump account will grow to over $1 million."
Trump Accounts are a long-term, pro-family investment--supported by both public and private partners--designed to bring the next generation into America's economy and help children begin building net worth from day one. By giving hardworking families a head start, Trump Accounts promote financial opportunity and literacy across generations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-foundation-match-2500-child-employee-trump-accounts
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Conversation With Williams College's Darel E. Paul (Part 1 of 2)
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026, to the Giving Review:
* * *
A conversation with Williams College's Darel E. Paul (Part 1 of 2)
The political-science professor talks to Michael E. Hartmann about the role of nonprofit groups in the Minnesota welfare-fraud scandal, in the Democratic Party, and in other progressive states and Washington, D.C.
By Michael E. Hartmann
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
***
As the Willmott Family Third Century Professor of Political Science at Williams College
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026, to the Giving Review:
* * *
A conversation with Williams College's Darel E. Paul (Part 1 of 2)
The political-science professor talks to Michael E. Hartmann about the role of nonprofit groups in the Minnesota welfare-fraud scandal, in the Democratic Party, and in other progressive states and Washington, D.C.
By Michael E. Hartmann
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
***
As the Willmott Family Third Century Professor of Political Science at Williams Collegein Williamstown, Mass., Darel E. Paul's academic research generally focuses on elite ideologies in Western countries and their manifestation in public policies. Paul has authored three books, and he writes popular commentary and analysis, including regularly for Compact and First Things, among other outlets.
Two incisive Compact pieces of Paul's in particular have caught our Giving Review eye. Earlier this month, in "The End of 'Minnesota Nice,'" he writes that the massive welfare-fraud scandal engulfing the state "highlights the central role that private nonprofits play in delivering public goods and services in America. The inability of the state government to prevent the fraud highlights the power that the NGO sector exercises in the contemporary Democratic Party." The scandal "was made possible by a system of interlocking government agencies and non-governmental organizations sometimes dubbed the 'NGO-industrial complex.'"
And in 2024, in "Why NGOs Run Your World," Paul writes, "In today's liberal societies, the dividing line between government and nongovernment is a thin one." He notes that "[n]onprofits are legally required to act in a nonpartisan manner. But the relationship between the state and NGOs is inherently political" and that "[i]n the United States, the Democratic Party has found voter education, registration, and mobilization nonprofits particularly useful.
"Right-wing parties are well aware of the significant contributions NGOs make in carrying out left-wing policies. They seem to have little ability in either stopping them or in fostering their own NGOs, however," according to Paul in the piece, and "[t]he professional class is peculiarly suited to the nonprofit sector, because it is unusually dependent on nonmarket and state-mandated market forms of revenue."
Paul was, well, nice enough to join me for a recorded conversation last week. The less than 13-minute video below is the first part of our discussion; the second is here. During the first part, we talk about the role of nonprofits in the Minnesota scandal, in the Democratic Party, and in other states and Washington, D.C.
"[N]onprofits play the central role in the fraud scandal" in Minnesota, Paul tells me. There are "NGOs all across Minnesota that have been involved in this," he continues, citing details about what's happened there.
* * *
But I think there's something that goes a little bit beyond that, and I think that is the political status of NGOs or nonprofits--I consider those to be equivalent. NGOs tend to be on the left of the political spectrum. The Democratic Party is well-integrated with NGOs. Some people, even in the Democratic Party, are worried about the role that NGOs play and how powerful they are. So I think when Republicans and people on the right think about the problems of this fraud scandal, they don't just see it as a one-off and unfortunate set of incidents, but they see it as reflective of the power of NGOs in the Democratic Party and over progressive states ....
* * *
Paul says that "since the Democratic Party and NGOs and the state are all so intertwined, I think that's where a lot of the political valence of NGOs comes from." Nonprofits "do a lot more work of the state, of the government, in left-leaning states than in right-leaning ones." He says his "sense is that in D.C., the nonprofits have a lot bigger policy influence, whereas in the states, I think they are instruments of state policy. They're instruments of the delivery of goods and services that the state wants to deliver."
In D.C., "I think when it comes to policymaking rather than just kind of the delivery of policies that already exist, NGOs are amazingly powerful." Either way, he notes, "I think overall, the sector definitely leans to the left."
In the conversation's second part, Paul discusses the professional class in the nonprofit sector and what the right should consider doing in response to its activities and their effects.
* * *
Michael E. Hartmann is CRC's senior fellow and director of the Center for Strategic Giving, providing analysis of and commentary about philanthropy and giving. He also co-edits The Giving Review, a joint project of Philanthropy Daily and the Center for Strategic Giving.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/a-conversation-with-williams-colleges-darel-e-paul-part-1-of-2/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Why Golden Dome for America - The Case the Administration Should Make
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Why Golden Dome for America: The Case the Administration Should Make
By Kari A. Bingen
This week marks one year since President Trump announced his ambitious vision for the "Iron Dome for America" (now referred to as the "Golden Dome for America"). He described it as a "cutting-edge missile defense shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack," which includes "next-generation technologies across the land, sea, and space, including space-based
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Why Golden Dome for America: The Case the Administration Should Make
By Kari A. Bingen
This week marks one year since President Trump announced his ambitious vision for the "Iron Dome for America" (now referred to as the "Golden Dome for America"). He described it as a "cutting-edge missile defense shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack," which includes "next-generation technologies across the land, sea, and space, including space-basedsensors and interceptors," that will be "fully operational before the end of [his] term." Since then, little information has been released about the initiative, leading to doubts about its necessity and speculation about its feasibility and cost. The case for Golden Dome is strong, but it remains largely unmade by the administration.
That conversation starts with a simple but often overlooked fact about the nation's current defenses. Simply put, many Americans would be surprised by how limited current missile defenses are in protecting the United States. Over the past several decades, defense investments have prioritized systems designed to protect deployed forces and allies against regional air and missile threats, spanning the Middle East to East Asia. For much of that period, homeland protection rested primarily on nuclear deterrence rather than active defense.
Yet the threat environment has changed profoundly. Today's risks extend well beyond nuclear attack: The U.S. homeland is increasingly accessible and vulnerable to a wide range of conventional and nuclear threats delivered en masse--and in novel ways--across land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace. From Iran's massive, coordinated missile and drone strikes against Israel to Ukraine's surprise drone operations launched from deep inside mainland Russia, recent conflicts underscore how distance and geography no longer provide the protection they once afforded the United States. The assumption that such threats cannot reach American shores is outdated and increasingly dangerous. The U.S. homeland defense strategy must adapt accordingly.
The Gradual Shift in the U.S. Homeland Missile Defense Strategy
Throughout most of the Cold War, the United States approached homeland missile defense through the lens of nuclear deterrence. The central threat was a large-scale Soviet nuclear missile attack, where protection rested not on interception but on the promise of massive nuclear retaliation in response. This logic shaped both strategy and architecture. A nuclear triad and diverse warhead inventory, early-warning satellites and ground-based radars optimized to detect launches and track missiles over the North Pole, and durable nuclear command, control, and communications enabled U.S. leaders to respond with survivable nuclear forces should that time ever come.
That approach largely held for decades. The few defensive systems that existed were limited in scope and constrained by arms control agreements, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
The second major epoch of homeland missile defense emerged in the early 2000s. In 2002, the United States formally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and adopted a new policy focused on defending the homeland against "limited ballistic missile attack." The objective was not to counter Russia or China, but to protect against smaller-scale threats--such as an accidental, unauthorized, or even deliberate missile launch--from rogue states like North Korea.
This policy led to the development and deployment of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, which today consists of 44 interceptors based in Alaska and California. These interceptors rely on space-based sensors for launch detection and terrestrial radars for tracking, and they are designed to engage a limited number of ballistic missiles in the middle of their flight ("midcourse" defense). Over time, the United States also expanded regional air and missile defenses--Aegis ships, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot, and Short-Range Air Defense systems--to protect forward-deployed forces and allies from shorter-distance threats.
To address aerial threats in the aftermath of 9/11, U.S. air defenses were improved, but largely concentrated over Washington, D.C. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) also beefed up its air surveillance and defense mission.
Throughout this period, "strategic deterrence" remained the foundation of U.S. strategy toward major nuclear powers. Even as missile defenses improved and China and others built up their own homeland "anti-access and aerial denial" capabilities, official policy continued to rely on our nuclear arsenal to deter Russia and China. The most recent Missile Defense Review, published in 2022, reaffirmed this approach, emphasizing deterrence for peer adversaries while maintaining missile defenses aimed at limited attacks.
That posture, however, is no longer well matched to the threat environment now emerging.
The End of Geographic Sanctuary
Today's challenge is not simply more missiles, but more diverse, capable, and complex threats--many now conventionally armed--that can reach U.S. shores.
Russia and China are expanding their nuclear and conventional arsenals in ways that stress existing defenses. As documented by the Defense Intelligence Agency and annual intelligence community threat assessments, these include advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads and hypersonic glide vehicles. Last September alone, China showcased no less than six long-range missile systems capable of reaching the continental United States. Hypersonic missiles, capable of traveling at five to ten times the speed of sound while maneuvering unpredictably, compress decision timelines and complicate tracking and interception. Adding further complexity are cruise missiles, which fly low, exploit terrain, and approach from unexpected directions, and novel systems--from China's space-based fractional orbital bombardment capability demonstrated in 2021 to Russia's tested Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and undersea vehicles--that are designed to evade traditional defenses.
Beyond missiles, the homeland now faces a broader array of advanced aerial threats. The appearance of a Chinese high-altitude balloon over the United States in 2023, combined with the widespread use of drones in conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East, underscores that the air and space domain above the homeland is no longer uncontested. These systems are cheaper, more proliferated, and harder to attribute, creating new opportunities for probing, coercion, and surprise. Ukraine's daring use of over 100 drones in its June 2025 Operation "Spider's Web"--striking Russian strategic air bases deep within the mainland--challenged the assumption that distant territory and sensitive targets remain out of reach and off limits. Even more concerning than any single capability is how these systems are increasingly employed together. Missiles and drones launched simultaneously and in coordinated waves to achieve massed effects--from Russia's September 2025 aerial assault on Ukraine with more than 600 drones and missiles, to Iran's April 2024 strikes on Israel using over 300 drones and missiles.
Taken together, these developments expose a stark and sobering reality: The U.S. homeland is more vulnerable today than the existing defense architecture was designed to handle. Current systems were built for limited, largely ballistic threats. They are not postured for this mix of hypersonic weapons, advanced cruise missiles, unconventional trajectories, and aerial systems that can approach U.S. territory from multiple vectors.
Golden Dome represents a recognition of this gap--and a decision to enter a third epoch of homeland defense.
The Third Epoch of Homeland Defense
Anchoring homeland missile defense strategy going forward is the recognition that a new class of powerful, nonnuclear weapons can reach the United States by land, air, sea, and space, and the United States must defend against them alongside traditional nuclear threats. At its core, this next epoch of homeland defense is about restoring balance between offense and defense in a rapidly changing strategic environment.
More capable homeland defenses will not replace nuclear deterrence, nor should they promise perfect protection. Instead, they can limit damage, complicate adversary planning and targeting, and raise the threshold for coercion or attack. Such active defenses force opponents to consider higher levels of escalation to achieve their objectives--making an already grave decision even more unpalatable. By reducing confidence in an adversary's ability to strike the homeland cleanly or cheaply, defenses can reinforce deterrence by denial alongside deterrence by punishment.
While little is publicly known about the Golden Dome architecture, it has been described by administration officials as a layered "system-of-systems" that will be "fielded in phases, prioritizing defense where the threat is greatest." It is likely to build on existing systems and knowledge rather than start from scratch, making it--in the near-term--an engineering and integration challenge. As its director has noted, "the technology that we need to deliver Golden Dome exists today." Ground-based interceptors, early warning radars, regional missile defense systems, counter-uncrewed aerial system capabilities, air and maritime surveillance assets, and communications networks already provide pieces of homeland protection. The task is to knit these building blocks into a coherent, layered architecture that is resilient, scalable, and adaptable to a wider range of threats--an effort that hinges on data sharing across services and agencies, sensor fusion, modern command and control, and rigorous testing.
To be sure, emerging technologies and continuous technology development will be required as the architecture matures and adapts to changes in the threat. Automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced computing power will be central to its operational feasibility. The speed and complexity of modern threats demand rapid decision-making, efficient weapon-target pairing, and continuous reassessment as situations evolve. AI-enabled tools can help manage this complexity, enabling operators to focus on judgment and oversight rather than manual correlation and calculation.
One of the key insights driving Golden Dome is the importance of early engagement: ideally, defeating threats before they launch. Intercepting missiles in their boost phase--before they release warheads or begin maneuvering--also offers significant advantages. The missile is hotter, brighter, and slower, and the number of objects is smaller. But boost-phase interception is technically demanding and time-constrained, often requiring engagement within minutes of launch. That reality pushes an architecture toward space, where sensors and interceptors can provide global coverage and rapid response.
Even when boost-phase interception is not possible, tracking and engaging hypersonic maneuvering threats requires persistent, high-fidelity sensing that terrestrial systems alone cannot provide. Space-based sensors offer the ability to maintain continuous custody of targets across long distances and multiple domains. Layered defenses--combining space-based and terrestrial systems--create multiple opportunities to detect, track, and engage threats, increasing the likelihood of success.
Golden Dome is also about economics as much as capability. Traditional missile defense suffers from a cost-exchange problem: shooting million-dollar interceptors at thousand-dollar drones. During the 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, roughly a quarter of the entire THAAD interceptor inventory was reportedly expended in just 12 days. At the same time, space-based interceptors have historically been cost-prohibitive in large part due to the high cost of launch and a limited ability to produce and operate satellites at scale. Some of these assumptions are shifting. SpaceX ushered in dramatic decreases in launch costs and broke barriers in high-volume satellite manufacturing. The emphasis by program leaders on magazine depth, production capacity, and affordability, paired with the Department of War's announced acquisition reforms, including plans for long-term munitions production deals, holds promise. But they must be realized through defined contracts and resources.
A Necessary and Enduring Strategic Evolution
Golden Dome reflects a broader shift in U.S. thinking about homeland defense. After decades focused primarily on overseas contingencies, policymakers are increasingly recognizing that the homeland itself is a contested domain. Defending it will require sustained coordination across military services, federal agencies, and, in some cases, state and local authorities. It also requires enduring political support and long-term investment.
Certainly, many critical questions remain unanswered, and the process of answering them is only beginning. Costs will be substantial, and future budgets must sustain momentum beyond initial down payments. The administration will need to present clear analysis, cost estimates, and implementation plans. Congress must have confidence that taxpayer dollars will produce concrete, achievable outcomes. The relationship between missile defense and strategic stability will continue to be debated. Allies and partners will seek clarity on how homeland defenses intersect with regional missile defense cooperation. And, as with any complex system, technical and operational risks will require careful management.
Perhaps the greatest challenge is communication. Golden Dome is difficult to explain succinctly, and public discussion has been limited. Yet building long-term support--among policymakers, industry, and the public--will require a clearer articulation of the problem it is meant to solve and the principles guiding its development.
At a basic level, the logic is straightforward. The threats to the U.S. homeland are more varied, more capable, and more accessible than in the past. The systems designed to defend against earlier generations of threats are no longer sufficient on their own. Golden Dome represents an effort to adapt, using available technologies and new integration approaches to reduce vulnerability and strengthen deterrence. And to give policymakers more options to deal with an array of threats through active defenses, short of having to resort to nuclear responses.
In that sense, Golden Dome is less a radical departure than a necessary evolution. It acknowledges that the strategic environment has changed--and that homeland defense must change with it.
* * *
Kari A. Bingen is the director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-golden-dome-america-case-administration-should-make
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: Why Trump Sending Tom Homan to Minnesota is a Stroke of Absolute Genius
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 30, 2026, to Fox Digital:
* * *
Why Trump Sending Tom Homan to Minnesota is a Stroke of Absolute Genius
By Chad Wolf
This week, President Trump's decision to deploy former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director and current border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota signals a deliberate and strategic approach to public safety -- one grounded in accountability and a deep understanding of how law enforcement operates.
Minnesota has become a flash point in the national immigration
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 30, 2026, to Fox Digital:
* * *
Why Trump Sending Tom Homan to Minnesota is a Stroke of Absolute Genius
By Chad Wolf
This week, President Trump's decision to deploy former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director and current border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota signals a deliberate and strategic approach to public safety -- one grounded in accountability and a deep understanding of how law enforcement operates.
Minnesota has become a flash point in the national immigrationdebate. Already in focus for widespread fraud, Minneapolis is ground zero for violent protests, ICE operations and two fatal officer-involved shootings. State and local officials have responded by demanding limits on federal enforcement activity, with some openly calling for ICE to withdraw from the state altogether. At the same time, progressives in Congress are outright calling for the abolishment of ICE.
That reaction may satisfy political activists and agitators, but it ignores a far more dangerous question: what would actually happen if ICE were removed from Minnesota?
To read the full article, click here (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-trump-sending-tom-homan-minnesota-stroke-absolute-genius).
* * *
Chad F. Wolf serves as Chair of AFPI's Homeland Security & Immigration. In this role, Wolf is responsible for the day-to-day management and strategic direction of AFPI with a focus on setting policy goals and research priorities.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/why-trump-sending-tom-homan-to-minnesota-is-a-stroke-of-absolute-genius
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Governors' Council Applauds Secretaries McMahon and Bessent for Expanding Education Freedom
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Governors' Council Applauds Secretaries McMahon and Bessent for Expanding Education Freedom
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Governors' Council is proud to opt in to the federal education freedom tax credit scholarship. Yesterday, the council sent a letter of appreciation to Secretaries McMahon and Bessent for their support of this groundbreaking program.
The Working Families Tax Cuts Act, passed on July 4 of this year, created the first-ever federal tax credit for K-12 scholarships,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Governors' Council Applauds Secretaries McMahon and Bessent for Expanding Education Freedom
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Governors' Council is proud to opt in to the federal education freedom tax credit scholarship. Yesterday, the council sent a letter of appreciation to Secretaries McMahon and Bessent for their support of this groundbreaking program.
The Working Families Tax Cuts Act, passed on July 4 of this year, created the first-ever federal tax credit for K-12 scholarships,which can be used on a range of educational expenses, including private school tuition and homeschooling. This program marks the first major step the federal government has taken to empower families across the country.
The Honorable Bobby Jindal, chair of the America First Governors' Council, chair of AFPI's Healthy America policy and 55th Governor of Louisiana, shared his support for this win for families and students:
"Governors are leading the way in restoring education freedom by putting parents back in charge. By opting in to the federal education freedom tax credit, states ensure that private charitable dollars stay local and give families real choices. This is a historic step toward empowering parents, strengthening states, and delivering better outcomes for American children."
The more states that choose to participate, the more scholarships will be awarded to students. These scholarships will allow parents and families to invest in the best learning environment for their children. AFPI has made available a new resource for states to effectively implement new program.
Students can begin receiving federal tax credit funded scholarships from SGOs on January 1, 2027 - states should opt in immediately to ensure families and organizations have adequate time to prepare.
* * *
INFODOC: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Governors_Council_Letter_to_Secretary_McMahon_and_Bessent.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-governors-council-applauds-secretaries-mcmahon-and-bessent-for-expanding-education-freedom
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Files Amicus Brief With SCOTUS on Limiting Birthright Citizenship
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Files Amicus Brief with SCOTUS on Limiting Birthright Citizenship
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has filed a consequential amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. For first time in decades, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to uphold the original meaning of American citizenship in their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, limiting birthright citizenship to what the Founders' intended. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Files Amicus Brief with SCOTUS on Limiting Birthright Citizenship
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has filed a consequential amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. For first time in decades, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to uphold the original meaning of American citizenship in their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, limiting birthright citizenship to what the Founders' intended. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed toprotect citizens, not those who violate American law by entering the U.S. illegally. Despite this, broad interpretations of this clause have been permitted to continue, allowing for weakened immigration enforcement and a distorted meaning of American citizenship.
Gina D'Andrea, General Counsel at AFPI, spoke about the necessity to recognize the constitutional limits to birthright citizenship:
"The Citizenship Clause makes clear that citizenship requires both residence and allegiance. So, while birthright citizenship is the general rule, it is not without exception. When you examine the history and tradition of birthright citizenship you discover the subjects of President Trump's executive order lack actual allegiance to the United States in much the same way as those the Supreme Court has already recognized as exceptions to the general rule."
Cooper Smith, Director of Homeland Security & Immigration at AFPI added:
"Birthright citizenship has long served as a key incentive for illegal immigration into the United States. We urge the Court to act in accordance with the Constitution and restore the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment going forward."
AFPI will continue to protect and advocate for policies that protect the sanctity of American citizenship and the safety of all Americans.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-files-amicus-brief-with-scotus-on-limiting-birthright-citizenship
[Category: ThinkTank]
