Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Religion Unplugged: Why Finland's Conviction of Paivi Rasanen Reverberates Beyond Europe
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, to Religion Unplugged:* * *
Why Finland's Conviction of Paivi Rasanen Reverberates Beyond Europe
(ANALYSIS) Finland's Supreme Court found former Minister of the Interior Paivi Rasanen guilty under a "War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" statute for a booklet on homosexual relations that she had written and published 22 years before. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, to Religion Unplugged: * * * Why Finland's Conviction of Paivi Rasanen Reverberates Beyond Europe (ANALYSIS) Finland's Supreme Court found former Minister of the Interior Paivi Rasanen guilty under a "War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" statute for a booklet on homosexual relations that she had written and published 22 years before.Also convicted was her colleague, Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola.
In addition, the Supreme Court ordered in their March 26 decision that the book be removed from being sold online and destroyed. Under the European Union's Digital Services Act, the Finnish order now applies to all of Europe -- and perhaps even to the United States and beyond.
In a similar vein, on the previous day, the Canadian House of Commons passed a revised bill C-9 outlawing "hate speech" which would remove the current law's protection for good faith religious statements. That same week, Monsignor Jakob Rolland, chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Iceland's capital Reykjavik, faced investigation for explaining Catholic teaching during a radio interview.
Rasanen had chaired Finland's Christian Democratic Party from 2004 to 2015 and was Minister of the Interior from 2011 to 2015. The 2004 booklet for which she has been convicted is "Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Concept of Humanity." It is no diatribe: It gives theological arguments explaining the standard historical Christian view.
In 2019, she posted on Instagram a photo of Romans 1:24-27, a text critical of same-sex relations. Prosecutors maintained that this post, together with the earlier booklet, "threatened, defamed or insulted" gay and transgender people, thus violating Article 10 of the Criminal Code. This Article can carry penalties of up to two years' imprisonment as well as fines.
Police then questioned her for almost four hours and concluded that no crime had been committed. However, Prosecutor General Raija Toiviainen reopened the case and charged her for both the post and booklet.
On Jan. 24, 2022, the Finnish District Court reviewed Bible passages and struggled to determine Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality and also debated about which interpretation of Scripture should be followed. Subsequently, the court unanimously acquitted Rasanen and Pohjola. However, the ever-zealous prosecutors then appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal.
On Nov. 14, 2023, the Appeals court also dismissed all the charges, finding "no reason, on the basis of the evidence received at the main hearing, to assess the case in any respect differently from the District Court." It also ordered the prosecution to pay the defendants' legal fees.
Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International and a member of Rasanen's legal team then noted: "While we celebrate this monumental victory, we also remember that it comes after four years of police investigations, criminal indictments, prosecutions and court hearings."
As Americans often say of even successful acquittals, "the process is the punishment."
But Finnish prosecutors, with an obsession akin to Inspector Javert of "Les Miserables," pressed on and appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued the March 26 judgment.
Inside the verdict
The Supreme Court verdict is complex. It unanimously actually acquitted Rasanen for her 2019 social media post, finding that it did not meet the threshold for a criminal offense. it also noted in particular that she had referenced a biblical text, indicating that simply citing the Bible itself would not constitute unlawful speech.
But in a separate 3-2 ruling, the Court did convict Rasanen and Pohjola for the 2004 booklet. It found them guilty for having "made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation" under a section of the Finnish criminal code criminalizing "War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity."
It also held that: "It must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred. The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offense." The result was a therefore a fine of 1,800 euros.
The law under which they are now convicted did not actually exist when the booklet was published but the court emphasized that it had been "kept available to the public" online. Consequently, it ruled that the impugned booklet must now be "removed from public access and destroyed." It is difficult to see how this could be done since the booklet is now readily available across the internet. At the risk of falling afoul of Finnish and European courts and prosecutors, it may be accessed here.
Rasanen is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and avers "I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith and will continue to defend my and every person's right to share their convictions in the public square."
Beyond Finland
Finland's Supreme Court decision, and similar trends in Canada and elsewhere, reveal the increasing intolerance in secular Western regimes. And the effects of Finland's curbs on freedom of religion and speech, as well as its Supreme Court's demand to destroy books, reach well beyond its borders.
Canada has not yet gone as far as Finland. However, as I have outlined before, its current Bill C-9, on "hate speech," removes the existing religious belief defense in the current section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.
To get the votes of the strongly secularist Members of Parliament coming from Quebec, the governing Liberal Party has removed the defense in the original bill that no one will be convicted "if, in good faith, the person expressed ... an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."
On March 25, the revised Bill C-9 passed in the House of Commons and now goes to the Canadian Senate.
Elsewhere was also a bad week for freedom of speech and of religion.
In Iceland. Monsignor Jakob Rolland, chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Reykjavik, the capital, might face criminal investigation for having explained Catholic teaching on homosexuality during a radio interview. He maintains that he simply sought to explain standard Catholic teaching, that the Church's role is to accompany individuals who freely seek spiritual guidance while also rejecting coercive practices.
The European Union's Digital Services Act contains no Europe-wide definition of "hate speech" but instead requires social media platforms to conform to the definitions provided by individual member countries.
It adds a qualifier: "Where a content is illegal only in a given Member State, as a general rule it should only be removed in the territory where it is illegal." However, this is only a weak general rule, thus necessarily allowing exceptions, and the internet is famously no respecter of national boundaries. The effect is that social media platforms can be pressured to conform to the Finnish court's restrictive definition of hate speech, at least until another European states enacts an even more repressive rule.
This effect goes far beyond the European Union. The E.U. is seeking to compel American and other social media to conform to its Digital Services Act on the grounds that their content can easily be accessed in Europe. This might mean that your sharing the link provided above to Rasanen's booklet may be held to violate European law. This would certainly be a stretch of the law, but stretching vague laws now appears increasingly common among European prosecutors.
One does not have to be a fan of U.S. Vice President Vance to share the fears he raised in his February 14, 2025, speech to the Munich Security Conference. He criticized European leaders for using "Soviet-era words" like "misinformation" and "disinformation" to silence alternative viewpoints and stated that "in Britain and across Europe, free speech ... is in retreat."
Vance added that perhaps the greatest threat to Europe was its "internal retreat" from fundamental values like freedom of speech and religion.
Read in Religion Unplugged (https://religionunplugged.com/news/2026/3/31/a-turning-point-for-free-speech-finlands-conviction-of-pivi-rsnen-reverberates-beyond-europe).
* * *
At A Glance:
Paul Marshall is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/religious-freedom/why-finlands-conviction-paivi-rasanen-reverberates-beyond-europe-paul-marshall
[Category: ThinkTank]
Common Cause Urges SCOTUS to Protect Birthright Citizenship
WASHINGTON, April 1 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:* * *
Common Cause Urges SCOTUS to Protect Birthright Citizenship
*
Common Cause is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to the Trump Administration's attempt to ignore the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution. The group recently filed an amicus brief defending birthright citizenship and its central role in our democracy.
In early 2025, President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release: * * * Common Cause Urges SCOTUS to Protect Birthright Citizenship * Common Cause is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to the Trump Administration's attempt to ignore the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution. The group recently filed an amicus brief defending birthright citizenship and its central role in our democracy. In early 2025, President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenshipto everyone born in the United States. Federal courts swiftly blocked the order, recognizing it as a blatant violation of the Constitution.
As the case reaches its final arguments, Common Cause's brief remains a critical defense of the Constitution and a warning against this administration's attempt to betray the Constitution, our democracy, and the rule of law.
Statement of Virginia Kase Solomon, President & CEO of Common Cause:
"The Constitution is not a suggestion, and its guarantees do not shift with the political winds of any one president. But this administration is trying to do away with birthright citizenship -the very foundation of what it means to be American and equal rights under the law.
When the courts allow one president to change the definition of American citizenship with a stroke of a pen, it puts every American citizen at risk. The Supreme Court must reject these unconstitutional overreaches before they cause irreversible harm to our families and our nation's future.
The promise of the 14th Amendment is simple: if you are born here, you belong here, and no executive order or president can change that."
***
Original text here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/common-cause-urges-scotus-to-protect-birthright-citizenship/
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: How Higher Ed Can Reclaim Its High-End Reputation
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla:* * *
How higher ed can reclaim its high-end reputation
Frightfully high prices and ferocious left-wing ideology make higher ed a hard sell. But an Ivy League college president has given this K-12 teacher some reasons to hope for reform.
*
For years, my mission as an English teacher was defined by a main objective: getting every one of my students college-ready. California's A-G academic requirements were drilled into our freshman students on day one. Take the classes, get the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla: * * * How higher ed can reclaim its high-end reputation Frightfully high prices and ferocious left-wing ideology make higher ed a hard sell. But an Ivy League college president has given this K-12 teacher some reasons to hope for reform. * For years, my mission as an English teacher was defined by a main objective: getting every one of my students college-ready. California's A-G academic requirements were drilled into our freshman students on day one. Take the classes, get thegrade, and go to college. I viewed a university degree as the non-negotiable ticket to a financially secure life. It pains me to think about how I rarely encouraged trade schools, apprenticeships, or even just working your way up in a company, rather than going to college. The current educational landscape has forced a significant pivot in my philosophy over the last 5 years. My focus shifted towards ensuring that young people are career-ready, rather than college-ready. The reality is that college is no longer the optimal path for everyone, particularly given the skyrocketing costs and increasingly left-leaning monoculture on most campuses.
I recently attended a webinar that highlighted these tensions, featuring Brown University president Christina Paxson and Frederick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prominent center-right think tank known for its focus on maintaining American liberty, democracy and for advocating free enterprise. The conversation struck me as a rare moment of honesty, especially surprising considering Paxson is the leader of such a left-leaning university. While I may not agree with everything she said, I applaud the transparency and willingness to discuss these issues publicly.
Paxson began by acknowledging that public trust in education has lowered significantly over the last decade. Recent Gallup data from 2025 shows a modest reversal, with confidence in higher education rising to 42% after hitting a record low of 36% in 2023 and 2024. Despite this slight uptick, trust remains far below the 57% level seen in 2015. Paxson attributed this long-term decline to two things I have been worried about for years: the high cost of attendance, and concerns over indoctrination, particularly left-wing.
First, some context on the cost of attending college these days, using Brown as an example. The sticker price to attend Brown has reached $97,000 a year for tuition, room, and board. Paxson defended this by arguing that, adjusted for inflation, the cost has actually remained flat or declined for many due to financial aid. She even claimed that attending Brown can be more affordable than a state school. This is a claim that many middle-class families (the ones who don't qualify for the "free" ride but aren't wealthy enough to drop six figures) find very hard to believe.
Speaking of money, in July 2025, Brown University reached a significant settlement with the Trump administration to restore $510 million in federal research funding that had been frozen due to concerns over DEI programs and alleged antisemitism. This funding freeze was driven by federal investigations into reports that the university allowed a hostile antisemitic environment to continue.
In 2024, there were pro-Palestinian protests at the Warren Alpert Medical School, and an unauthorized encampment was allowed to remain on campus for weeks. The university was accused of negotiating with activists rather than protecting Jewish students. As part of the settlement agreement, Brown University agreed to stop programs that promoted race-based outcomes in favor of strict merit-based admissions. They also committed to adopting a binary definition of sex for athletic programs and housing, meaning no biological males in women's sports and bathrooms. Paxson noted her support for transparency so the public can see that money is being used for real research rather than "administrative bloat." It's amazing how quickly "institutional values" can shift when half a billion dollars is on the line.
On the topic of indoctrination, Paxson cited a 2026 Gallup-Lumina poll that found only 2% of students felt unwelcome on campus because of their political beliefs. That number was only 3% for Republican students. She used this to argue that the hostile environment narrative is a public perception issue rather than a student reality. However, organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have found the opposite to be true.
The Gallup survey Paxson referenced focused on a general sense of belonging, which is not the same as the freedom to speak.
According to the FIRE report, after surveying nearly 300,000 students, a significant number self-censor on controversial topics. The data shows that self-censorship falls disproportionately on the right, with 34% of Republican students reporting they stay silent compared to 15% of Democrats.
Frederick Hess further countered Paxson's optimism, claiming studies of humanities and social science syllabi show that conservative books are assigned only 10 percent of the time. I could not find a source to verify this stat that Hess mentioned. Still, it does align with broader data showing that conservative Humanities and Social Science college professors have dwindled to the single digits. To address this disparity, Paxson argued that faculty will "naturally evolve" to include more diverse perspectives, sharing an example of a professor who added women writers to his syllabi after 30 years.
I find it difficult to share her optimism. If it takes three decades to add a female author, how long will it take a heavily left-leaning faculty to incorporate more conservative scholars voluntarily?
The discussion also touched on grade inflation and the fact that Brown no longer includes GPAs on transcripts to "discourage competition." Paxson dismissed the issue by retorting that employers often do not look at transcripts. Think about that logic. If the actual grades don't matter and the employers aren't looking at the academic record, it reinforces the idea that the traditional rigor of college is becoming secondary to the credential itself. We are moving toward a system where you pay for the name on the diploma, not the knowledge in your head.
Finally, they discussed institutional neutrality. Brown will no longer take official positions on social movements like Black Lives Matter unless the issue directly relates to higher education. Paxson argued that when an institution makes a political statement, it effectively shuts down diverse thought by signaling which opinions are "correct." The cynic in me can't help but notice she took this position now, after facing the reality her university losing $500 million if it continues to take one side on intensely polarizing and sensitive social issues.
Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.
Generally, Paxson sounded like a leader who is finally embracing change. She hasn't solved all of the problems in America's universities today, not by far, but taking her comments at face value, she seems to argue that she would rather keep the university a safe space for all viewpoints, rather than a far-left echo chamber. I can respect that. And to be fair, there have been some actions to back these words, even if I would like to see more. If this trend of merit-based admissions and political neutrality continues, I may recommend colleges to my students again more enthusiastically. And surprisingly, that list might just include Brown University, even if it took the threat of financial loss to get them there.
* * *
Kali Fontanilla
Kali is serving as CRC's Senior fellow, particularly focusing on topics related to K-12 public education.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-higher-ed-can-reclaim-its-high-end-reputation/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: Iran, Fertilizer, and Food Security - Risks, Impacts, and Policy Responses
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A involving Caitlin Welsh, director of the Global Food and Water Security Program:* * *
Iran, Fertilizer, and Food Security: Risks, Impacts, and Policy Responses
The energy and fertilizer market disruptions resulting from the Iran war are threatening agriculture markets and food prices around the world. How could these market shocks affect food systems? What evidence are we seeing to date, and what are the policy solutions for farmers and consumers--in the United States and worldwide?
Q1: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A involving Caitlin Welsh, director of the Global Food and Water Security Program: * * * Iran, Fertilizer, and Food Security: Risks, Impacts, and Policy Responses The energy and fertilizer market disruptions resulting from the Iran war are threatening agriculture markets and food prices around the world. How could these market shocks affect food systems? What evidence are we seeing to date, and what are the policy solutions for farmers and consumers--in the United States and worldwide? Q1:How is the Iran war affecting agriculture markets and food prices?
A1: The war with Iran is affecting food systems through two mechanisms: the price of energy and the price of fertilizers, which are pushed higher through the destruction of energy-production infrastructure and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
High energy prices translate to high food prices for several reasons. Energy--including motor oils and liquified gases--powers food production and processing, from tractors and irrigation systems to transportation and refrigeration. High energy costs for farmers, food transporters, and retailers are passed to consumers through high food prices. Furthermore, when fossil fuel prices rise, demand for alternative sources of energy, including biofuels, increases, and some farmers divert crops like corn, sugar, and soy to energy rather than food. Finally, high energy prices increase the cost of fertilizer. Liquified natural gas (LNG) is a key input to nitrogen-based fertilizers, so high LNG prices push up the prices of fertilizers like ammonia and urea, while high oil prices increase processing and transporting costs, which ultimately put upward pressure on all fertilizer prices.
Beyond high energy prices, the war with Iran is also directly increasing the price of fertilizer through the restriction of exports of fertilizers and inputs to fertilizer production. Prior to this war, approximately 20-30 percent of global fertilizer exports transited the Strait of Hormuz, including approximately 23 percent of ammonia and 34 percent of urea, the most commonly used nitrogen-based fertilizers, along with 20 percent of phosphates traded globally. The strait also transits approximately 20 percent of global LNG exports, and approximately 45 percent of global exports of sulfur, a byproduct of oil production that is used to produce phosphate-based fertilizers.
Together, high oil and LNG prices, the increased cost of fertilizer feedstocks, and the restriction of fertilizer exports have driven up the costs of most nitrogen- and phosphate-based fertilizers globally. Farmers in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States, are now facing high fertilizer costs during the spring planting season, the period of peak fertilizer application. Farmers may adapt in several ways. Farmers who had purchased fertilizers before the onset of war may continue with planting as previously planned. Countries that keep national reserves of fertilizers, like China, may draw on those reserves to provide fertilizer to farmers, insulating them from high fertilizer prices. Farmers without sufficient fertilizer could be forced to purchase fertilizer at high prices or forego purchasing fertilizer altogether. This could ultimately affect crop production and alter decisions over the types of crops planted, with some farmers opting to shift from more-fertilizer-intensive crops, like corn, to less-fertilizer-intensive crops, like soybeans. Together, these decisions could change the quantity and quality of agriculture commodities on global markets, potentially increasing the cost of food for many.
Q2: How could the Iran war affect farmers and food prices--in the United States and around the world?
A2: High fertilizer and energy prices will have more immediate effects on the U.S. farm economy than on U.S. food prices. By late 2025, the American Farm Bureau Federation warned that the "viability of the U.S. agriculture sector" was threatened by economic pressures, including trade and immigration policy, which increased the cost of farm equipment and labor, fertilizer prices that remained above pre-pandemic levels, and the falling price of agricultural commodities. As a result, the sale price of agricultural commodities was lower than the production costs for many farmers. Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that approximately 25 percent of farmers have not yet purchased the fertilizer they need for the 2026 spring planting season. High fertilizer prices increase costs for these farmers, which could affect the viability of their operations.
Around the world, high energy prices will likely put upward pressure on global food prices. Considering the correlation between energy prices and food prices, and assuming that the war lasts beyond June 2026, with oil prices remaining above $100 per barrel during that period, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that the number of people facing acute hunger could increase by 45 million. This number will ultimately depend on the duration of the Strait of Hormuz closure and implementation of policies to buffer the war's impacts on farmers and consumers.
The immediate impacts could materialize in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly for some farmers in major agricultural producing countries like the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, Ukraine, China, and India. Sustained high fertilizer prices could similarly affect agricultural production during Southern Hemisphere countries' planting season in late 2026, and even for the 2027 spring planting season in the Northern Hemisphere, depending on the duration of the war and associated high fertilizer prices. Sustained high energy prices could continue to divert grains from food to biofuels, putting upward pressure on grain prices. Grains are a principal source of animal feed, so high grain prices ultimately affect dairy and meat prices alongside prices of staple foods.
Q3: So far, what is the evidence that this war is affecting agriculture markets and food prices?
A3: At the time of writing, global urea futures reached $693 per ton, up 49 percent relative to the price immediately preceding the conflict. Prices vary by location, and on March 20 in Illinois, average urea prices were up 42 percent, and average ammonia prices were up 18.5 percent since immediately prewar. The price of gasoline and diesel fuel continues to rise in the United States, where the national average gas price exceeded $4 per gallon by the end of March.
In March 2025, the USDA Economic Research Service predicted the price for all food to increase by 3.6 percent throughout 2026. This price increase would represent higher inflation than 2024-2025, but lower food-price inflation than 2020, due to Covid-19-related supply-chain shocks, and 2022, when food prices reached a forty-year high. Monthly reports will reveal the extent of food-price inflation--for food purchased in grocery stores and restaurants--in the United States. The Food Price Index of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations will report monthly changes in global agriculture commodity prices. The WFP estimates that the impact of energy prices on food prices could peak approximately four months following the onset of the Iran war; a similar timeframe could be expected for food prices to reflect high energy prices in the United States.
The USDA's Prospective Planting report estimated that in 2026, plantings of corn and wheat acreage, both nitrogen-fertilizer-intensive crops, will likely fall 3 percent each, relative to 2025. Soy acreage is estimated to rise by 4 percent relative to 2025. Swings in estimated acreage are not as large as grain traders estimated, either because the report does not capture the full effect of high fertilizer prices on U.S. farmers (surveys were conducted through the second week of March) or because most farmers had secured fertilizer early.
Globally, the impacts of high fertilizer and energy prices will likewise be experienced over the coming months and will be dependent on the duration and extent of the war. The FAO estimates that a one-month conflict would affect those farmers in the Southern Hemisphere who have not yet purchased fertilizers, with farmers in the Northern Hemisphere relatively unaffected. A three-month war could affect production and planting decisions for all farmers in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. A war extending into 2027 could affect economies' growth trajectories, affecting agricultural productivity and consumers' purchasing power. Estimates of the global production and export of agriculture commodities will be reported in monthly USDA World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates reports, and in reports of the Agriculture Market Information System.
Q4: What are the policy responses?
A4: Recognizing the additional pressures on U.S. agriculture brought by the Iran war, the White House proclaimed March 24, 2026, as National Agriculture Day and welcomed hundreds of farmers to White House grounds several days later. There, President Donald Trump announced several measures to support U.S. farmers, including increasing the renewable fuel volume requirements for biofuels, offering loan guarantees for farmers and food suppliers, and easing pollution monitoring requirements.
Such steps may reduce overall costs and expand markets for farmers, but they would not address the fertilizer-price spike brought by the Iran war. In the short term, easing tariffs on fertilizer-producing countries like Morocco and Russia could provide relief from high fertilizer prices. U.S. fertilizer market analysis suggests increasing domestic production of nitrogen-based fertilizers to ease U.S. farmers' exposure to global price shocks, though the construction of fertilizer facilities would require billions of dollars and up to two years. Ammonia production facilities powered with renewable energy could provide ammonia at a lower cost relative to ammonia produced with LNG, so funding for research and investment in such facilities could lower fertilizer prices for U.S. farmers in the long term. Investigating fertilizer producers for potential price fixing could also signal intent to reduce fertilizer prices, but would likely have no near-term impact on fertilizer prices for U.S. farmers.
Beyond impacts on U.S. farmers, all U.S. consumers will likely be exposed to food-price inflation due to rising energy costs. According to the USDA, food insecurity increased in the United States through 2024, affecting 13.7 percent of U.S. households. High food prices and economic stagnation are likely to increase the number of Americans experiencing food insecurity in 2026. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandated a historic reduction in funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP)--the main program by which the federal government supports household food security--that will result in a loss of SNAP benefits for millions of Americans. Should food prices increase alongside energy prices, then a temporary increase in SNAP funding could buffer low-income Americans from food insecurity.
To support producers and consumers worldwide, the FAO recommends short-term measures to stabilize markets and ensure energy flows, medium-term measures to diversify fertilizer supply and strengthen regional cooperation among fertilizer importers, and long-term measures to increase the resilience of fertilizer markets to structural shocks such as the Strait of Hormuz closure.
Q5: Could a Black Sea Grain Initiative for Strait of Hormuz fertilizer work?
A5: In late March, the UN secretary-general announced a task force to "facilitate fertilizer trade, including the movement of raw materials," through the Strait of Hormuz, in the model of the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) and comparable mechanisms. Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and blockade of the Black Sea in early 2022, Ukrainian grain exports were effectively trapped in Ukraine's maritime ports, driving global food prices to historic highs by March 2022. In mid-2022, the United Nations, Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine agreed to the BSGI to facilitate the safe export of Ukrainian grain from Ukraine's Black Sea ports. Ukrainian grain exports resumed immediately, helping quell global food prices, which reduced to pre-invasion levels by the end of 2022.
Today, the United Nations and other international partners likely hope to stem the rise in global fertilizer prices through a similar mechanism. The impact of a Strait of Hormuz initiative would depend largely on the commodities subject to the initiative, whether urea, ammonia, phosphate, LNG, and/or sulfur. As nitrogen-based fertilizers are the most commonly applied fertilizers globally, and with a significant proportion of urea and ammonia produced in Persian Gulf countries, an initiative aimed at facilitating the transit of these fertilizers could ease global prices, lessening long-term impacts on global food production and prices. Including LNG in any trade-facilitating regime would further reduce fertilizer prices. Including sulfur and phosphate in a Strait of Hormuz mechanism would allow for maximum reductions in fertilizer prices. Still, an initiative that does not facilitate oil exports would allow for continued upward pressure on energy prices and the prices of food, fertilizer, and other commodities.
While the BSGI ultimately helped stabilize global grain prices and facilitated the maritime export of significant amounts of Ukrainian grain, it presented other challenges for Ukrainian exporters. Often missing from conversations around the BSGI is the fact that Ukrainian grain exports increased following the termination of the BSGI in 2023--contrary to popular expectations--because the BSGI required inspection, including by Russia, of grain-carrying ships entering and exiting Ukraine's ports. Throughout the period of the BSGI, Russia slowed and ultimately halted inspection of Ukrainian ships before terminating the BSGI altogether in mid-2023. Absent the BSGI inspection regime, and with renewed commitment to securing its maritime trade routes, Ukraine ultimately increased its grain exports in the year following the termination of the BSGI.
In the case of the Strait of Hormuz, Gulf fertilizer and gas producers would benefit financially from facilitated fertilizer and LNG exports, while eased pressure on farmers could support global food production. Iran, however, could find benefit either in participating in such a regime, signaling goodwill toward Gulf countries following Iran's region-wide attacks, or in retaining control of Strait of Hormuz exports, thereby retaining leverage over the United States, Israel, and the global economy. At the end of March, Iran announced its agreement to "facilitate and expedite" the transit of humanitarian aid through the Strait of Hormuz. The war has curtailed operations of a United Arab Emirates-based humanitarian assistance hub, delaying shipments of food, medicine, and medical supplies to Africa and Asia.
An enduring lesson of the BSGI is that one party to the mechanism may have an interest in continued control of commodity exports, even while appearing broadly cooperative in trade facilitation, and ultimately, trade volumes may not fully recover until war ends.
Q6: What could be the unintended consequences for U.S. geopolitical adversaries?
A6: The Iran war has already introduced trade dynamics that benefit U.S. strategic adversaries, including Russia and Iran. Beyond oil exports from both countries--which the United States de-sanctioned within weeks of the war--Russia and Iran are benefitting from disruptions to fertilizer and gas markets.
Amid Strait of Hormuz export disruptions, orders of fertilizer from Russia, the world's second-largest fertilizer exporter, are increasing, including among some countries in Africa. Such a dynamic reinforces Moscow's efforts to use food and fertilizer exports for influence, discouraging importers from condemning Russia in its ongoing war in Ukraine. In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is reported to permit the transit of ships carrying commodities to countries maintaining close ties with Iran. India, for example, has received imports of liquified petroleum gas, commonly used as a cooking gas, from at least six Iranian ships transiting the strait; China is also reported to have received shipments of commodities via the strait. According to an Indian shipbroker, Iran is "forcing countries to choose between Western alignment and energy stability." Weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz for political influence is "extortion on a global scale," according to a United Arab Emirates minister. As with the war in Ukraine, high energy prices drive global inflation, while high fertilizer prices threaten the production of food for billions of consumers worldwide, providing additional leverage in wartime and further influence over fertilizer-importing countries.
* * *
Caitlin Welsh is the director of the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
The author would like to thank Joseph Glauber and Joely Virzi for their contributions to this piece.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/iran-fertilizer-and-food-security-risks-impacts-and-policy-responses
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Structural Barriers to Resource Extraction in Antarctica
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by William Muntean, senior associate (non-resident) of the Americas Program:* * *
The Structural Barriers to Resource Extraction in Antarctica
A geologist estimated in 2018 that the global price of oil would need to be above $200 per barrel for commercial resource extraction of oil in Antarctica to be feasible. That is a remarkably high number considering the highest price ever was $150 per barrel in June 2008. The armed conflict in Iran as well as recent U.S. statements ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by William Muntean, senior associate (non-resident) of the Americas Program: * * * The Structural Barriers to Resource Extraction in Antarctica A geologist estimated in 2018 that the global price of oil would need to be above $200 per barrel for commercial resource extraction of oil in Antarctica to be feasible. That is a remarkably high number considering the highest price ever was $150 per barrel in June 2008. The armed conflict in Iran as well as recent U.S. statementsand actions related to Alaska, Venezuela, and Denmark (Greenland) have made clear the importance the United States places on commercial resource extraction, or mining, of energy and critical minerals. In this period of geopolitical upheaval, it is potentially useful to review the political, legal, and natural challenges unique to Antarctica that make commercial mining, whether for energy or for critical minerals, in the region unlikely in the coming decades.
Background
Antarctica is a continent roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined, surrounded by the Southern Ocean. There has never been an indigenous human population, and it remains inhospitable for all but the most intrepid staff and scientists supported by their national governments. There is no private, commercial infrastructure in the region, such as airports, naval ports, hotels, grocery stores, or hospitals. Everything south of 60 S latitude, whether land, ice, or water, is governed by the Antarctic Treaty system, which is based on international cooperation rather than on sovereign territories.
Although located far from them now, Antarctica was once connected with Africa, Australia, India, and South America millions of years ago, and scientists presume it should have resources similar to those of those continents and their adjoining waters. The United States and other countries active in Antarctica have repeatedly reported petroleum finds, with the U.S. Geological Survey publishing reviews in 1974, 1983, and 1991. The U.S. reports were done during successive energy crises and while countries were negotiating a convention to govern potential mineral extraction in Antarctica, a convention that was ultimately discarded in favor of protecting Antarctica's environment and prohibiting commercial mining. More recently, a Russian firm announced in February 2020 that it had found over 500 billion barrels of potential hydrocarbon resources in the Southern Ocean. The UK Parliament discussed this finding during a series of public hearings in 2024 regarding its national interests in Antarctica. There are reports of other mineral finds in the region, albeit none of that reported size and the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee referenced this Russian action in a hearing in February.
However, the United States, Russia, and all other countries active in the region have never taken any action to undertake commercial mineral extraction in the region.
It is therefore not a question of whether there exist potentially valuable mineral resources in Antarctica, but whether those resources could be found, extracted, and moved safely and profitably. Since 1991, the private sector and countries have concluded that there are two reasons the answer is no. First, there are significant, longstanding political and legal disincentives to initiating commercial mining activities in the region that include an outright ban on any nonscientific mining activity, the absence of property rights and business confidentiality, and reputational and financial risks that are particularly significant in the case of an environmental disaster. Second and much more importantly, the unique and extreme natural conditions significantly restrict when and where mining operations could occur and significantly increase the operational costs.
Political and Legal Challenges
The most significant political and legal challenge to potential commercial mining operations in Antarctica is that such activities have long been prohibited by international law. Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection, which was agreed to in 1991 and went into force in 1998, prohibits "any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research." The provision does not expire and does not need to be renewed. Parties to the Protocol regularly reaffirm their adherence to the provision, including most recently in 2023. Article 25 of the Protocol establishes a procedure to modify the mining ban that changes after 2048, but requires the entry into force of a binding legal regime on mining that had been agreed to by consensus before removing or amending Article 7.
Beyond prohibiting nonscientific mining, the Protocol and its annexes establish stringent rules related to conducting activities in the region, including requiring environmental impact assessments, protecting flora and fauna, establishing waste management norms, regulating marine waste, and creating protected areas. In short, since 1991, all countries active in the region, including the United States, Russia, and China, have prioritized environmental protection over mineral exploitation in Antarctica.
This is consistent with U.S. policy first established during the Nixon administration, when the United States decided to oppose commercial mining in favor of preventing discord or competition in the remote region. The United States further reinforced this position during the George H.W. Bush administration when it signed into law the Antarctica Protection Act of 1990, which made it "unlawful to engage in, finance, directly or indirectly, or knowingly provide assistance to any Antarctic minerals resource activity." This statute remains in force.
Additionally, Antarctic Treaty Article IV, which freezes competing overlapping claims of sovereignty, and Article VII, which allows unannounced inspections anywhere in the region, have the effect of eliminating property rights and business confidentiality in the region. Although the purpose of the inspection regime is for arms control, it has already expanded to cover environmental issues and could easily be used to investigate business operations. The result is that a company operating in Antarctica should have no expectation that it could prevent others from accessing the same resource it found and is attempting to extract from, and should not expect to have business confidentiality from competitors learning about its operations.
Although climate change policy and energy policy diverge in the United States, many countries are taking action to reduce their use of hydrocarbons by diversifying their energy portfolio. Antarctica is well-known as a place of unique beauty that has had limited human impact, so it would be reasonable to expect a concerted effort by committed and skilled environmentalists, such as the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, which led the fight that established the Environmental Protocol and mining ban, to restrict the importation or dampen demand for energy or other products using Antarctic minerals.
Natural Challenges
While the human-made political and legal challenges to conducting nonscientific mining for energy and other products in Antarctica are substantial, they could be reversed. However, those challenges are insignificant compared to the natural constraints on conducting operations in the region, which are not reversible by decree. Antarctica is the driest, coldest, and windiest continent in the world. Over 98 percent of its land is covered by ice sheets up to 3 miles thick. A company desiring to even find mineral deposits on the continent would therefore need to overcome the greatest quantity of ice anywhere in the world just to reach what we would consider the ground surface.
The Southern Ocean that rings the continent is well-known for its miserable surface conditions. Katabatic winds can quickly turn a calm day into a challenge with speeds over 100 mph, which would be the equivalent of a Category Two hurricane but without the preceding warning of its arrival. In addition to katabatic winds, cyclonic low-pressure storm systems constantly circulate Antarctica, impacting any location in the Southern Ocean for days at a time, with a new storm system arriving almost weekly.
Antarctica has a significant annual seasonal variation of sea ice, ranging from 996,000 square miles in February 2026 to 6.88 million square miles in September 2025 (see Figure 1). The sea ice is thick enough to prevent even heavy icebreaker operations in the region for much of the year. Operations throughout the year, but particularly active during the austral summer, would face a different challenge from ice, namely the movement of icebergs, and could be impossible due to the presence of sea ice. The frequency and size of icebergs in the Southern Ocean also create significant risks to anything in the water, be they boats, platforms, or islands. A recent large iceberg, A23 (about twice the size of Greater London), is large but would have been dwarfed by the largest Antarctic iceberg recorded, B15 (nearly as large as the state of Connecticut or the country of Jamaica), when it calved in 2000.
* * *
Figure 1: Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Sixteenth-Lowest Minimum
Figure 2: Antarctic Sea Ice Peaks at Third-Lowest Level
* * *
Logistics would be a considerable challenge, whether the desired operations were on land or offshore. The habitable continents Africa (3,800 km), Australia (2,500 km), and South America (1,000 km) are distant from Antarctica and do not rely on the Southern Ocean for maritime connections with the rest of the world. There are no indigenous inhabitants of Antarctica and no population centers on the Southern Ocean, meaning there are no easy locations to base operations, refine the output, or sell the resulting product.
In this challenging location, an operator would need to establish multiple logistics networks related to the mining operation, whether it is on a platform in the Southern Ocean or on the continent. That operator would need to construct key infrastructure -- such as an airport, ocean port, hotel or dormitory, hospital, or grocery store -- since none exist in the region to address the various needs of moving personnel, supplies, and products for commercial purposes. It would be particularly complex to manage the human labor needed for such an operation. Currently, only 5,000 people live in the Antarctic region during the peak summer months and around 1,500 during the long winter.
Conclusion
As described above, there are significant legal, political, and natural reasons that make it difficult to envision commercial mining in Antarctica in the coming decades. That is not to say that it is impossible. There could be significant changes in technology that make commercial operations in the Antarctic Ocean more feasible, and there could be countries that would advocate for policies that lower the risk or costs of nonscientific mining in Antarctica in the hope or expectation that mining could be feasible in the future. Additionally, a state-owned company from a country that does not give significant weight to reputational risk or environmental harm might undertake challenging operations.
As it has done since 1974, the United States should prioritize peace, science, and environmental protection over the hopes of finding and exploiting a mythical El Dorado of energy or mineral resources in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. One cost-free action would be to place a permanent ban on nonscientific mining to further dissuade governments and companies from looking to the south for resources. Another would be to collaborate with like-minded countries to continue to monitor and strongly dissuade potential non-scientific mining in the region. A third action would be for countries to act globally to protect Antarctica's environment from all threats, including mining. Taking these steps would be consistent with the U.S. National Security Strategy released in November, which emphasized that the United States needs to prioritize where it spends its time and capital to advance its national interests, while reserving Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.
* * *
William Muntean is a senior associate (non-resident) of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/structural-barriers-resource-extraction-antarctica
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Sports Broadcasting - Market Shifts and Policy Questions
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by technology and innovation policy analyst Angela Luna:* * *
Sports Broadcasting: Market Shifts and Policy Questions
Executive Summary
* As streaming platforms reshape the distribution of live sports, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is seeking public comments on the effects of streaming on broadcasters and consumers.
* The FCC has long regulated broadcast licenses to protect local broadcasters, but while cable television moved some sports programming outside of FCC authority, the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by technology and innovation policy analyst Angela Luna: * * * Sports Broadcasting: Market Shifts and Policy Questions Executive Summary * As streaming platforms reshape the distribution of live sports, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is seeking public comments on the effects of streaming on broadcasters and consumers. * The FCC has long regulated broadcast licenses to protect local broadcasters, but while cable television moved some sports programming outside of FCC authority, therise of streaming has greatly increased fragmentation of the sports viewing market; while streaming has increased consumer choice, fragmentation is making access more complex and costly, raising questions about how traditional rules apply in today's sports media landscape.
* This insight examines the impact of streaming on the sports broadcasting market, and considers the possibility of regulatory or legislative action by the FCC or Congress.
Introduction
As streaming platforms reshape the distribution of live sports, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has opened an inquiry into the evolving sports broadcasting marketplace. In a public notice released last month, the FCC is seeking comments on whether recent changes in sports distribution are affecting broadcast stations' ability to meet their public interest obligations and how this is impacting consumers' ability to find and afford live game telecasts.
The FCC has long regulated broadcast licenses to protect localism - ensuring local broadcasters serve their communities by providing access to local news, weather, and events. The agency also set rules, such as carriage obligations that support the economic viability of local broadcasters to sustain that programming. But the advent of cable television moved some sports programming outside of FCC authority, and now streaming platforms have shifted audiences even further. This increased fragmentation is making access to sports more complex and costly, raising questions about how traditional rules apply in today's sports media landscape.
This insight examines current market dynamics and their impact on broadcasters and consumers, assesses the FCC's limited authority to regulate streaming and the possibility of congressional action.
The FCC's Statutory Authority in Sports Broadcasting
The Communications Act of 1934 gave the FCC jurisdiction to regulate traditional over-the-air television. Instead of controlling who gets sports media rights, the FCC regulates licenses that allow stations to use a specific portion of the public spectrum. In exchange, the FCC has long required broadcasters to act in the public interest of the communities, also known as localism, guaranteeing they have access to local news, weather, and events, including local sports. To reinforce this framework and ensure continued viewer access, the Cable TV Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 required cable providers to carry the signal of local commercial television stations.
Streaming platforms, however, are further reshaping the distribution of live sports, reducing dependence on traditional stations. Currently, the FCC has no direct jurisdiction over streaming platforms, and its public notice is fueling debate about whether the rules should change.
The Evolving Sports Media Marketplace
Streaming platforms have completely changed the distribution of sports broadcasting. While sports were traditionally distributed through free over-the-air television on popular networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, as well as through paid television packages (cable and satellite), these broadcasters now compete with technology companies including Amazon and YouTube. As shown in Figure 1, among the 43 percent of Americans who consider themselves "sports viewers," approximately 70 percent watch via streaming platforms - with 40 percent watching sports exclusively through streaming. Just 19 percent only watch sports over broadcast or cable.
* * *
Figure 1: U.S. Sports Viewers by Source in 2025
* * *
In this context, media rights are increasingly more valuable. The National Football League (NFL) exemplifies how leagues are selling their rights. As shown in Figure 2, in 2025, the NFL sold its media rights across seven deals, with pure streaming services such as Amazon, YouTube TV, and Netflix accounting for 25 percent of the NFL's broadcast revenue. Also, the NFL divided its games across platforms by time slot and exclusivity, for example, Sunday night on NBC, Monday night on ESPN, Thursday night on Amazon, and select games exclusively on streaming services such as two Christmas games on Netflix.
* * *
Figure 2: NFL Media Rights in 2025
* * *
This market shift is changing competition and access to sports. As professional leagues sell their media rights, broadcasters, pay TV operators, and streaming platforms compete for these rights to grow their audiences and increase advertising and subscription revenue. In this landscape, traditional broadcasters have increasingly experimented with hybrid arrangements, sharing rights with streaming partners or placing their own games on proprietary direct-to-consumer platforms such as Peacock or Paramount+ to remain competitive, while also adapting to new content strategies.
The Impact on Local Broadcasters and Localism
As major broadcasters, pay TV operators, and streaming platforms pay higher licensing fees for exclusive sports rights, local broadcast stations risk losing a key source of revenue. Regional sports networks - television channels dedicated to broadcasting local professional and collegiate sports within specific geographic areas - are collapsing due to the transition of viewers to streaming and the bankruptcy of major stations. That includes the Main Street Sports Group which is set to close at the end of this season. Traditionally, sports programming has delivered large audiences and advertising revenue, sustaining local stations and helping to fund local news and public programming. But as distribution keeps moving toward traditional pay TV and digital systems, the local broadcasters' revenue is shrinking, weakening their competitive position. The decline of local broadcasters, however, does not necessarily imply a decline in local content, independent news sites, social media and online creators now produce local content and distribute it through digital platforms.
Fragmentation and Impact on Sports Fans
The market shift and expanded options give consumers more choice and flexibility, as fans can now watch their favorite sports events on tablets and phones rather than just TV. They can view more sporting events than when broadcasters aired only those games considered of interest to a specific geographic market. Streaming replay options allow them to view matches whenever it's convenient. The downside of this shift is that consumers are losing free access as an increasing number of games are now behind paywalls. Also, the fragmentation makes it harder for fans to find the games they want to watch, while also potentially increasing the costs to access them as they may have to pay for multiple subscriptions. In 2025, for example, watching all NFL games could cost a consumer over $1,500.
Regulatory Outlook
As live sports move across broadcast and streaming platforms, the policy question has been whether to respond to a market that is completely disrupting traditional distribution models. A review of the market suggests that the shift is not inherently harmful or beneficial, but rather a response to consumer preferences and technological change.
For the FCC and Congress, this distinction is important. As the FCC's legal authority lies in traditional broadcasting, efforts to address the distribution of sports across streaming platforms could face significant constraints. While the FCC might try to rely on its public interest authority to discourage stations from shifting games to streaming - even linking such decisions into license renewals - these actions would likely face legal challenges, because, under the major questions doctrine, courts would require clear congressional authorization for the FCC to take on an issue of this scale. In addressing the shift to streaming, Congress will be best positioned to act. Congress currently regulates sports broadcasting through the Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA), which gives antitrust immunity to allow professional leagues to collectively license the sponsored telecasts - broadcasts financed by advertisers that are then available free to the public - of their games to national broadcast networks. By granting these exceptions, leagues can redistribute media revenues, helping ensure financial stability, and allowing leagues to package their games for nationwide, free distribution which further expands access for viewers.
Legislators have flagged the need to review the SBA to determine whether it adequately addresses the current market and the extent to which it serves competition and consumer welfare. Yet Congress has not taken significant steps to either protect broadcast stations or regulate the streaming market. The FCC's public notice could, however, lead to a request for legislation and apply public pressure for Congress to act. Ultimately, any legislative proposal to address concerns about the changing sports media market should focus on preserving competition and innovation across distribution technologies rather than privileging a single distribution model.
* * *
Angela Luna is the Technology & Innovation Policy Analyst at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/sports-broadcasting-market-shifts-and-policy-questions/
[Category: Think Tank]
AFPI Applauds President Trump's Executive Order to Strengthen Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement:* * *
AFPI Applauds President Trump's Executive Order to Strengthen Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from the Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell, Chair of Election Integrity, in response to President Trump's Executive Order, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections:
"We applaud President Trump for taking action to defend the right of American citizens to decide American elections. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement: * * * AFPI Applauds President Trump's Executive Order to Strengthen Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from the Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell, Chair of Election Integrity, in response to President Trump's Executive Order, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections: "We applaud President Trump for taking action to defend the right of American citizens to decide American elections.This Executive Order is a major step toward restoring trust in our system by helping states verify citizenship, tightening the chain of custody for mail ballots, and making clear that federal law must actually be enforced.
For too long, weak verification, bloated voter rolls, and loose mail-ballot practices have invited confusion and undermined public trust. Americans are tired of being told to ignore obvious vulnerabilities in the system. This order recognizes a basic truth: honest elections require rules, verification, enforcement, and consequences. President Trump's order reflects the kind of serious America First policies that this moment demands."
The principle is simple: only American citizens should vote in American elections, every lawful vote should count, and no lawful vote should be canceled out by an illegal one. AFPI has long championed commonsense reforms like documentary proof of citizenship, accurate voter rolls, voter ID, clear ballot deadlines, and strong record retention. Learn more about our election integrity work here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/policy-areas/election-integrity).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-president-trumps-executive-order-to-strengthen-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections
[Category: ThinkTank]