Featured Stories
Heritage Foundation Recognizes Innovation Prize Winners With Nearly $1 Million to Conservative Organizations
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
The Heritage Foundation Recognizes Innovation Prize Winners with Nearly $1 Million to Conservative Organizations
The Heritage Foundation announced today the recipients of its annual "Innovation Prizes," which recognize and provide substantive financial awards totaling up to nearly $1 million annually to results-oriented nonprofits.
This year's recipients of the awards include the Cardinal Newman Society, Center for Responsible Technology, College of St. Joseph the Worker, Election Integrity
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
The Heritage Foundation Recognizes Innovation Prize Winners with Nearly $1 Million to Conservative Organizations
The Heritage Foundation announced today the recipients of its annual "Innovation Prizes," which recognize and provide substantive financial awards totaling up to nearly $1 million annually to results-oriented nonprofits.
This year's recipients of the awards include the Cardinal Newman Society, Center for Responsible Technology, College of St. Joseph the Worker, Election IntegrityNetwork, FACTS About Fertility, Independent Medical Alliance, Inter-State Security Organization, Love Your School, Reformers Academy, Stop Predatory Gambling, True Charity, and Voices for the Voiceless.
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, commended the recipients of the prizes for their great work:
"The conservative movement is always stronger when we work together. Nowhere is that collaboration more important than when it comes to securing our states and our election systems and strengthening our schools, health care systems, workplaces, and families.
"This year's winners exemplify the partnerships and love of neighbors that lead to flourishing families and civil societies. We are grateful for their work and honored to support their noble efforts to preserve the permanent things in our republic."
These nonprofits are awarded prizes for projects that strengthen families, communities, and civil society through research, education, outreach, communications, and advocacy. Their work includes advancing educational excellence and parental engagement, promoting responsible technology, supporting election integrity, improving health and medical freedom, expanding vocational formation, and protecting the dignity of vulnerable and underserved populations.
To read more about the organizations' projects and hear from their executives, visit this page (https://www.heritage.org/2026-innovation-prize-winners).
* * *
BACKGROUND:
This is the sixth round of Heritage Innovation Prizes to be awarded. In 2025, prize winners included the American College of Pediatricians, American Reformer, the Ben Franklin Fellowship, Do No Harm, Families Empowered, LifeWise Academy, Napa Legal Institute, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, State Armor, Them Before Us, and Wired Human.
For more information on the inaugural awards, read here (https://www.heritage.org/2022-innovation-prize-winners). For more information about the prize itself, read here (https://www.heritage.org/innovationprizes).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/the-heritage-foundation-recognizes-innovation-prize-winners-nearly-1-million-conservative
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Experts: Supreme Court Upholds Common Sense in Immigration Case
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Experts: The Supreme Court Upholds Common Sense in Immigration Case
The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that aliens cannot be considered as "arrived in" the United States for the purposes of federal immigration law if the U.S. turns them away before crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation's Institute of Constitutional Government, made the following statement:
"Both the Immigration and Nationality Act and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Experts: The Supreme Court Upholds Common Sense in Immigration Case
The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that aliens cannot be considered as "arrived in" the United States for the purposes of federal immigration law if the U.S. turns them away before crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation's Institute of Constitutional Government, made the following statement:
"Both the Immigration and Nationality Act andthe Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 contain the phrase 'arrives in the United States.' The case presented a straightforward question: whether an illegal alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico arrives 'in' the United States when he is still 'in' Mexico?
"The answer is clearly no, which is what the majority held in a common-sense opinion by Justice Alito. This opinion does not, as the dissent suggests, signal an end to meritorious asylum claims, nor does it change the fact that the United States takes in over one million legal residents per year."
Lora Ries, director of Heritage's Border Security and Immigration Center, also noted the following:
"The case that Al Otro Lado brought is a clear demonstration that neither borders nor the meaning of words matters to the Left. They argued that the U.S. government cannot meter or control an orderly process at our land border. Additionally, they argued that U.S. CBP agents must inspect and process asylum aliens who are still in Mexico. The Supreme Court majority rejected both arguments and used the common-sense meaning of words.
"It is worth noting Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, in which he reprimands the district court for effectively granting the class-wide injunctive relief that Congress prohibited in the immigration statute and for providing relief that may have unconstitutionally infringed on President Trump's inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.
"Thomas called upon the Supreme Court to address in a future case 'this apparent end-run around' both the statute and the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, in which the Court interpreted the statutory jurisdictional bar to prohibit lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out specified statutory authorities."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-experts-the-supreme-court-upholds-common-sense-immigration-case
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Expert: Court's Decision Stops Hawaii's Unconstitutional Gun Law
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Expert: Court's Decision Stops Hawaii's Unconstitutional Gun Law
The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Wolford v. Lopez that Hawaii's gun control law is unconstitutional. Hawaii banned gun owners with concealed-carry permits from bringing their guns onto private property unless they had express permission from the owner.
Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation's Institute of Constitutional Government, made the following statement:
"Today, the Supreme Court held
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Expert: Court's Decision Stops Hawaii's Unconstitutional Gun Law
The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Wolford v. Lopez that Hawaii's gun control law is unconstitutional. Hawaii banned gun owners with concealed-carry permits from bringing their guns onto private property unless they had express permission from the owner.
Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation's Institute of Constitutional Government, made the following statement:
"Today, the Supreme Court heldthat Hawaii's law, which said no one carrying a firearm may enter private property held open to the public without the owner's express authorization, was unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth amendments.
"The law departed sharply from the standard common law rule where everyone, including those lawfully carrying firearms, could enter private property held open to the public.
The Hawaii law hobbled the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-expert-courts-decision-stops-hawaiis-unconstitutional-gun-law
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Politicians Pass Housing Bill to Fix Problems They Created
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 24, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Politicians pass housing bill to fix problems they created
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in a 358-32 vote, one day after the Senate approved the measure 85-5.
The bill contains some good ideas. As economist Alex Tabarrok wrote in March:
"The bill would streamline NEPA review for federally supported housing,
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 24, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Politicians pass housing bill to fix problems they created
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in a 358-32 vote, one day after the Senate approved the measure 85-5.
The bill contains some good ideas. As economist Alex Tabarrok wrote in March:
"The bill would streamline NEPA review for federally supported housing,primarily by expanding categorical exclusions. Federal environmental review does impose real costs and delays on housing construction, so reducing unnecessary review is a step in the right direction. The gains will probably be modest--most housing regulation occurs at the state and local level--but removing friction is good."
"The bill would also deregulate manufactured housing by eliminating the permanent chassis requirement and creating a uniform national construction and safety standard. The United States once built far more factory-produced housing; in the early 1970s, by some accounts a majority of new homes were factory-built (mobile or modular). Long-run productivity growth in housing almost certainly requires greater use of factory construction. Land-use regulation remains the dominant constraint on supply, but enabling scalable manufacturing is still welcome."
Sadly, it also contains some bad ideas:
"Section 901 ("Homes are for People, Not Corporations") restricts the purchase of new single-family homes by large institutional investors. Elizabeth Warren is a sponsor of the bill but this section was driven almost entirely by President Trump. Trump passed an Executive Order, Stopping Wall Street from Competing With Main Street Home Buyers, that cuts off institutional home investors from FHA insurance, VA guarantees, USDA backing, Fannie/Freddie securitization and so forth. The bill goes further by imposing a seven-year mandatory divestiture rule, forcing institutional investors to convert rental homes to owner-occupied units after seven years."
"No one objects to institutional investors owning apartment buildings. But when the same investors own single-family homes, it breaks people's brains. Consider how strange the logic sounds if applied elsewhere:
""...a growing share of apartments, often concentrated in certain communities, have been purchased by large Wall Street investors, crowding out families seeking to buy condominiums."
"Apartments are fine, hotels are fine, but somehow a corporation owning a single family home is un-American. In fact, the US could do with more rental housing of all kinds! Why take the risk of owning when you can rent? Rental housing improves worker mobility. When foreclosures surged after 2008 and traditional buyers disappeared, institutional investors stepped in and absorbed distressed supply -- helping stabilize markets. Who plays that role next time?
"Institutional investors own only a tiny number of homes, so even if this were a good idea it wouldn't be effective. But it's not a good idea, it's just rage bait driven by Warren/Trump anti-corporate rhetoric.
"What does "Homes are for People, Not Corporations" even mean?-this is a slogan for the Idiocracy era. "Food is for People, Not Corporations," so we should ban Perdue Farms and McDonald's?"
The current fuss about institutional investors owning single family homes is of the same type as that surrounding the construction of data centers. It starts with a problem -- rising electricity or house prices -- misdiagnoses the problem -- data centers or institutional investors -- and lets the real culprits off the hook. Those culprits are fine with all this and go out of their way to foster these misdiagnoses and faulty prescriptions.
Who are these culprits? Governments, mostly. A new study from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) finds that regulations imposed by federal, state, and local governments account for 26.4% of the final price of a new single-family home. Applied to the average sales price of a new home in January, the regulatory burden totals approximately $131,734 per house.
Take a look back at the "good" provisions in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act; they relate to government getting out of the way or stopping doing something. These government actions are a much bigger cause of housing unaffordability than institutional investors, most of whom are individuals with real estate investment side hustle, but they make a handy scapegoat, just as data centers do when government energy policy pushes electricity prices up.
Government really is the meme:
[View image in the link at bottom.]
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/politicians-pass-housing-bill-to-fix-problems-they-created/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: High School Grade Inflation Leads to Lower Learning, Lower Earnings
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 25, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley:
* * *
High school grade inflation leads to lower learning, lower earnings
A newly released study from economist Jeffrey Denning, published with the National Bureau of Economic Research, argues that a too-easy A in high school penalizes the student with a real economic cost.
Grades have seen a strong and measurable upturn at both the K-12 level and the collegiate
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 25, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley:
* * *
High school grade inflation leads to lower learning, lower earnings
A newly released study from economist Jeffrey Denning, published with the National Bureau of Economic Research, argues that a too-easy A in high school penalizes the student with a real economic cost.
Grades have seen a strong and measurable upturn at both the K-12 level and the collegiatelevel. Since grades are the most commonly understood method of communication to parents and students of a student's academic progress, this is a significant development. While this could signal a praiseworthy increase in real student learning, it unfortunately denotes a mere increase in grades.
One 2022 study that compared grades given by teachers to standardized tests agreed with the wide research consensus that points to a worrying rise in grade inflation across the nation in all types of schools. The authors noted there was strong "evidence of grade inflation without and with accounting for student and school characteristics."
Denning's study cites data from the National Center for Education Statistics, showing that the average high school GPA has increased about .48 points since the late 1980s, with college GPAs not too far off either.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
It may be easier for little John to get an A now than if he were born in 1980: but is that such a bad thing?
Lighter coursework frees him up to pursue creative interests, jobs, and internships, removing undue pressures to achieve academically. Non scholae sed vitae discimus -- "we learn not for school, but for life" -- cry the lighter-grade advocates, flipping the phrase on its head. Looking at the problem a bit differently, his friend Peter may be an F student, on the verge of becoming a high school dropout. Life is difficult for those without a high school diploma; making sure Peter receives that essential piece of paper could be a worthwhile act of charity that keeps him off the streets.
Denning's research implies that there are, in fact, very real consequences of grade inflation for the two students -- but those consequences vary, depending on whether the student is John or Peter.
Denning and his team divide grade inflation into two categories. The first, what I'll call average-grade inflation, raises the average grade that each student earns, impacting the Johns of the school (who are in no danger of flunking out) by making it easier for them to earn an impressive course grade. The second, passing-grade inflation, lowers the average bar each teacher sets for what constitutes a D as compared to an F, helping the Peters of the school scrape their way through to a diploma.
When the team examined their short- and long- term data, taken from the Los Angeles Unified School District and from all public high schools in Maryland, they found something surprising. Average-grade inflation and passing-grade inflation have very different effects on students' further academic performance and their eventual life trajectories.
Passing-grade inflation, which lowers the bar for students to pass their coursework, has "no effect on future test scores in math or English." With passing-grade inflation, students are less likely to fail a course and more likely to graduate high school. But researchers still can't say definitively if that magnanimous high school diploma actually helped that struggling student to launch into life.
Framing their findings here tenuously, the research team notes that there is "some suggestion of a shift away from four-year and toward two-year college enrollment and increases in earnings in the first few years after expected high school graduation." These barely-there high school graduates are opting to enter the workforce just after graduation (a worthy pursuit) but there's no evidence that their early pay bump continues to even just six years after their graduation.
Average-grade inflation, which makes it easier for students to exhibit signals of success without content mastery, has strong negative effects that impact students almost immediately.
Students who learned under teachers with lax grading strategies experienced a "meaningful impact" of lower scores in following tests than students who studied under more robust graders. The students, likely knowing they possessed grades they didn't earn, lowered their academic ambitions: students were less likely to take the SAT and potentially less likely to graduate high school. They were less likely to enroll in postsecondary education and less likely to be gainfully employed in the six years after high school that the study assessed.
It turns out that it is possible to put a price tag on all the lost learning. An individual student who experienced a lenient teacher has their earnings reduced "by about $56 to $145 a year from one through six years after expected high school graduation." One typical grade-inflating high school teacher, educating about 90 students a year, reduces their collective lifetime earnings by $213,872 per every year the cohort is in that teacher's classroom.
Even though John and Peter might rejoice at the short-term benefits of grade inflation, their teachers aren't doing them any long-term favors by letting them take the easy way out.
Solutions
As policy writer Chad Aldeman points out, policy goals for grading shouldn't include harshness for harshness' sake. There's no benefit to setting unreasonable standards for our students.
Yet schools must appropriately challenge students at each stage of their education, asking them to make more of themselves, growing their minds and their abilities. The implicit promise that a high grade genuinely reflects achievement compels students to respect their own work ethics, their fellow students, and the honesty of their academic institutions. In this way, accurate grading signifies the inculcation of a noble character.
Plus, as my colleague Catrin Wigfall says, there are real social consequences to grade inflation. Students who are not prepared for the real world because of their grades know less, study less, and make less money, leaving their communities and nation diminished as a result. Grading reform must take place, tying the final scores to objective standards of mastery over course completion.
One easy first step for Minnesota's districts would be to require standardized end-of-course exams (final exams) that represent a significant part of a student's final grade. This mastery check would provide an important counterweight to potential grade inflation within the semester. (Plus, in the wild world of education policy debates, final exams are a crowd-pleasing method of grade reform. The practice satisfies many content mastery concerns of the equity-based grading crowd.)
Our students deserve grades that accurately reflect their accomplishments, and we should give them freely. It's what institutional honesty and concern for long-term student wellbeing requires.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/high-school-grade-inflation-leads-to-lower-learning-lower-earnings/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Trump's Conservation Disaster: Removing Protections From More Than 86 Million Acres of Public Lands
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
Trump's Conservation Disaster: Removing Protections From More Than 86 Million Acres of Public Lands
President Donald Trump has moved to lift protections from more than 86 million acres of public lands in his second term, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress that shows how Trump's actions are threatening beloved landscapes and wildlife across the country.
The land losing these safeguards is equivalent to more than 70 Grand Canyons or 38 Yellowstone National
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
Trump's Conservation Disaster: Removing Protections From More Than 86 Million Acres of Public Lands
President Donald Trump has moved to lift protections from more than 86 million acres of public lands in his second term, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress that shows how Trump's actions are threatening beloved landscapes and wildlife across the country.
The land losing these safeguards is equivalent to more than 70 Grand Canyons or 38 Yellowstone NationalParks--a massive collection of public lands and waters across the country at risk of being permanently altered or destroyed, the analysis finds.
The impact of these rollbacks includes opening pristine forest wilderness to development, exposing Alaska's habitat-rich landscapes to oil drilling, and putting beloved landscapes such as Minnesota's Boundary Waters at risk of contamination and destruction.
"As millions of Americans celebrate the nation's 250th anniversary this summer by visiting national parks, forests, and monuments, the country's rich conservation legacy is being erased," said Sam Zeno, senior policy analyst for Conservation Policy at CAP and co-author of the report. "Despite overwhelming public support for conserving the nation's shared resources, President Trump is putting these lands and waters at risk."
Recently, the Trump administration has been making absurd attempts to compare President Trump's conservation record to that of President Theodore Roosevelt. In reality, President Trump has proved himself to be the most anti-nature president in the country's history.
Including his first term in office, Trump has moved to lift protections from more than 100 million acres of land. In contrast, Roosevelt conserved nearly 230 million acres of public lands while in office, including national forests, national monuments, national parks, and bird and game reserves.
Read the analysis: "Unprotecting American Lands: How Trump Is Dismantling America's Bipartisan Conservation Legacy" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/unprotecting-american-lands-how-trump-is-dismantling-americas-bipartisan-conservation-legacy/) by Sophie Conroy and Sam Zeno
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-trumps-conservation-disaster-removing-protections-from-more-than-86-million-acres-of-public-lands/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: One Year After Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Millions Have Lost Health Coverage and Food Assistance
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
One Year After Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Millions Have Lost Health Coverage and Food Assistance
One year after President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law, Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan selections have fallen by 1.2 million people and participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has dropped by more than 4 million people, according to a new Center for American Progress analysis. The article finds that families are
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on June 25, 2026:
* * *
One Year After Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Millions Have Lost Health Coverage and Food Assistance
One year after President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law, Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan selections have fallen by 1.2 million people and participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has dropped by more than 4 million people, according to a new Center for American Progress analysis. The article finds that families arepaying more for health care and groceries while the law delivers roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent of households.
Many of the law's largest cuts have yet to take full effect. Over the coming years, new Medicaid work requirements, SNAP restrictions, and other provisions are expected to push millions more Americans off health coverage and food assistance programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law's health care provisions alone will leave 10 million more Americans uninsured by 2034.
"The consequences of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are only beginning to take hold," said Natasha Murphy, director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress and co-author of the analysis. "Just one year after its enactment, millions of Americans are losing health coverage and food assistance while families face the economic pressures of higher health care, grocery, and energy costs. As the law delivers massive tax breaks to wealthy households, working families are struggling to make ends meet."
Key findings from the analysis include:
* ACA plan selections have fallen by 1.2 million people. Marketplace sign-ups declined 5 percent between 2025 and 2026, the largest drop since the marketplaces opened in 2014.
* Marketplace coverage has become significantly more expensive. Average monthly ACA net premium costs among enrollees increased 58 percent, from $113 in 2025 to $178 in 2026, while average deductibles rose 37 percent to a record high of $3,786.
* The law's health care provisions are expected to leave 10 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. New Medicaid work requirements and other coverage restrictions are projected to cause millions of Americans to lose health insurance over the next decade.
* SNAP participation has dropped by more than 4 million people. SNAP participation fell by 10 percent nationwide between July 2025 and March 2026, with participation declining in every state during this period.
* More than 700,000 children have lost SNAP benefits in 12 states alone. Participation has fallen by at least 5 percent in 42 states and by at least 10 percent in 21 states.
* The top 1 percent receive roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts. Meanwhile, the law cuts more than $900 billion from Medicaid and more than $1.2 trillion from programs that help families meet basic needs.
* Families are facing higher utility bills. The law's repeal of clean energy incentives is projected to raise household electricity costs by more than $110 in 2026, with electricity rates expected to increase nearly 18 percent by the end of President Trump's term.
Read the analysis: "On the First Anniversary of the OBBBA, Millions of Americans Have Been Left Behind" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/on-the-first-anniversary-of-the-obbba-millions-of-americans-have-been-left-behind/) by Amina Khalique and Natasha Murphy
For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-one-year-after-trumps-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-millions-have-lost-health-coverage-and-food-assistance/
[Category: ThinkTank]
