Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Turkiye's Black Sea Diplomacy Faces Russian Roadblocks
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Turkiye's Black Sea Diplomacy Faces Russian Roadblocks
Sam Jones| Mamie Powers | Panorama
Executive Summary:
* Turkiye is intensifying its diplomatic efforts to mediate peace between Russia and Ukraine as strikes in the Black Sea continue and civilian vessels get pulled into the crossfire.
* Ukraine has expressed willingness to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, but signals from Moscow dim the prospects of a new deal despite Turkish efforts.
* ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Turkiye's Black Sea Diplomacy Faces Russian Roadblocks Sam Jones| Mamie Powers | Panorama Executive Summary: * Turkiye is intensifying its diplomatic efforts to mediate peace between Russia and Ukraine as strikes in the Black Sea continue and civilian vessels get pulled into the crossfire. * Ukraine has expressed willingness to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, but signals from Moscow dim the prospects of a new deal despite Turkish efforts. *Moscow appears to be hardening its negotiating position ahead of the winter months as strikes on vessels carrying agricultural goods in the Black Sea threaten food shortages and attacks on energy infrastructure from both Russia and Ukraine show no sign of letting up.
-
Signals from Moscow dim the prospects of a renewed Black Sea Grain Initiative despite Turkish efforts. Russian and Ukrainian strikes on Black Sea ports, loading terminals, and ships are disrupting food exports and the global grain supply, and they have struck civilian vessels from other countries (United Nations, July 27; Anadolu Ajansi, August 29; Euromaidan, September 25). Turkiye controls the Turkish Straits, the sole maritime passage between the Black and Mediterranean seas, under the authority granted by the 1936 Montreux Convention (see Black Sea Battleground, May 10, 2022). Ankara has positioned itself as a mediator in much of Russia's war against Ukraine (see EDM, September 11, 12, 2023, April 1, May 19, 2025). As strikes on the Black Sea intensify, Ankara is seeking a larger role in this mediation, but success depends on Russia and Ukraine being willing to negotiate.
Turkiye has called for calm in the Black Sea since the early days of the war (see Black Sea Battleground, October 12, 2022). Russia, Ukraine, Turkiye, and the United Nations launched the Black Sea Grain Initiative in July 2022, lifting Russia's blockade on Ukrainian agricultural exports (see EDM, September 13, 2022). Russia and Ukraine together make up almost 30 percent of global wheat exports (Euronews, August 19). Under the initiative, Russia allowed merchant ships to pass through the Black Sea. On July 17, 2023, Russia unilaterally suspended the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which was followed by drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian ports. This created a re-imposition of a total naval blockade on Ukraine in the Black Sea (see EDM, July 26, 27, 31, 2023). After suspending the Black Sea Grain Initiative, Russia showed little interest in following through with Turkiye's involvement as a mediator in the war (see EDM, September 11, 12, 2023).
Since June, Ankara has renewed its efforts to mediate Black Sea security. On September 17, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that Ankara has "recently intensified its diplomatic efforts" to negotiate with Russia and Ukraine over the Black Sea (Turkish Directorate of Communications, September 17). Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan echoed this sentiment following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on September 23. He stated, "It is necessary to take steps regarding the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, that there can be no explanation for the attack on commercial ships, and that we expect responsible behavior from the parties" (Turkish Directorate of Communications, September 23).
Russia has reacted coolly to Turkiye's diplomatic overtures. Fidan visited Moscow from June 15-17, where he met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Black Sea security. There, Fidan stressed to Lavrov that current actions in the Black Sea threaten Turkiye's regional security (The Insider, July 16). During the meeting with Putin, he confirmed Turkiye's readiness to host peace talks between Russia and Ukraine (President of Russia, June 17; Interfax, June 18). He then visited Kyiv on July 16, where he again urged both sides to ensure energy security and safe navigation in the Black Sea to protect global grain supplies (Turkiye Today, July 16).
On August 8, Fidan said that Turkiye had sent a proposal to Russia and Ukraine that would end attacks on civilian ships in the Black Sea (Daily Sabah, August 8). On August 31--ahead of a planned September 1 meeting between Putin and Erdogan--Fidan said Ankara remained in contact with both Moscow and Kyiv and was seeking to establish conditions for an arrangement similar to the Black Sea Grain Initiative (Daily Sabah, August 31).
Conditions in the Black Sea were the main topic of Putin and Erdogan's meeting (Interfax, September 1). After the meeting, Erdogan stressed the need for a mechanism to ensure safe shipping in the Black Sea, saying, "We are seeing the grain crisis re-emerge" (President of Turkiye, September 2). Ankara has continued to emphasize that a major part of its engagement with both Moscow and Kyiv is to ensure the safety of civilian shipping, trade routes, and energy infrastructure in the Black Sea amid the war (Newsweek, September 25).
Speaking to reporters at the UN General Assembly on September 23, Erdogan stated, "The issue of security in the Black Sea is very important for both us and our region. The Black Sea is not, should never be, a front of this war" (TRT Haber, September 24). Fidan, on September 15 during a press conference in Baku, stated that the spread of Russia's war against Ukraine in the Black Sea was "not an acceptable situation" as the lives of Turkish citizens and the operations of Turkish companies are at risk (Turkiye Today, September 15). In a September 19 conversation with reporters, Fidan described Turkiye's mediation efforts as an outside perspective offering moral or other points of view. He explained that countries and mediators that "focus on results rather than looking for credit" are more effective (NTV, September 19). In an interview with Newsweek published on September 25, Erdogan stated, "Turkiye's priority is to prevent the war from turning into a conflict that draws in other countries." He asserted that Turkiye's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its ability to maintain direct contact with Putin allow Turkiye to act as a mediator (Newsweek, September 25).
Ukraine has recently appeared at least rhetorically open to Turkiye's diplomatic efforts, saying the next steps are up to Russia. Following a meeting with Erdogan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X, "We discussed security in the Black Sea, first and foremost how to ensure the operation of the maritime export corridor ... What is needed is simply Russia's readiness to stop its terrorist strikes on our infrastructure, so that Ukraine can reciprocally halt its long-range responses" (X/@ZelenskyyUa, September 23). He echoed this sentiment on September 25 after discussions with leaders of Egypt, India, Turkiye, and various Middle Eastern countries, saying there were proposals for a reciprocal ceasefire in the Black Sea so goods can be delivered without problems (RBC-Ukraine, September 25).
Ukrainian officials have said Kyiv would agree to a deal similar to the Black Sea Grain Initiative. They worry, however, that Russia will keep asking for more, with additional demands unrelated to grain, and that such a deal would be difficult to reach because Russia abandoned the original initiative in 2023 (Middle East Eye, September 24). Ukrainian Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal said Ukraine is ready for a ceasefire that would also include protecting energy infrastructure alongside security in the Black Sea, especially as winter approaches and Black Sea strikes put food security at risk and strikes on energy infrastructure from both Russia and Ukraine continue (RBC-Ukraine, September 24).
Commentary from Moscow points to a hardening negotiating position ahead of the winter months. At a September 1 press conference in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Putin acknowledged that Ukraine's 40-day summer strike campaign inflicted real damage, estimating the total economic costs at around 1 percent of Russia's gross domestic product (GDP). He stressed, however, that the situation was not critical and that Russia would retaliate against Ukraine's "most sensitive economic sectors" (President of Russia, September 1). Putin's statements underscore that Moscow views its Black Sea blockade as a political weapon against Kyiv.
He argued that a prolonged blockade will lead to three cumulative problems for Ukraine. First, a foreign exchange crisis; second, a budget crisis; and third, a banking crisis. Moscow sees current diplomatic efforts for a moratorium on Black Sea strikes as only benefiting Ukraine; as Putin contends, "That is precisely why they have gone running to all our friends--to the Arab states, not just one but several; to our Indian friends; and to a few others, including Turkiye--with the same plea" (President of Russia, September 1).
Influential foreign policy commentators have put forward similar arguments. For example, in an August interview, Dmitry Trenin, president of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, implied that the 2022 Black Sea grain deal was a gift from Moscow. He then argued that Russia's current strikes against Ukraine's Black Sea infrastructure will force the West to "face the question of whether to take risks for itself or agree to the Russian formula for peace" (Russia in Global Affairs, August 17). Russian political scientist Dmitry Suslov also argued in Russia in Global Affairs that Ukraine "may not survive the winter" due to Russia's Black Sea blockade. He believes the West will seek de-escalation in this area but that "Russia, of course, will not agree to such a partial truce." Any comprehensive settlement, he continued, will now involve "even greater concessions from Ukraine than the Anchorage agreements" (Russia in Global Affairs, September 23). In a September 24 front-page article in Moskovskiy Komsomolets--one of Russia's most widely read newspapers--columnist Mikhail Rostovskiy opined that only continued war awaits Russia, calling a surge in Western diplomatic efforts "white noise." Instead of engaging in talks, he argued, Russia should prepare "for an even tougher and bloodier phase of the Ukrainian conflict this winter" because Ukraine and Europe are "not ready to accept Russia's main demands" (Moskovskiy Komsomolets, September 24).
Military-affiliated Telegram channels have spread similar messages. Since August, the most popular war propaganda channels have been claiming that Russia's strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and blockade of the Black Sea will lead to a collapse of Ukraine's economy. They often put forth the narrative that Ukraine will not adhere to an energy ceasefire and will only use it to prepare for more strikes against Russian infrastructure.
The channel "Rybar," for example, argues that negotiations should not discuss stopping strikes against Ukrainian energy and port infrastructure. The channel has continuously posted that Russia will only consider negotiations once Ukraine's economic and political systems are destroyed, so that "it no longer poses a threat" (Telegram/@rybar, September 8, 15, 23). The channel "Two Majors" warns the West that the conflict will make economic activity in the Black Sea prohibitively expensive, and that the Russian Armed Forces will not limit its strikes to only Ukrainian vessels, saying, "We do not care which flag the ship is sailing under" (Telegram/@dva_majors, September 19, 23).
All dismiss the prospects of a new grain deal. The channel "Legitimate" says the Kremlin opposes negotiating a Black Sea truce with Zelenskyy and will agree only to a final, "full-fledged peace" deal--a euphemism for removing Zelenskyy (Telegram/@legitimniy, August 19). The channel argues against engaging with Turkiye's attempts to negotiate a second Black Sea grain deal, because "Zelenskyy successfully disrupted the first agreement when it was profitable for him" and "this time it will be the same" (Telegram/@legitimniy, August 8). The Kremlin-aligned foreign policy commentator Sergei Poletaev has similarly reasoned against a ceasefire at the frontline or a pause on infrastructure strikes, asserting that Ukraine will use a ceasefire to "fight for Crimea" (Telegram/@vatfor, September 23).
The official Kremlin line has grown more assertive. On September 24 at the UN General Assembly in New York, Dmitry Polyansky, Russia's Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), displayed no desire to ease tensions in the Black Sea, proclaiming the "Kyiv regime and its Western sponsors, who supply it with the tools to commit crimes, bear full responsibility for the armed escalation and aggravation of the transport and logistics situation in the Azov-Black Sea area" (RIA Novosti, September 24). He then argued that the 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative was used by the West to supply weapons to Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added to this sentiment, calling attempts to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative "completely unacceptable and unrealistic" (RIA Novosti, September 24).
Russian commentary unambiguously rejects negotiations and expands the scope for escalation, potentially even beyond Ukraine (see EDM, July 23, September 14). NATO's frontline states have increasingly come under rhetorical attack. For example, Moscow has closely followed the Lithuanian parliament's decision to remove the constitutional ban on stationing nuclear weapons and foreign military bases on the country's territory (LRT.lt, September 22). On September 11, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov called the plan a "serious escalation" and stated that if nuclear weapons get deployed to Lithuania, then "the territory of this country will also be targeted by our nuclear weapons" (Interfax, September 11).
On September 25, shortly following the vote by Lithuania's parliament, an article was published by Russia's state-run news agency, RIA Novosti, titled, "Another Special Military Operation Awaits Russia. It Will be Short." The article was written by regular contributor Alexander Nosovich--who the investigative center "Dossier" has linked to the Russian Presidential Administration and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) (Dossier, November 25, 2020). In the article, Nosovich compares Lithuania to Ukraine and threatens the country with a nuclear strike, saying:
It is about what means can be used. And since our opponents are the first to turn the conversation to the nuclear threat, Russia can even afford to forgo a ground contingent ... The solution is not just fast, but lightning fast.[1]
Russia is committed to a path of escalation heading into the winter. Reading into Moscow's statements, it becomes clear that the Kremlin sees its blockade of the Black Sea and strikes on Ukrainian port and energy infrastructure as points of political leverage. Ukraine's increasing ability to strike deep inside Russia has also changed the Kremlin's calculus. Moscow is now unlikely to take any small de-escalatory steps unless Ukraine is forced to refrain from striking inside Russia--a demand Kyiv understandably views as asymmetrically benefiting Moscow. Zelenskyy has vowed to press on with the campaign if Russia refuses to negotiate (Ukrainska Pravda, August 24; Kyiv Post, September 24). Whether Turkiye's diplomatic efforts will make a difference is yet to be seen.
Note:
[1] RIA Novosti has since removed the article, with a note now saying that it "did not correspond to the opinion of the editorial board, the editorial policy, and the state policy of the Russian Federation." The article's link, which currently shows that message, can be viewed here (https://ria.ru/20260925/svo-2120099059.html). The original article can be read in full on the Internet Archive here (https://web.archive.org/web/20260925073359/https://ria.ru/20260925/svo-2120099059.html).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/turkiyes-black-sea-diplomacy-faces-russian-roadblocks/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Turkiye's Black Sea Diplomacy Faces Russian Roadblocks
Sam Jones| Mamie Powers | Panorama
Executive Summary:
* Turkiye is intensifying its diplomatic efforts to mediate peace between Russia and Ukraine as strikes in the Black Sea continue and civilian vessels get pulled into the crossfire.
* Ukraine has expressed willingness to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, but signals from Moscow dim the prospects of a new deal despite Turkish efforts.
* ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Turkiye's Black Sea Diplomacy Faces Russian Roadblocks Sam Jones| Mamie Powers | Panorama Executive Summary: * Turkiye is intensifying its diplomatic efforts to mediate peace between Russia and Ukraine as strikes in the Black Sea continue and civilian vessels get pulled into the crossfire. * Ukraine has expressed willingness to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, but signals from Moscow dim the prospects of a new deal despite Turkish efforts. *Moscow appears to be hardening its negotiating position ahead of the winter months as strikes on vessels carrying agricultural goods in the Black Sea threaten food shortages and attacks on energy infrastructure from both Russia and Ukraine show no sign of letting up.
-
Signals from Moscow dim the prospects of a renewed Black Sea Grain Initiative despite Turkish efforts. Russian and Ukrainian strikes on Black Sea ports, loading terminals, and ships are disrupting food exports and the global grain supply, and they have struck civilian vessels from other countries (United Nations, July 27; Anadolu Ajansi, August 29; Euromaidan, September 25). Turkiye controls the Turkish Straits, the sole maritime passage between the Black and Mediterranean seas, under the authority granted by the 1936 Montreux Convention (see Black Sea Battleground, May 10, 2022). Ankara has positioned itself as a mediator in much of Russia's war against Ukraine (see EDM, September 11, 12, 2023, April 1, May 19, 2025). As strikes on the Black Sea intensify, Ankara is seeking a larger role in this mediation, but success depends on Russia and Ukraine being willing to negotiate.
Turkiye has called for calm in the Black Sea since the early days of the war (see Black Sea Battleground, October 12, 2022). Russia, Ukraine, Turkiye, and the United Nations launched the Black Sea Grain Initiative in July 2022, lifting Russia's blockade on Ukrainian agricultural exports (see EDM, September 13, 2022). Russia and Ukraine together make up almost 30 percent of global wheat exports (Euronews, August 19). Under the initiative, Russia allowed merchant ships to pass through the Black Sea. On July 17, 2023, Russia unilaterally suspended the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which was followed by drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian ports. This created a re-imposition of a total naval blockade on Ukraine in the Black Sea (see EDM, July 26, 27, 31, 2023). After suspending the Black Sea Grain Initiative, Russia showed little interest in following through with Turkiye's involvement as a mediator in the war (see EDM, September 11, 12, 2023).
Since June, Ankara has renewed its efforts to mediate Black Sea security. On September 17, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that Ankara has "recently intensified its diplomatic efforts" to negotiate with Russia and Ukraine over the Black Sea (Turkish Directorate of Communications, September 17). Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan echoed this sentiment following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on September 23. He stated, "It is necessary to take steps regarding the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, that there can be no explanation for the attack on commercial ships, and that we expect responsible behavior from the parties" (Turkish Directorate of Communications, September 23).
Russia has reacted coolly to Turkiye's diplomatic overtures. Fidan visited Moscow from June 15-17, where he met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Black Sea security. There, Fidan stressed to Lavrov that current actions in the Black Sea threaten Turkiye's regional security (The Insider, July 16). During the meeting with Putin, he confirmed Turkiye's readiness to host peace talks between Russia and Ukraine (President of Russia, June 17; Interfax, June 18). He then visited Kyiv on July 16, where he again urged both sides to ensure energy security and safe navigation in the Black Sea to protect global grain supplies (Turkiye Today, July 16).
On August 8, Fidan said that Turkiye had sent a proposal to Russia and Ukraine that would end attacks on civilian ships in the Black Sea (Daily Sabah, August 8). On August 31--ahead of a planned September 1 meeting between Putin and Erdogan--Fidan said Ankara remained in contact with both Moscow and Kyiv and was seeking to establish conditions for an arrangement similar to the Black Sea Grain Initiative (Daily Sabah, August 31).
Conditions in the Black Sea were the main topic of Putin and Erdogan's meeting (Interfax, September 1). After the meeting, Erdogan stressed the need for a mechanism to ensure safe shipping in the Black Sea, saying, "We are seeing the grain crisis re-emerge" (President of Turkiye, September 2). Ankara has continued to emphasize that a major part of its engagement with both Moscow and Kyiv is to ensure the safety of civilian shipping, trade routes, and energy infrastructure in the Black Sea amid the war (Newsweek, September 25).
Speaking to reporters at the UN General Assembly on September 23, Erdogan stated, "The issue of security in the Black Sea is very important for both us and our region. The Black Sea is not, should never be, a front of this war" (TRT Haber, September 24). Fidan, on September 15 during a press conference in Baku, stated that the spread of Russia's war against Ukraine in the Black Sea was "not an acceptable situation" as the lives of Turkish citizens and the operations of Turkish companies are at risk (Turkiye Today, September 15). In a September 19 conversation with reporters, Fidan described Turkiye's mediation efforts as an outside perspective offering moral or other points of view. He explained that countries and mediators that "focus on results rather than looking for credit" are more effective (NTV, September 19). In an interview with Newsweek published on September 25, Erdogan stated, "Turkiye's priority is to prevent the war from turning into a conflict that draws in other countries." He asserted that Turkiye's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its ability to maintain direct contact with Putin allow Turkiye to act as a mediator (Newsweek, September 25).
Ukraine has recently appeared at least rhetorically open to Turkiye's diplomatic efforts, saying the next steps are up to Russia. Following a meeting with Erdogan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X, "We discussed security in the Black Sea, first and foremost how to ensure the operation of the maritime export corridor ... What is needed is simply Russia's readiness to stop its terrorist strikes on our infrastructure, so that Ukraine can reciprocally halt its long-range responses" (X/@ZelenskyyUa, September 23). He echoed this sentiment on September 25 after discussions with leaders of Egypt, India, Turkiye, and various Middle Eastern countries, saying there were proposals for a reciprocal ceasefire in the Black Sea so goods can be delivered without problems (RBC-Ukraine, September 25).
Ukrainian officials have said Kyiv would agree to a deal similar to the Black Sea Grain Initiative. They worry, however, that Russia will keep asking for more, with additional demands unrelated to grain, and that such a deal would be difficult to reach because Russia abandoned the original initiative in 2023 (Middle East Eye, September 24). Ukrainian Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal said Ukraine is ready for a ceasefire that would also include protecting energy infrastructure alongside security in the Black Sea, especially as winter approaches and Black Sea strikes put food security at risk and strikes on energy infrastructure from both Russia and Ukraine continue (RBC-Ukraine, September 24).
Commentary from Moscow points to a hardening negotiating position ahead of the winter months. At a September 1 press conference in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Putin acknowledged that Ukraine's 40-day summer strike campaign inflicted real damage, estimating the total economic costs at around 1 percent of Russia's gross domestic product (GDP). He stressed, however, that the situation was not critical and that Russia would retaliate against Ukraine's "most sensitive economic sectors" (President of Russia, September 1). Putin's statements underscore that Moscow views its Black Sea blockade as a political weapon against Kyiv.
He argued that a prolonged blockade will lead to three cumulative problems for Ukraine. First, a foreign exchange crisis; second, a budget crisis; and third, a banking crisis. Moscow sees current diplomatic efforts for a moratorium on Black Sea strikes as only benefiting Ukraine; as Putin contends, "That is precisely why they have gone running to all our friends--to the Arab states, not just one but several; to our Indian friends; and to a few others, including Turkiye--with the same plea" (President of Russia, September 1).
Influential foreign policy commentators have put forward similar arguments. For example, in an August interview, Dmitry Trenin, president of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, implied that the 2022 Black Sea grain deal was a gift from Moscow. He then argued that Russia's current strikes against Ukraine's Black Sea infrastructure will force the West to "face the question of whether to take risks for itself or agree to the Russian formula for peace" (Russia in Global Affairs, August 17). Russian political scientist Dmitry Suslov also argued in Russia in Global Affairs that Ukraine "may not survive the winter" due to Russia's Black Sea blockade. He believes the West will seek de-escalation in this area but that "Russia, of course, will not agree to such a partial truce." Any comprehensive settlement, he continued, will now involve "even greater concessions from Ukraine than the Anchorage agreements" (Russia in Global Affairs, September 23). In a September 24 front-page article in Moskovskiy Komsomolets--one of Russia's most widely read newspapers--columnist Mikhail Rostovskiy opined that only continued war awaits Russia, calling a surge in Western diplomatic efforts "white noise." Instead of engaging in talks, he argued, Russia should prepare "for an even tougher and bloodier phase of the Ukrainian conflict this winter" because Ukraine and Europe are "not ready to accept Russia's main demands" (Moskovskiy Komsomolets, September 24).
Military-affiliated Telegram channels have spread similar messages. Since August, the most popular war propaganda channels have been claiming that Russia's strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and blockade of the Black Sea will lead to a collapse of Ukraine's economy. They often put forth the narrative that Ukraine will not adhere to an energy ceasefire and will only use it to prepare for more strikes against Russian infrastructure.
The channel "Rybar," for example, argues that negotiations should not discuss stopping strikes against Ukrainian energy and port infrastructure. The channel has continuously posted that Russia will only consider negotiations once Ukraine's economic and political systems are destroyed, so that "it no longer poses a threat" (Telegram/@rybar, September 8, 15, 23). The channel "Two Majors" warns the West that the conflict will make economic activity in the Black Sea prohibitively expensive, and that the Russian Armed Forces will not limit its strikes to only Ukrainian vessels, saying, "We do not care which flag the ship is sailing under" (Telegram/@dva_majors, September 19, 23).
All dismiss the prospects of a new grain deal. The channel "Legitimate" says the Kremlin opposes negotiating a Black Sea truce with Zelenskyy and will agree only to a final, "full-fledged peace" deal--a euphemism for removing Zelenskyy (Telegram/@legitimniy, August 19). The channel argues against engaging with Turkiye's attempts to negotiate a second Black Sea grain deal, because "Zelenskyy successfully disrupted the first agreement when it was profitable for him" and "this time it will be the same" (Telegram/@legitimniy, August 8). The Kremlin-aligned foreign policy commentator Sergei Poletaev has similarly reasoned against a ceasefire at the frontline or a pause on infrastructure strikes, asserting that Ukraine will use a ceasefire to "fight for Crimea" (Telegram/@vatfor, September 23).
The official Kremlin line has grown more assertive. On September 24 at the UN General Assembly in New York, Dmitry Polyansky, Russia's Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), displayed no desire to ease tensions in the Black Sea, proclaiming the "Kyiv regime and its Western sponsors, who supply it with the tools to commit crimes, bear full responsibility for the armed escalation and aggravation of the transport and logistics situation in the Azov-Black Sea area" (RIA Novosti, September 24). He then argued that the 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative was used by the West to supply weapons to Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added to this sentiment, calling attempts to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative "completely unacceptable and unrealistic" (RIA Novosti, September 24).
Russian commentary unambiguously rejects negotiations and expands the scope for escalation, potentially even beyond Ukraine (see EDM, July 23, September 14). NATO's frontline states have increasingly come under rhetorical attack. For example, Moscow has closely followed the Lithuanian parliament's decision to remove the constitutional ban on stationing nuclear weapons and foreign military bases on the country's territory (LRT.lt, September 22). On September 11, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov called the plan a "serious escalation" and stated that if nuclear weapons get deployed to Lithuania, then "the territory of this country will also be targeted by our nuclear weapons" (Interfax, September 11).
On September 25, shortly following the vote by Lithuania's parliament, an article was published by Russia's state-run news agency, RIA Novosti, titled, "Another Special Military Operation Awaits Russia. It Will be Short." The article was written by regular contributor Alexander Nosovich--who the investigative center "Dossier" has linked to the Russian Presidential Administration and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) (Dossier, November 25, 2020). In the article, Nosovich compares Lithuania to Ukraine and threatens the country with a nuclear strike, saying:
It is about what means can be used. And since our opponents are the first to turn the conversation to the nuclear threat, Russia can even afford to forgo a ground contingent ... The solution is not just fast, but lightning fast.[1]
Russia is committed to a path of escalation heading into the winter. Reading into Moscow's statements, it becomes clear that the Kremlin sees its blockade of the Black Sea and strikes on Ukrainian port and energy infrastructure as points of political leverage. Ukraine's increasing ability to strike deep inside Russia has also changed the Kremlin's calculus. Moscow is now unlikely to take any small de-escalatory steps unless Ukraine is forced to refrain from striking inside Russia--a demand Kyiv understandably views as asymmetrically benefiting Moscow. Zelenskyy has vowed to press on with the campaign if Russia refuses to negotiate (Ukrainska Pravda, August 24; Kyiv Post, September 24). Whether Turkiye's diplomatic efforts will make a difference is yet to be seen.
Note:
[1] RIA Novosti has since removed the article, with a note now saying that it "did not correspond to the opinion of the editorial board, the editorial policy, and the state policy of the Russian Federation." The article's link, which currently shows that message, can be viewed here (https://ria.ru/20260925/svo-2120099059.html). The original article can be read in full on the Internet Archive here (https://web.archive.org/web/20260925073359/https://ria.ru/20260925/svo-2120099059.html).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/turkiyes-black-sea-diplomacy-faces-russian-roadblocks/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minnesota Ranks No. 1 in Teacher Unions' Share of State Party Contributions
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Minnesota ranks No. 1 in teacher unions' share of state party contributions
Written by Catrin Wigfall | September 25, 2026
Education Minnesota's political involvement is no secret. The state teachers' union is a major spender on lobbying and political activity in Minnesota, and its political action committee (PAC) has directed most of its candidate and political committee spending to the DFL.
In fact, ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Minnesota ranks No. 1 in teacher unions' share of state party contributions Written by Catrin Wigfall | September 25, 2026 Education Minnesota's political involvement is no secret. The state teachers' union is a major spender on lobbying and political activity in Minnesota, and its political action committee (PAC) has directed most of its candidate and political committee spending to the DFL. In fact,Minnesota ranks No. 1 nationally for the share of contributions to state political parties that comes from teacher unions, according to an analysis by the Fordham Institute. An update to Fordham's 2012 rankings of state teacher union strength, the new analysis measures and ranks teacher union influence in K-12 education across multiple dimensions and all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.
One of those areas is "Involvement in Politics," which covers candidate endorsements, political advertisements, and financial contributions to campaigns and political parties. Minnesota comes in 8th overall here, but that number includes a wide range of results. As you can see in the table below, between 2019 and 2024, teacher unions in Minnesota accounted for a larger share of contributions to state political parties than in any other state -- a 1st-place ranking nationally. Minnesota also ranked fourth nationally when comparing teacher union contributions to state-level candidates with contributions from the state's 10 largest business interests. In terms of teacher unions' share of contributions to individual candidates, Minnesota ranks 20th.
Source: Fordham Institute, Minnesota's Teacher Union Strength Profile, 2026
Updated 2026 reporting to the Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board shows Education Minnesota's PAC has sent over $1.5 million (more than half of its nearly $3 million spend so far) directly to DFL political party units -- the DFL House and Senate Caucuses and the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee. Contributions to candidates, of which nearly all are DFLers, including Amy Klobuchar's campaign for governor and Steve Simon's campaign for secretary of state, total $35,400.
The PAC is also backing local school tax referendum campaigns through mailers, phone banking, and other voter outreach meant to boost approval of local property tax increases.
Separately, it has spent money pushing a "yes" vote on the proposed state constitutional amendment to the Permanent School Fund, and that spending increased significantly since the PAC's August filing, from roughly $1,400 to nearly $69,000.
Educators who disagree with these political priorities, or who just don't want the union focused on politics, are not required to support the PAC. But to get the annual PAC contribution refunded, they must request it each year. Education Minnesota increased the contribution from $25 to $30 per member last year. While a modest amount, for many educators it is a matter of principle because of the political causes and politicians the dollars fund. Members must fill out and sign the PAC refund request form available in the union's magazine Minnesota Educator and mail it to Education Minnesota's accounting department before the deadline (Oct. 31). A more member-driven approach would allow educators to provide affirmative consent before PAC contributions are deducted.
Outside of the PAC contribution, Education Minnesota uses union dues for political activities and lobbying expenditures, which it self-reports in its annual federal filing to the U.S. Department of Labor. In its most recent available filing, which covers Sept. 1, 2024-Aug. 31, 2025, Education Minnesota reported spending $3.57 million on political activities and lobbying. Minnesota teachers also pay dues to the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association that get spent on their political activities and lobbying.
Minnesota union members pay around $1,000 annually in combined local, state, and national dues -- local dues vary, which affects the total amount. State and national dues increased for the 2025-26 membership year, and state dues have increased every year since at least 2014-15.
Every year from Sept. 1-Sept. 30, Minnesota educators get a window to decide whether union membership is still right for them. If you are a Minnesota educator who no longer wishes to bankroll the union's political spending, you can submit a customized resignation letter during September and check out these professional educator associations that provide liability coverage, legal protection, and other benefits for a fraction of the cost of dues and without the politics.
* * *
Stay tuned for more posts breaking down Minnesota's teacher union rankings in other categories, as presented in the Fordham Institute's report, "A Crowded Table: Teacher Union Strength in 2026."
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minnesota-teacher-unions-supply-biggest-share-of-party-money/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Minnesota ranks No. 1 in teacher unions' share of state party contributions
Written by Catrin Wigfall | September 25, 2026
Education Minnesota's political involvement is no secret. The state teachers' union is a major spender on lobbying and political activity in Minnesota, and its political action committee (PAC) has directed most of its candidate and political committee spending to the DFL.
In fact, ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Minnesota ranks No. 1 in teacher unions' share of state party contributions Written by Catrin Wigfall | September 25, 2026 Education Minnesota's political involvement is no secret. The state teachers' union is a major spender on lobbying and political activity in Minnesota, and its political action committee (PAC) has directed most of its candidate and political committee spending to the DFL. In fact,Minnesota ranks No. 1 nationally for the share of contributions to state political parties that comes from teacher unions, according to an analysis by the Fordham Institute. An update to Fordham's 2012 rankings of state teacher union strength, the new analysis measures and ranks teacher union influence in K-12 education across multiple dimensions and all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.
One of those areas is "Involvement in Politics," which covers candidate endorsements, political advertisements, and financial contributions to campaigns and political parties. Minnesota comes in 8th overall here, but that number includes a wide range of results. As you can see in the table below, between 2019 and 2024, teacher unions in Minnesota accounted for a larger share of contributions to state political parties than in any other state -- a 1st-place ranking nationally. Minnesota also ranked fourth nationally when comparing teacher union contributions to state-level candidates with contributions from the state's 10 largest business interests. In terms of teacher unions' share of contributions to individual candidates, Minnesota ranks 20th.
Source: Fordham Institute, Minnesota's Teacher Union Strength Profile, 2026
Updated 2026 reporting to the Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board shows Education Minnesota's PAC has sent over $1.5 million (more than half of its nearly $3 million spend so far) directly to DFL political party units -- the DFL House and Senate Caucuses and the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee. Contributions to candidates, of which nearly all are DFLers, including Amy Klobuchar's campaign for governor and Steve Simon's campaign for secretary of state, total $35,400.
The PAC is also backing local school tax referendum campaigns through mailers, phone banking, and other voter outreach meant to boost approval of local property tax increases.
Separately, it has spent money pushing a "yes" vote on the proposed state constitutional amendment to the Permanent School Fund, and that spending increased significantly since the PAC's August filing, from roughly $1,400 to nearly $69,000.
Educators who disagree with these political priorities, or who just don't want the union focused on politics, are not required to support the PAC. But to get the annual PAC contribution refunded, they must request it each year. Education Minnesota increased the contribution from $25 to $30 per member last year. While a modest amount, for many educators it is a matter of principle because of the political causes and politicians the dollars fund. Members must fill out and sign the PAC refund request form available in the union's magazine Minnesota Educator and mail it to Education Minnesota's accounting department before the deadline (Oct. 31). A more member-driven approach would allow educators to provide affirmative consent before PAC contributions are deducted.
Outside of the PAC contribution, Education Minnesota uses union dues for political activities and lobbying expenditures, which it self-reports in its annual federal filing to the U.S. Department of Labor. In its most recent available filing, which covers Sept. 1, 2024-Aug. 31, 2025, Education Minnesota reported spending $3.57 million on political activities and lobbying. Minnesota teachers also pay dues to the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association that get spent on their political activities and lobbying.
Minnesota union members pay around $1,000 annually in combined local, state, and national dues -- local dues vary, which affects the total amount. State and national dues increased for the 2025-26 membership year, and state dues have increased every year since at least 2014-15.
Every year from Sept. 1-Sept. 30, Minnesota educators get a window to decide whether union membership is still right for them. If you are a Minnesota educator who no longer wishes to bankroll the union's political spending, you can submit a customized resignation letter during September and check out these professional educator associations that provide liability coverage, legal protection, and other benefits for a fraction of the cost of dues and without the politics.
* * *
Stay tuned for more posts breaking down Minnesota's teacher union rankings in other categories, as presented in the Fordham Institute's report, "A Crowded Table: Teacher Union Strength in 2026."
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minnesota-teacher-unions-supply-biggest-share-of-party-money/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: How Much Would Universal Childcare Cost Minnesota Taxpayers?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
How much would universal childcare cost Minnesota taxpayers?
Written by Martha Njolomole | September 25, 2026
In 2025, New Mexico became the first U.S. state to offer universal childcare. In Minnesota, the DFL could push for a similar policy during the 2027 legislative session. To illustrate what this could specifically mean for taxpayers, I estimate the program's cost.
Ultimately, total costs depend ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * How much would universal childcare cost Minnesota taxpayers? Written by Martha Njolomole | September 25, 2026 In 2025, New Mexico became the first U.S. state to offer universal childcare. In Minnesota, the DFL could push for a similar policy during the 2027 legislative session. To illustrate what this could specifically mean for taxpayers, I estimate the program's cost. Ultimately, total costs dependon several factors, such as overall enrollment and type of care arrangement. However, even under the most conservative assumptions, universal childcare would cost at least $1.7 billion a year for kids under 5. Under a larger Nordic-style program, costs exceed $3 billion a year. Including wrap-around care for school- age kids, Minnesota could spend over $6 billion a year.
Cost estimates: Children under 5
Nordic countries are generally the worldwide model for universal childcare. According to data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- a coalition of several developed countries, including the U.S. -- in 2023, Nordic countries enrolled over 90 percent of all children between 3 and 5 in early childhood education programs. Among younger children, slightly over half participated in daycare programs.
To achieve a Nordic-style universal program, Minnesota would have to fund at least 70 percent of all children.
There were 321,515 children under 5 in Minnesota in 2025, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Excluding the 9,739 children enrolled in federally funded Head Start leaves 311,776 in need of state funding. At a 70 percent take-up rate, 218,243 would enroll in Minnesota's universal childcare program.
According to ChildCare Aware, center-based care costs an average of $18,235 per child under 5. Licensed centers account for 69 percent of all childcare slots in the state. Home-based care costs $9,464 per child and accounts for 31 percent of all capacity. Splitting total enrollment between these two types of care results in an annual cost of $3.4 billion. If childcare becomes more institutionalized and all children enroll in a center-like setting -- which has been a goal of some advocates -- costs would rise to $4 billion a year.
Universal childcare cost estimates (Table)
Historically, parents of younger children have preferred informal care arrangements. This, coupled with a shortage of slots, could translate into lower enrollment rates, similar to those seen in some developed countries and other U.S. programs.
For instance, New Mexico's no-cost childcare enrolled an estimated 45,736 children up to age 13 this year. This is slightly under 15 percent of all eligible children. Kids under 5 made up more than half of total enrollment, but only 27 percent of eligible children in that age group are receiving assistance.
Across the OECD, 85 percent of children aged 3 to 5 are in daycare. Only 21 percent of younger children participate in early education programs.
Accordingly, studies that have modelled the cost of a universal childcare program in the U.S. have utilized low take-up rates. A 2021 study by Penn Wharton Budget Model, for example, assumes a 49 percent take-up rate for 3- and 4-year-olds. For children under 3 -- where shortages are most evident -- the take-up rate is 23 percent.
Because New Mexico's program is new, and peak enrollment is yet to be observed, I use assumptions from the Penn Wharton model to estimate costs under different conditions. Assuming a 36 percent take-up rate (the average of 49 and 23), about 112,239 children enroll in Minnesota's universal childcare program.
Splitting children between home and center-based care results in a total annual cost of $1.7 billion. Costs rise to $2 billion if children exclusively utilize center-based care.
Penn Wharton Budget Model assumptions (Table)
Cost estimates: children between 5 and 13
School-age children only require childcare before or after school and during the summer holiday. Childcare for school-age children is also generally cheaper due to less stringent child-to-staff ratios. Nevertheless, extending the program to children aged 6 to 13 more than triples the eligible population, adding billions to the program's cost.
Assuming a 70 percent enrollment, Minnesota would need to fund over 450,000 school-age children. If this group utilizes half as many weeks of childcare per year as younger kids (26 weeks out of 52), it adds an extra $2.8 billion to the program. Assuming a 36 percent take-up rate, 235,576 children enroll, for an annual cost of $1.4 billion.
For center-only care, the school-age population would add $1.7 billion to the program, assuming a 36 percent take-up rate. On the high end, they would add $3.2 billion, assuming a 70 percent take-up rate.
Cost estimates for school-age children (Table)
Even oil- and gas-rich New Mexico can't make the math work
Altogether, a universal program open to all children up to 13 would cost between $3.1 billion and $6.2 billion a year, eating up 9 to 17 percent of the entire state budget. Funding it would require potentially over ten times what the state currently spends on childcare, and trigger massive, damaging tax hikes, especially since the state is already running on a multi-billion structural deficit.
But even states with deeper pockets cannot make universal childcare work.
New Mexico, for instance, is awash with cash given its booming oil and gas industry. In theory, this makes it among the few states that should be able to absorb the costs of an expansive childcare program. Yet the state has not escaped the fiscal difficulties associated with such an undertaking.
As of August this year, two state officials have filed lawsuits alleging they were fired for pointing out that the program was running up to $83 million over budget. Furthermore, an estimate released by the state's Legislative Finance Committee shows universal childcare could exceed $800 million a year at its peak -- nearly $400 million above its initial projection.
According to the Pew Research Center,
- in her 2027 budget, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) also asked lawmakers to raise general fund support for the ECECD, which will manage the universal child care program, to more than $465 million. That would have been a 54% increase from the previous year. Ultimately, the Legislature approved an 8% increase in general funding for a total of $326 million
This suggests that oil and gas trust funds won't be enough to maintain the program. At the same time, general fund support is limited, putting the program's future on shaky ground.
Even more telling, lawmakers know that the program's price tag could balloon. So, they included guardrails to strip away its "universally free" status when fiscal pressures rise. Specifically,
- if inflation rises, the price of oil falls below a certain threshold, or demand for child care exceeds the availability of funds, the state will have the option of adding co-pays for families making over 600% of the federal poverty level.
If New Mexico can't escape the math on universal childcare, Minnesota certainly won't either.
* * *
Martha Njolomole is an Economist at Center of the American Experiment. martha.njolomole@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-much-would-universal-childcare-cost-minnesota-taxpayers/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
How much would universal childcare cost Minnesota taxpayers?
Written by Martha Njolomole | September 25, 2026
In 2025, New Mexico became the first U.S. state to offer universal childcare. In Minnesota, the DFL could push for a similar policy during the 2027 legislative session. To illustrate what this could specifically mean for taxpayers, I estimate the program's cost.
Ultimately, total costs depend ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * How much would universal childcare cost Minnesota taxpayers? Written by Martha Njolomole | September 25, 2026 In 2025, New Mexico became the first U.S. state to offer universal childcare. In Minnesota, the DFL could push for a similar policy during the 2027 legislative session. To illustrate what this could specifically mean for taxpayers, I estimate the program's cost. Ultimately, total costs dependon several factors, such as overall enrollment and type of care arrangement. However, even under the most conservative assumptions, universal childcare would cost at least $1.7 billion a year for kids under 5. Under a larger Nordic-style program, costs exceed $3 billion a year. Including wrap-around care for school- age kids, Minnesota could spend over $6 billion a year.
Cost estimates: Children under 5
Nordic countries are generally the worldwide model for universal childcare. According to data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- a coalition of several developed countries, including the U.S. -- in 2023, Nordic countries enrolled over 90 percent of all children between 3 and 5 in early childhood education programs. Among younger children, slightly over half participated in daycare programs.
To achieve a Nordic-style universal program, Minnesota would have to fund at least 70 percent of all children.
There were 321,515 children under 5 in Minnesota in 2025, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Excluding the 9,739 children enrolled in federally funded Head Start leaves 311,776 in need of state funding. At a 70 percent take-up rate, 218,243 would enroll in Minnesota's universal childcare program.
According to ChildCare Aware, center-based care costs an average of $18,235 per child under 5. Licensed centers account for 69 percent of all childcare slots in the state. Home-based care costs $9,464 per child and accounts for 31 percent of all capacity. Splitting total enrollment between these two types of care results in an annual cost of $3.4 billion. If childcare becomes more institutionalized and all children enroll in a center-like setting -- which has been a goal of some advocates -- costs would rise to $4 billion a year.
Universal childcare cost estimates (Table)
Historically, parents of younger children have preferred informal care arrangements. This, coupled with a shortage of slots, could translate into lower enrollment rates, similar to those seen in some developed countries and other U.S. programs.
For instance, New Mexico's no-cost childcare enrolled an estimated 45,736 children up to age 13 this year. This is slightly under 15 percent of all eligible children. Kids under 5 made up more than half of total enrollment, but only 27 percent of eligible children in that age group are receiving assistance.
Across the OECD, 85 percent of children aged 3 to 5 are in daycare. Only 21 percent of younger children participate in early education programs.
Accordingly, studies that have modelled the cost of a universal childcare program in the U.S. have utilized low take-up rates. A 2021 study by Penn Wharton Budget Model, for example, assumes a 49 percent take-up rate for 3- and 4-year-olds. For children under 3 -- where shortages are most evident -- the take-up rate is 23 percent.
Because New Mexico's program is new, and peak enrollment is yet to be observed, I use assumptions from the Penn Wharton model to estimate costs under different conditions. Assuming a 36 percent take-up rate (the average of 49 and 23), about 112,239 children enroll in Minnesota's universal childcare program.
Splitting children between home and center-based care results in a total annual cost of $1.7 billion. Costs rise to $2 billion if children exclusively utilize center-based care.
Penn Wharton Budget Model assumptions (Table)
Cost estimates: children between 5 and 13
School-age children only require childcare before or after school and during the summer holiday. Childcare for school-age children is also generally cheaper due to less stringent child-to-staff ratios. Nevertheless, extending the program to children aged 6 to 13 more than triples the eligible population, adding billions to the program's cost.
Assuming a 70 percent enrollment, Minnesota would need to fund over 450,000 school-age children. If this group utilizes half as many weeks of childcare per year as younger kids (26 weeks out of 52), it adds an extra $2.8 billion to the program. Assuming a 36 percent take-up rate, 235,576 children enroll, for an annual cost of $1.4 billion.
For center-only care, the school-age population would add $1.7 billion to the program, assuming a 36 percent take-up rate. On the high end, they would add $3.2 billion, assuming a 70 percent take-up rate.
Cost estimates for school-age children (Table)
Even oil- and gas-rich New Mexico can't make the math work
Altogether, a universal program open to all children up to 13 would cost between $3.1 billion and $6.2 billion a year, eating up 9 to 17 percent of the entire state budget. Funding it would require potentially over ten times what the state currently spends on childcare, and trigger massive, damaging tax hikes, especially since the state is already running on a multi-billion structural deficit.
But even states with deeper pockets cannot make universal childcare work.
New Mexico, for instance, is awash with cash given its booming oil and gas industry. In theory, this makes it among the few states that should be able to absorb the costs of an expansive childcare program. Yet the state has not escaped the fiscal difficulties associated with such an undertaking.
As of August this year, two state officials have filed lawsuits alleging they were fired for pointing out that the program was running up to $83 million over budget. Furthermore, an estimate released by the state's Legislative Finance Committee shows universal childcare could exceed $800 million a year at its peak -- nearly $400 million above its initial projection.
According to the Pew Research Center,
- in her 2027 budget, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) also asked lawmakers to raise general fund support for the ECECD, which will manage the universal child care program, to more than $465 million. That would have been a 54% increase from the previous year. Ultimately, the Legislature approved an 8% increase in general funding for a total of $326 million
This suggests that oil and gas trust funds won't be enough to maintain the program. At the same time, general fund support is limited, putting the program's future on shaky ground.
Even more telling, lawmakers know that the program's price tag could balloon. So, they included guardrails to strip away its "universally free" status when fiscal pressures rise. Specifically,
- if inflation rises, the price of oil falls below a certain threshold, or demand for child care exceeds the availability of funds, the state will have the option of adding co-pays for families making over 600% of the federal poverty level.
If New Mexico can't escape the math on universal childcare, Minnesota certainly won't either.
* * *
Martha Njolomole is an Economist at Center of the American Experiment. martha.njolomole@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-much-would-universal-childcare-cost-minnesota-taxpayers/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Did Skynet Hack Australian Medicare, or are AI Titans Just Looking to Scare Regulators?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Did Skynet hack Australian Medicare, or are AI titans just looking to scare regulators?
Written by Matt Dean | September 25, 2026
On June 18th, Open AI robot-agents were researching health data posted on Australian public facing reports when they apparently broke into an area they were not authorized to be.
What the agent reached was Services Australia's Medicare Statistics Reporting Service--a public-facing ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Did Skynet hack Australian Medicare, or are AI titans just looking to scare regulators? Written by Matt Dean | September 25, 2026 On June 18th, Open AI robot-agents were researching health data posted on Australian public facing reports when they apparently broke into an area they were not authorized to be. What the agent reached was Services Australia's Medicare Statistics Reporting Service--a public-facingresearch portal of aggregate spending numbers, not the claims system that holds patient files. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles called the impact "relatively minor."
OpenAI says it found aggregate statistics and internal file names, and no patient records. On three other government sites the same agent touched, Marles said it behaved like a member of the public. Nobody has published how the bypass worked. That is a lot of UN-stage theater for a statistics page.
Washington's own skeptics have already named the real defendant. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, after the July Hugging Face break-in, told CNBC the episode was "the responsibility of the OpenAI management, not a bunch of agents." He told the House Financial Services Committee humans are liable for what they build, and that labs should not get a liability shield. President Trump this week told the U.N. the extinction panic is a "hoax."
AI companies have experienced the biggest transfer of wealth into a new market sector than anything in history. Since ChatGPT's late-2022 launch, almost $33 trillion has been added to S&P 500 market value, the vast majority from companies whose futures are tied to AI. So the President's skepticism when the AI titans ask for regulation may be rooted in their desire to put a fence around the $33 trillion to prevent future competition. But healthy caution is still in order.
An agent given a lookup task did not stop at "no." It wrote files onto a government server. OpenAI noticed Australia only in an August review, then emailed a public mailbox on September 10. If a person had done this, we would call it unauthorized access and ask why the door was unlocked. Bessent's line still holds: lock the portals, time the disclosure, and put the invoice on the managers--not on a ghost in the machine.
Patients should be concerned about the potential for a data breach that could leak their personal health information. If you have cancer or a family predisposition to certain diseases, insurers, private companies, potential employers or competitors may be willing to pay big money for that information.
Those who remember paper medical charts were always at risk to snoopy nurses or staff at your doctor's office. But breaches today risk instant access by anyone in the world attached to the internet. Minnesota's Optum experienced a data breach leaked over 190 million people's records. Medical records. Patient data. Open AI only accessed reporting on aggregate data. No patient information. So how should patients read this?
Real malicious human hackers are still a bigger threat to patient data than AI robots. Keep an eye on both. But whenever billionaires ask to be regulated, better to keep the sharper sharp eye on the humans.
* * *
Matt Dean is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. matt.dean@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/did-skynet-hack-australian-medicare-or-are-ai-titans-just-looking-to-scare-regulators/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Did Skynet hack Australian Medicare, or are AI titans just looking to scare regulators?
Written by Matt Dean | September 25, 2026
On June 18th, Open AI robot-agents were researching health data posted on Australian public facing reports when they apparently broke into an area they were not authorized to be.
What the agent reached was Services Australia's Medicare Statistics Reporting Service--a public-facing ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Did Skynet hack Australian Medicare, or are AI titans just looking to scare regulators? Written by Matt Dean | September 25, 2026 On June 18th, Open AI robot-agents were researching health data posted on Australian public facing reports when they apparently broke into an area they were not authorized to be. What the agent reached was Services Australia's Medicare Statistics Reporting Service--a public-facingresearch portal of aggregate spending numbers, not the claims system that holds patient files. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles called the impact "relatively minor."
OpenAI says it found aggregate statistics and internal file names, and no patient records. On three other government sites the same agent touched, Marles said it behaved like a member of the public. Nobody has published how the bypass worked. That is a lot of UN-stage theater for a statistics page.
Washington's own skeptics have already named the real defendant. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, after the July Hugging Face break-in, told CNBC the episode was "the responsibility of the OpenAI management, not a bunch of agents." He told the House Financial Services Committee humans are liable for what they build, and that labs should not get a liability shield. President Trump this week told the U.N. the extinction panic is a "hoax."
AI companies have experienced the biggest transfer of wealth into a new market sector than anything in history. Since ChatGPT's late-2022 launch, almost $33 trillion has been added to S&P 500 market value, the vast majority from companies whose futures are tied to AI. So the President's skepticism when the AI titans ask for regulation may be rooted in their desire to put a fence around the $33 trillion to prevent future competition. But healthy caution is still in order.
An agent given a lookup task did not stop at "no." It wrote files onto a government server. OpenAI noticed Australia only in an August review, then emailed a public mailbox on September 10. If a person had done this, we would call it unauthorized access and ask why the door was unlocked. Bessent's line still holds: lock the portals, time the disclosure, and put the invoice on the managers--not on a ghost in the machine.
Patients should be concerned about the potential for a data breach that could leak their personal health information. If you have cancer or a family predisposition to certain diseases, insurers, private companies, potential employers or competitors may be willing to pay big money for that information.
Those who remember paper medical charts were always at risk to snoopy nurses or staff at your doctor's office. But breaches today risk instant access by anyone in the world attached to the internet. Minnesota's Optum experienced a data breach leaked over 190 million people's records. Medical records. Patient data. Open AI only accessed reporting on aggregate data. No patient information. So how should patients read this?
Real malicious human hackers are still a bigger threat to patient data than AI robots. Keep an eye on both. But whenever billionaires ask to be regulated, better to keep the sharper sharp eye on the humans.
* * *
Matt Dean is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. matt.dean@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/did-skynet-hack-australian-medicare-or-are-ai-titans-just-looking-to-scare-regulators/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrap Up on Sept. 25, 2026
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrap up on Sept. 25, 2026:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties research ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrap up on Sept. 25, 2026: * * * InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups. The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties researchto use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Justice Action Center is a legal organization that participates in immigration-related litigation and promotes increased protections for migrants. It has previously worked with other left-of-center immigration advocacy groups such as the Haitian Bridge Alliance, the Innovation Law Lab, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Justice Action Center has received funding from the Foundation to Promote Open Society, ImpactAssets, us Education Fund, the Schmidt Family Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
* Tikvah Fund is a Jewish philanthropic organization that describes itself as "politically Zionist, economically free-market oriented, culturally traditional, and theologically open-minded." In September 2025, the Fund received a $10.4 million grant from the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities to support a "Jewish Civilization Project" that would provide fellowships for Jewish students as well as education about antisemitism. The Tikvah Fund has also received funding from the Adelson Family Foundation, the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, DAFgiving360, and the Jewish Communal Fund.
* Louis and Anne Abrons Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded by New York City developer Louis W. Abrons, and which is managed by members of the Abrons family. It has previously provided funding to community initiatives, social services, and arts programs in New York City. In 2024, it made grants to organizations that included EarthRights International, 350.org, People For the American Way Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the BVM Capacity Building Institute.
* Massachusetts Communities Action Network is a community organizing group affiliated with Faith in Action that mobilizes state congregations and clergy to support left-of-center policies. Several of its listed foundation partners include the Hyams Foundation, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, the Schott Foundation, and the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Massachusetts Communities Action Network has also received funding from Vanguard Charitable, the Herman and Frieda L. Miller Foundation, and the Barr Foundation.
* Mighty Arrow Family Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded in 2012 by New Belgium Brewing Company co-founder Kim Jordan. In 2020, it was one of more than 150 groups to sign Confluence Philanthropy's "Belonging Pledge," wherein signatories committed to addressing "racial equity" at their investment committee meetings and to identifying alleged barriers to "investing with a racial equity lens." The Foundation's past grantees have included the Tides Foundation, the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund, the Georgia Alliance Education Fund, the Earth Island Institute, and the State Leadership Project.
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-09-25-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties research ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrap up on Sept. 25, 2026: * * * InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups. The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties researchto use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Justice Action Center is a legal organization that participates in immigration-related litigation and promotes increased protections for migrants. It has previously worked with other left-of-center immigration advocacy groups such as the Haitian Bridge Alliance, the Innovation Law Lab, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Justice Action Center has received funding from the Foundation to Promote Open Society, ImpactAssets, us Education Fund, the Schmidt Family Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
* Tikvah Fund is a Jewish philanthropic organization that describes itself as "politically Zionist, economically free-market oriented, culturally traditional, and theologically open-minded." In September 2025, the Fund received a $10.4 million grant from the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities to support a "Jewish Civilization Project" that would provide fellowships for Jewish students as well as education about antisemitism. The Tikvah Fund has also received funding from the Adelson Family Foundation, the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, DAFgiving360, and the Jewish Communal Fund.
* Louis and Anne Abrons Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded by New York City developer Louis W. Abrons, and which is managed by members of the Abrons family. It has previously provided funding to community initiatives, social services, and arts programs in New York City. In 2024, it made grants to organizations that included EarthRights International, 350.org, People For the American Way Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the BVM Capacity Building Institute.
* Massachusetts Communities Action Network is a community organizing group affiliated with Faith in Action that mobilizes state congregations and clergy to support left-of-center policies. Several of its listed foundation partners include the Hyams Foundation, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, the Schott Foundation, and the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Massachusetts Communities Action Network has also received funding from Vanguard Charitable, the Herman and Frieda L. Miller Foundation, and the Barr Foundation.
* Mighty Arrow Family Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded in 2012 by New Belgium Brewing Company co-founder Kim Jordan. In 2020, it was one of more than 150 groups to sign Confluence Philanthropy's "Belonging Pledge," wherein signatories committed to addressing "racial equity" at their investment committee meetings and to identifying alleged barriers to "investing with a racial equity lens." The Foundation's past grantees have included the Tides Foundation, the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund, the Georgia Alliance Education Fund, the Earth Island Institute, and the State Leadership Project.
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-09-25-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Law: ABA Shouldn't Accredit Law Schools If It Can't Follow the Rules
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, to Bloomberg Law:
* * *
ABA Shouldn't Accredit Law Schools if It Can't Follow the Rules
At Penn State Dickinson Law School last year, a first-year student asked to be excused from a required course, "Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws." In July, he told a House oversight task force that it only took the school a day to say no.
After one semester, he withdrew and forfeited his scholarship.
In an April 1 complaint to the Department of Education, the America First ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, to Bloomberg Law: * * * ABA Shouldn't Accredit Law Schools if It Can't Follow the Rules At Penn State Dickinson Law School last year, a first-year student asked to be excused from a required course, "Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws." In July, he told a House oversight task force that it only took the school a day to say no. After one semester, he withdrew and forfeited his scholarship. In an April 1 complaint to the Department of Education, the America FirstPolicy Institute reported that the school tied the course to a requirement from the only federally recognized accreditor of law degree programs, the American Bar Association's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar: ABA Standard 303(c), which since 2022 has required accredited law schools to teach "bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism."
To read the full article, click here (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/aba-shouldnt-accredit-law-schools-if-it-cant-follow-the-rules).
Originally published by Bloomberg Law (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/aba-shouldnt-accredit-law-schools-if-it-cant-follow-the-rules)
* * *
Chad Mizelle
Chair of Litigation
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/aba-shouldnt-accredit-law-schools-if-it-cant-follow-the-rules/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
ABA Shouldn't Accredit Law Schools if It Can't Follow the Rules
At Penn State Dickinson Law School last year, a first-year student asked to be excused from a required course, "Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws." In July, he told a House oversight task force that it only took the school a day to say no.
After one semester, he withdrew and forfeited his scholarship.
In an April 1 complaint to the Department of Education, the America First ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, to Bloomberg Law: * * * ABA Shouldn't Accredit Law Schools if It Can't Follow the Rules At Penn State Dickinson Law School last year, a first-year student asked to be excused from a required course, "Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws." In July, he told a House oversight task force that it only took the school a day to say no. After one semester, he withdrew and forfeited his scholarship. In an April 1 complaint to the Department of Education, the America FirstPolicy Institute reported that the school tied the course to a requirement from the only federally recognized accreditor of law degree programs, the American Bar Association's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar: ABA Standard 303(c), which since 2022 has required accredited law schools to teach "bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism."
To read the full article, click here (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/aba-shouldnt-accredit-law-schools-if-it-cant-follow-the-rules).
Originally published by Bloomberg Law (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/aba-shouldnt-accredit-law-schools-if-it-cant-follow-the-rules)
* * *
Chad Mizelle
Chair of Litigation
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/aba-shouldnt-accredit-law-schools-if-it-cant-follow-the-rules/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policies Are Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership for Hispanic Families
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, to Townhall:
* * *
America First Policies Are Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership for Hispanic Families
Across the United States, the housing crisis reached a tipping point during the Biden administration, hitting Hispanic families especially hard. For millions, homeownership isn't just a financial milestone; it's a cornerstone of the American Dream, representing stability, community, and upward mobility.
Yet, for many Hispanic households, this dream became increasingly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, to Townhall: * * * America First Policies Are Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership for Hispanic Families Across the United States, the housing crisis reached a tipping point during the Biden administration, hitting Hispanic families especially hard. For millions, homeownership isn't just a financial milestone; it's a cornerstone of the American Dream, representing stability, community, and upward mobility. Yet, for many Hispanic households, this dream became increasinglyout of reach, as affordability issues worsened and home prices soared under the last administration.
At its core, the housing crisis is a supply crisis. There are simply not enough homes to meet the needs of our population. The previous administration made this situation much worse through the excessive public spending of its American Rescue Plan and its inaccurately named Inflation Reduction Act, burdensome regulations designed to advance a radical environmental and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda, and open-border policies that permitted more than 10 million illegal migrants to enter the country. Together, these policies increased construction and compliance costs, constrained new housing development, and sharply increased demand without a corresponding increase in supply.
To read the full article, click here (https://townhall.com/columnists/alfonso-aguilar/2026/09/25/america-first-policies-are-restoring-the-american-dream-of-homeownership-for-hispanic-families-n2683485)
Originally published by Townhall (https://townhall.com/columnists/alfonso-aguilar/2026/09/25/america-first-policies-are-restoring-the-american-dream-of-homeownership-for-hispanic-families-n2683485#google_vignette)
* * *
Alfonso Aguilar
Director, Hispanic Leadership Coalition
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-policies-are-restoring-the-american-dream-of-homeownership-for-hispanic-families/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
America First Policies Are Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership for Hispanic Families
Across the United States, the housing crisis reached a tipping point during the Biden administration, hitting Hispanic families especially hard. For millions, homeownership isn't just a financial milestone; it's a cornerstone of the American Dream, representing stability, community, and upward mobility.
Yet, for many Hispanic households, this dream became increasingly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 25, 2026, to Townhall: * * * America First Policies Are Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership for Hispanic Families Across the United States, the housing crisis reached a tipping point during the Biden administration, hitting Hispanic families especially hard. For millions, homeownership isn't just a financial milestone; it's a cornerstone of the American Dream, representing stability, community, and upward mobility. Yet, for many Hispanic households, this dream became increasinglyout of reach, as affordability issues worsened and home prices soared under the last administration.
At its core, the housing crisis is a supply crisis. There are simply not enough homes to meet the needs of our population. The previous administration made this situation much worse through the excessive public spending of its American Rescue Plan and its inaccurately named Inflation Reduction Act, burdensome regulations designed to advance a radical environmental and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda, and open-border policies that permitted more than 10 million illegal migrants to enter the country. Together, these policies increased construction and compliance costs, constrained new housing development, and sharply increased demand without a corresponding increase in supply.
To read the full article, click here (https://townhall.com/columnists/alfonso-aguilar/2026/09/25/america-first-policies-are-restoring-the-american-dream-of-homeownership-for-hispanic-families-n2683485)
Originally published by Townhall (https://townhall.com/columnists/alfonso-aguilar/2026/09/25/america-first-policies-are-restoring-the-american-dream-of-homeownership-for-hispanic-families-n2683485#google_vignette)
* * *
Alfonso Aguilar
Director, Hispanic Leadership Coalition
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-policies-are-restoring-the-american-dream-of-homeownership-for-hispanic-families/
[Category: ThinkTank]