Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
InfluenceWatch Podcast 388: Ripe for Fraud - Minnesota and the Feeding Our Future Story With Armin Rosen
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Dec. 9, 2025:* * *
InfluenceWatch Podcast #388: Ripe for Fraud: Minnesota and the Feeding Our Future Story with Armin Rosen
By Sarah Lee and Michael Watson
Minnesota was liberal to begin with: It has the distinction of "voting blue, no matter who" since Jimmy Carter led the Democratic ticket, joining only the District of Columbia in refusing to give its electoral votes to President Ronald Reagan in 1984.
For a while, the Hubert Humphrey model of Big Government, strong labor unions, and a business ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Dec. 9, 2025: * * * InfluenceWatch Podcast #388: Ripe for Fraud: Minnesota and the Feeding Our Future Story with Armin Rosen By Sarah Lee and Michael Watson Minnesota was liberal to begin with: It has the distinction of "voting blue, no matter who" since Jimmy Carter led the Democratic ticket, joining only the District of Columbia in refusing to give its electoral votes to President Ronald Reagan in 1984. For a while, the Hubert Humphrey model of Big Government, strong labor unions, and a businesscommunity that operated with a "social conscience" worked well. But in recent years, the social model of Scandinavian exiles has broken down, just its big brother did in Scandinavia itself.
Joining us to discuss how Minnesota's social model has collapsed as "some of the state's leading politicians and sectarian interests" have come to "understand government not as a society's shared instrument to address its problems, but as a storehouse to pillage" is Armin Rosen, a journalist who wrote on the state's problems for Walter Kirn's newspaper-magazine County Highway.
* * *
Sarah Lee
Sarah Lee was born and raised in Atlanta, Ga., but found herself drawn to Washington, DC, the birthplace of her mother, after completing a master's degree in public administration from the University of Georgia in 2010.
*
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-podcast-388-ripe-for-fraud-minnesota-and-the-feeding-our-future-story-with-armin-rosen/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary: Course-Correcting the Russia-Ukraine Negotiations
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary:* * *
Course-Correcting the Russia-Ukraine Negotiations
By Peter Rough and Can Kasapoglu
Over three years have passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his forces to capture the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine. And 21 months have elapsed since Russia began its major assault on the city of Pokrovsk, a critical Ukrainian stronghold in Donetsk.
Battlefield geometry makes Pokrovsk uniquely consequential: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary: * * * Course-Correcting the Russia-Ukraine Negotiations By Peter Rough and Can Kasapoglu Over three years have passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his forces to capture the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine. And 21 months have elapsed since Russia began its major assault on the city of Pokrovsk, a critical Ukrainian stronghold in Donetsk. Battlefield geometry makes Pokrovsk uniquely consequential:reports of Russian advances in the city have produced international headlines for weeks. Should Russian combat formations take control of the city, they will be positioned to assault Ukraine's principal fortifications along the Kostyantynivka-Sloviansk-Kramatorsk axis.
At least that was the assumption until now. Instead, a United States-led initiative under negotiation for the past several weeks is attempting to alter the dynamics of the conflict permanently. The initiative calls on Ukraine to withdraw from its fortifications in Donetsk--and would turn the region into a demilitarized zone that Russia insists should be recognized as its own territory. Reportedly, the US is asking Ukraine to decide on the proposal in a matter of days.
While this plan pursues the salutary aim of ending a bloody war, it is only palatable to Moscow if Russia is granted more territory at the negotiating table than what it has been able to seize on the battlefield in three years of grueling combat. Rather than entertain the dismantlement of key planks in Ukraine's defenses, US and European policymakers would do well to refocus on supporting Ukraine as best they are able--and let Kyiv take its chances on the battlefield if it so chooses.
This year, at the cost of more than 350,000 casualties, Russia has conquered roughly 1 percent of Ukrainian territory. To take the rest of Donetsk in combat, Russia would likely need to sacrifice hundreds of thousands more soldiers. Even then, its preferred outcome would hardly be assured.
The initial US proposal, now under negotiation, rests on two assumptions: that handing Putin Donetsk will persuade him to honor a ceasefire, at least temporarily; and that Ukraine will be hard-pressed to stanch further Russian gains in the event of continued fighting. Given battlefield realities, so this thinking goes, it is better to take a bad deal now than face collapse later. To sugarcoat this bitter pill, the US is offering Ukraine a security guarantee in the event Russia breaks its commitment and resumes military operations.
That so many critics of US assistance to Ukraine are cheering this proposal underscores how its security guarantee deserves real scrutiny. After all, if the US is careful in how it calibrates its military assistance to Ukraine now, would it really be prepared to go to the mat with Russia to defend Kyiv later? In 2008, Putin invaded Georgia during the waning days of a Bush presidency that was managing conflicts elsewhere and preoccupied with a global financial crisis. It is not difficult to imagine Putin making a similar move at the end of the Trump presidency, especially if the US is buffeted by major headwinds like, say, a downturn in artificial intelligence market valuations or a military crisis in Latin America. Even at full strength, would any hypothetical American president be willing to combat deploy US troops to confront Russia in Ukraine?
These dynamics leave Ukraine with one true security guarantee: its own armed forces. Vice President JD Vance may be correct when he writes, "There is a fantasy that if we just give more money, more weapons, or more sanctions, victory is at hand." But neither is Ukraine on the cusp of defeat. Only Kyiv should decide whether to abandon some of its best defensive positions in exchange for a ceasefire that the Kremlin could violate at any time.
The questions of territorial concessions and security guarantees being negotiated are exceptionally sensitive. There is no doubt that Washington possesses enormous leverage in these talks. When the US briefly paused intelligence sharing with Kyiv in early March, for example, Ukraine's position in the Russian region of Kursk deteriorated rapidly and decisively. Europe, simply put, cannot compensate for America's unrivaled space-based assets and high-end battle networks. Similarly, Zelenskyy never misses an opportunity to plead for more US-built Patriot missile defense systems.
But it would be a mistake if Washington used this advantage to insist on terms that Kyiv believes would imperil its defenses. The resulting collapse in Ukrainian morale could do greater damage to the country's cohesion and fighting power than even today's high desertion and casualty rates.
For the Kremlin, that may very well be the point. The Russian elite sees the war in Ukraine as a confrontation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and aims to destroy the Ukrainian armed forces and decapitate the country's leadership. Moscow will only accept a political agreement to end the war that facilitates these goals.
Failing that, the Kremlin hopes the ongoing talks will sow division between Ukraine and its Western partners, as well as among NATO allies. But as Putin made clear at several points over the past week, what he will not do is compromise on key terms. Russia holds the same basic positions now that it has held since at least the Alaska summit this August. The US peace initiative, reinforced by a new National Security Strategy this week that criticizes Europe for its stance on the war, will only entrench Putin's attitude.
As negotiations unfold, US and European leaders should put forward an honest and forthright assessment of what they can and cannot provide Ukraine in its fight for survival, from economic aid and military assistance to harsher sanctions and export controls. Forging such a common understanding upfront is the key to gaining a true picture of what is possible on the battlefield and to avoiding transatlantic divisions that Russia will seek to exploit. Whether to continue fighting--or agree to an ugly truce--should then fall to decision-makers in Kyiv.
* * *
Peter Rough is a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at Hudson Institute, which he launched in December 2022.
*
Can Kasapoglu is a nonresident senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/next-steps-russia-ukraine-stalemate-peter-rough-can-kasapoglu
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Free Beacon: Taiwan's Future Is Not China's Internal Affair
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025, to the Washington Free Beacon:* * *
Taiwan's Future Is Not China's Internal Affair; It Is the World's
By Miles Yu
Winston Churchill, one of the principal architects of the 1943 Cairo Declaration, understood something in 1955 that remains true today. Addressing the House of Commons on Feb. 1 of that year, he stated with unmistakable clarity:
"The Cairo Declaration of 1st December, 1943 ... contained merely ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025, to the Washington Free Beacon: * * * Taiwan's Future Is Not China's Internal Affair; It Is the World's By Miles Yu Winston Churchill, one of the principal architects of the 1943 Cairo Declaration, understood something in 1955 that remains true today. Addressing the House of Commons on Feb. 1 of that year, he stated with unmistakable clarity: "The Cairo Declaration of 1st December, 1943 ... contained merelya statement of common purpose. Since it was made, a lot of things have happened. ... The situation has changed. The problem of Formosa (Taiwan) has become an international problem in which a number of other nations are closely concerned. The question of future sovereignty of Formosa was left undetermined by the Japanese Peace Treaty (the San Francisco Treaty).
Churchill rejected the simplistic and false notion long embedded in Beijing's propaganda that Taiwan was somehow a domestic matter for communist China. He insisted instead that Taiwan's status was, by legal fact and geopolitical reality, an international issue.
Seventy years later, the truth of Churchill's position has not faded. It has been reaffirmed, not least by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's recent comments underscoring Japan's profound stake in Taiwan's security. Beijing's outrage at Tokyo's entirely predictable position is performative; China is "shocked" only by what has always been obvious to the world: Taiwan's future affects everyone.
China's claim that Taiwan is a purely internal affair rings with the same hollow logic invoked by aggressors throughout history. North Korea once claimed legitimacy over South Korea, Nazi Germany declared sovereignty over the Sudetenland, and Russia today asserts the right to "reclaim" Ukraine. Cloaking expansionism in the language of "internal affairs," historical destiny or ethnic kinship does not make it legitimate. It merely reveals the timeless grammar of aggression, a playbook the Chinese Communist Party has studied well.
As the newest U.S. National Security Strategy reaffirms, Taiwan's security has long been integral to U.S. strategy. Even after the end of the Mutual Defense Treaty in 1980, Washington cemented its commitments through the Taiwan Relations Act and consistent presidential statements. For decades, American policy has rested on one principle: Neither side may use force to change the status quo. As Beijing accelerates military preparations, American leaders across administrations have repeatedly affirmed that the United States would oppose a CCP invasion. The credibility of U.S. alliances and deterrence in Asia hinges on Taipei's survival.
Other Indo-Pacific democracies share this clarity. Japan and Australia have insisted that Taiwan's safety is inseparable from their own. The Philippines, locked in confrontation with China in the South China Sea, has granted the United States crucial access to bases near the Bashi Channel. Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has stated plainly that Taiwan's fate is a global concern.
Europe now sees the same connection. NATO leaders, EU diplomats and lawmakers from key member states have emphasized that Taiwan's security affects Europe's stability. Russia's invasion of Ukraine awakened democracies to the dangers of authoritarian revisionism. Beijing's claims over Taiwan rely on the same logic Moscow uses against Ukraine: history and ethnicity as a pretext for conquest.
To accept that logic in Asia after rejecting it in Europe would destroy any moral or strategic coherence.
Beyond geopolitics lies a simple economic truth: Taiwan is indispensable. It dominates global semiconductor production and sits astride vital maritime routes connecting the Western Pacific to the rest of the world. If Beijing seized Taiwan, it would effectively control commercial traffic through the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Strait of Malacca -- channels through which much of global trade flows.
Speaking for all Western European democracies, former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell captured the stakes succinctly: "Taiwan is clearly part of our geostrategic perimeter ... because an action against Taiwan would be, in economic terms, extremely serious for us."
The world cannot afford to let the center of global chip production fall under the control of an authoritarian regime seeking geopolitical leverage.
Ultimately, Taiwan's significance extends far beyond territory or trade. It is a test of whether democratic nations can defend a fellow democracy against authoritarian coercion. Taiwan's continued freedom affirms that the arc of East Asia bends toward democracy -- from South Korea to the Philippines, from Mongolia to Taiwan itself. If Taiwan were to fall, it would embolden autocracies everywhere and dim the hopes of those in China who yearn for political rights.
Also, Taiwan can play a crucial role in changing communist China. For 76 years, the CCP has regarded Taiwan as a stubborn obstacle to its narrative of communist liberation, now disguised as national reunification. However, in the same decades, Taiwan has transformed itself from an authoritarian rule into one of Asia's most vibrant democracies. This success is not merely symbolic; it demonstrates that Chinese-speaking societies can uphold modern democratic values, a reality the CCP finds existentially threatening. Taiwan's freedom is a rebuke to Beijing's claim that democracy is incompatible with Chinese culture.
This too renders a powerful argument for the truth: Taiwan is not just a regional issue but also an ideological one. Its democratic achievements inspire millions across the strait. Countless captive Chinese citizens are asking themselves a quiet question: If the Taiwanese people can freely choose their leaders, why can't we? Taiwan's existence challenges authoritarianism at its ideological core, and the CCP autocratic leadership is deeply frightened by Taiwan's inspirational power.
Churchill saw in 1955 what remains painfully true: Taiwan's status is an international matter because its future will shape the world's. Beijing's insistence that this is a "domestic issue" is not a statement of sovereignty but a strategy of aggression. The world must not mistake the CCP's language of national reunification for the logic of conquest.
Defending Taiwan is not only about preserving one island's freedom. It is also about defending the principle that free societies, large or small, cannot be sacrificed at the altar of authoritarian ambition. In standing with Taiwan, the world stands for its own security, prosperity and ideals.
Read in The Washington Free Beacon (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/dec/8/taiwans-future-chinas-internal-affair-worlds/).
* * *
Miles Yu is a senior fellow and director of the China Center at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/taiwans-future-not-chinas-internal-affair-it-worlds-miles-yu
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Newman's Own Foundation - Can Litigation Restore Donor Intent?
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025:* * *
The Newman's Own Foundation: Can litigation restore donor intent?
Paul Newman created the Newman's Own Foundation (NOF) primarily to help children and promote largely unobjectionable causes. That's not what it did after he died, claimed his daughters - two of whom who decided to sue their father's foundation, hoping to restore what they believe was his real intent.
By Neil Hrab
It does not rank particularly highly in terms of its net assets under management ($215 million at the end of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025: * * * The Newman's Own Foundation: Can litigation restore donor intent? Paul Newman created the Newman's Own Foundation (NOF) primarily to help children and promote largely unobjectionable causes. That's not what it did after he died, claimed his daughters - two of whom who decided to sue their father's foundation, hoping to restore what they believe was his real intent. By Neil Hrab It does not rank particularly highly in terms of its net assets under management ($215 million at the end of2024), or the length of time it has operated. But for approximately the last three years, the Newman's Own Foundation has definitely ranked among the US' most talked-about tax-exempt foundations.
Founded in 2005, NOF's function is to oversee the operations of the food business that movie star Paul Newman created through his "Newman's Own" brand of sauces, drinks, salad dressings, etc. - and to, in line with Newman's vision, distribute 100% of the profits flowing from that brand in support of children's charities. NOF owns the Newman Own's brand and associated food business.
Since its founding in 1982, the "Newman's Own" food brand has generated more than $600 million worth of contributions to organizations serving children or supporting other causes. It will forever be to Paul Newman's credit as a humanitarian that this Hollywood icon, rather than monetize his world-famous image solely for his own private financial benefit, would instead harness the value of that unique asset to generate more than a half-billion dollars in philanthropic activity.
As impressive as this figure is, these days, NOF is better known in many circles for something other than its charitable efforts. The foundation is at the center of a complicated dispute over its alleged organizational drift in recent years. The disagreement pits several of Paul Newman's daughters on one side, and the foundation's board and management on the other.
This dispute emerged into public consciousness first in 2015, when Vanity Fair published a long article exploring whether NOF was operating truly 100% in alignment with its founder's vision.
After quietly simmering for several years, in 2022, the feud escalated. In August of that year, two of Newman's daughters (Elinor T. "Nell" Newman and the late Susan Kendall Newman - Paul Newman being father to five daughters through his two marriages) initiated a lawsuit against NOF in Connecticut.
That lawsuit was later refiled in November 2022, with a third plaintiff named Cynthia Rowland added. Rowland is a veteran San Francisco-based business lawyer with deep expertise in the philanthropic sector, appointed by Newman's daughters as sole trustee of a trust set up by Paul Newman to oversee ongoing matters related to his estate. This included the protection of his image and related intellectual property, which he had gifted to NOF for use on the packaging of its food products.
This lawsuit ended quietly in March 2025, with both sides agreeing to an as-of-yet undisclosed settlement. The court filings in the case are now part of the public record, and these include documentation of how Paul Newman and several close advisors together laid the basis for NOF in the years leading up to his 2008 passing - all likely to be of enduring interest to those observers who are watching developments in the case from a "donor's intent" perspective.
"Mismanagement" and "questionable practices"
***
[The] complaint alleged [that] NOF had entered into an agreement to sell a gimmicky-looking "Newman's Own" cleaning brush ...
***
In their November 2022 complaint, the Newman sisters and Cynthia Rowland contend the following:
* * *
Over the years, however, Newman's Own Foundation lost its way and strayed from its mission to preserve and honor Paul Newman's legacy. The years since Mr. Newman's death consist of a long and consistent pattern of disregard, by those in control, of Mr. Newman's specific intentions and direction, coupled with mismanagement, scandal, and questionable practices.
* * *
The claims of "mismanagement, scandal and questionable practices" run for several paragraphs, and include:
* The departure in 2019 of former NOF CEO Robert Forrester (who had previously been a long-term legal and business advisor to Paul Newman), after a pattern of sexual harassment was alleged. Filings in the 2022 case noted that Forrester was allowed to continue on as a board director for some time after leaving the CEO job, and that a study of the allegations paid for by the board was never made public;
* Allegations that, as CEO, Forrester had further demonstrated a pattern of pressuring charities applying for NOF grants to purchase advisory services from a business he controlled - which the complaint notes, "if true, would appear to be a clear conflict of interest;" and
* Allegations that, as CEO, Forrester had "also consistently travelled First Class, often accompanied by his wife, staying in expensive hotels and having their trips fully funded by NOF." The complaint further alleged that "Forrester also employed a personal driver, paid for by NOF."
The lawsuit reiterated the Newman sisters' previous claims that, contrary to their understanding of their father's plans to keep them involved with NOF, including in terms of directing a portion of its grant money, they were squeezed out of any substantive role or connection with the foundation soon after his passing. (These allegations, in which Bob Forrester and other advisors figure prominently, had been key to the 2015 Vanity Fair piece mentioned above, and formed a substantial part of the 2022 litigation.)
Also at issue in the Connecticut courtroom was the plaintiffs' claim that NOF was deliberately ignoring Newman's expressed wish that the foundation ensure his likeness only be used to promote high-quality food products. Instead, the complaint alleged, NOF had entered into an agreement to sell a gimmicky-looking "Newman's Own" cleaning brush with Newman's picture on the packaging.
As a remedy, the lawsuit's demands included financial damages (which the plaintiffs planned to donate), an injunction against non-food-related use of Paul Newman's likeness, and a request for the judge to direct NOF to more rigorously and scrupulously incorporate the expressed input of Newman's daughters in a very specific aspect of its annual grant-making, per the terms of Paul Newman's will.
Round One to the plaintiffs
***
The impression one gets from Judge Ozalis' decision is that NOF did not defend itself as zealously as it could have against the Newman/Rowland lawsuit . . .
***
On June 28, 2024, following nearly two years of courtroom maneuvers, the Hon. Sheila Ozalis announced her decision regarding the plaintiffs' request for an injunction on NOF's use of Paul Newman's likeness to promote non-food products.
In her 24 page memo, Ozalis granted a temporary injunction forbidding further use of Paul Newman's likeness on non-food products. She made several very pointed references to how NOF had structured its defense in the case, noting with some apparent surprise that two individuals very familiar with the matters under discussion - Bob Forrester and Brian Murphy (Murphy being another former advisor to Paul Newman who remains on NOF's board) - never appeared in court.
Forrester's non-appearance is understandable, as testifying on behalf of NOF would have left him vulnerable to a grueling and relentless cross-examination by the plaintiffs, including about his allegedly self-interested actions during his nearly 11 years as leader of the foundation.
Both men "could have easily testified as to Paul Newman's intent with respect to the licencing of his name, likeness and image on non-food products," Judge Ozalis wrote. She noted that Forrester simply never appeared, and that she was informed that Murphy was on a skiing holiday on the West Coast and completely unavailable.
The impression one gets from Judge Ozalis' decision is that NOF did not defend itself as zealously as it could have against the Newman/Rowland lawsuit, notably by not calling Forrester and Murphy to testify.
However, this does not mean that NOF simply closed its eyes in responding to the lawsuit; in fact, its most important actions in response may have been taken outside the courtroom.
As the Connecticut lawsuit was being re-filed in November 2022, the then-CEO of NOF, Dr. Miriam Nelson, publicized her decision--made earlier that year--to retire at year's end. NOF's board of directors was at that time several months into a search for a new CEO. Nelson had led NOF since Brian Forrester's departure from the CEO role in 2019.
Then, on March 1, 2023, NOF announced a new CEO named Alex Amouyel as successor to Nelson.
Born in France, Amouyel is a veteran of the international philanthropic sector; she is for example an alumnus of the Clinton Global Initiative. Prior to working at NOF, she was executive director with a unit of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology focused on incubating and helping launch start-up companies attempting to mitigate global problems.
As NOF CEO, Amouyel quickly embarked on a high-profile media outreach campaign. She presents herself as a new, more youthful public face of the organization. This has included paying effusive public tribute to the man who created NOF.
In addition to the interviews she completed after her appointment was announced, she also delivered a "TED" talk in September 2024, proclaiming Paul Newman to be a visionary thinker who identified a way, through NOF, to use "capitalism's mighty power in service of justice." She supported the drive to have a formal declaration made by the town of Westport, CT to proclaim "Paul Newman Generosity Day" on January 26, 2025, to mark the actor's 100th birthday. (Westport is where he made his home for many years.)
In November 2025, Amouyel praised Newman further through an article in Fast Company. She called his decision to marry his food company with a foundation for continuity purposes to be the "ultimate legacy power move."
As a way to enshrine the creativity Newman displayed in creating a food company that donates 100% of its profits after expenses to charity, Amouyel has steadily publicized what is known as the "100% for Purpose Club"- an association of enterprises similar to Newman's Own. Other members of the club include Patagonia, the popular international outdoor clothing manufacturer, and Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which oversees the ongoing publication of the beloved children's author's various works.
It is noteworthy that Amouyel does not appear to have been asked about, or directly addressed, the Newman sisters' litigation in the course of her interviews and profile articles.
It's easy to reach the conclusion that Amouyel's habit of paying effusive impromptu tributes to Paul Newman whenever she speaks has been intended to help symbolically bridge the public rift that had opened up between the Newman sisters and NOF.
Enduring patterns of philanthropy
***
The NOF board and management may have made a huge mistake in not pursuing an earlier settlement of the Newman sisters' concerns outside the legal system.
***
As described earlier, Newman's Own was set up to be a conventional charity, one that provided civil society benefits that served children and funded other humanitarian causes. But that's not to say that it avoided controversial policy advocacy. Examining NOF's tax filings back to 2013 reveals some unexpected and interesting continuities in contributions for the years surveyed (albeit with very little substantive explanation about the purpose of the donations).
These are:
* Cumulative contributions of more than $400,000 to the New Venture Fund, a "fiscal sponsorship" of the notorious Arabella Advisors' left-leaning funding empire;
* Cumulative contributions of almost $700,000 to the Tides Center, also well known as a lefty fiscal sponsor;
* Cumulative contributions of just over $16 million to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), which advertises itself as "a fiscal sponsor for more than 100 projects, providing governance, management, and operational infrastructure to support their charitable purposes." (And yes, these too are often left-leaning in ideology.)
Of note, in 2024, the last year for which tax forms are publicly available, NOF reported no donations to RPA or New Venture, but did give a little more than $100,000 to Tides.
The Rockefeller connection, given the dollar amount, is most interesting in light of Nell Newman's affidavit as submitted to the court.
It includes a copy of a multi-page memorandum (labelled Exhibit "B") apparently written in May 1999 by Bob Forrester and delivered to Paul Newman, in his capacity as Newman's advisor on philanthropic matters.
The memo proceeds in a straightforward manner through various questions that Forrester felt Newman ought to be considering regarding his personal wealth and NOF - how much did Newman "want to provide for the future in terms of" his family, for example; and how much did he want to set aside "for carrying on philanthropic activities in the tradition of Newman's Own" and so on.
On page 5 of the memo appears this paragraph (emphasis as in original):
* * *
Giving money away responsibly requires more care and thinking than making it in the first place. If not done in a thoughtful way, and with real insight, grant making can end up harming the receiving charity as well as the Foundation. Some good examples of how to handle next generations are the Rockefeller, Olins, Packards (see enclosed).
* * *
And then appears this line:
* * *
I could easily set up a meeting with the Rockefellers and their advisors. They are now into the fourth generation of family philanthropy.
* * *
There is precious little public information linking Paul Newman, NOF, and the Rockefeller philanthropic apparatus, or that helps explain what NOF accomplished with the $16 million granted to RPA.
We do know that Paul Newman and David Rockefeller were among the very early supporters of a still-active organization called "Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose." CECP is a membership-driven non-profit founded in 1999, that provides advice on topics related to "corporate responsibility and sustainability." Interestingly, CECP credits Bob Forrester, NOF's former CEO, with helping found CECP.
As noted above, the lawsuit against NOF concluded suddenly and unexpectedly in March 2025, with both sides agreeing to an as-of-yet undisclosed settlement.
Some indications of the matters covered in the settlement may appear in NOF's future public tax filings. Did the foundation pay the requested damages? What is to be the surviving four Newman sisters' ongoing role in directing the foundation's flow of money? And will the foundation (if it has not already done so) embrace a tighter conflict of interest regime, to prevent a repeat of the alleged practices highlighted in court?
The NOF board and management may have made a huge mistake in not pursuing an earlier settlement of the Newman sisters' concerns outside the legal system. This would have spared months of legal expenses and avoided the heavy media interest that ensued. As it played out, the Newman's Own Foundation was battered by courtroom revelations and reversals. That ordeal could have been avoided.
Compare this to another famous example of litigation over donor intent: the confrontation between Princeton University and the Robertson family over Princeton's desire to override the family's expressed intent around the uses of a $35 million foundation. No doubt wary of the reputational hits it might take as a trial proceeded, the university preferred to settle with the Robertsons. Princeton avoided a closely-scrutinized public court fight in which journalists would have been filing stories based on the evidence introduced and the statements made by witnesses testifying under oath.
As it stands, the Newman's Own fight provides lessons in how not to resolve these disputes.
In a report posted at Bloombergtax.com, Jared Johnson of law firm White and Williams LLP addressed the philanthropic machinery Newman had constructed to carry out his intentions for NOF:
* * *
...[W]hile [Newman] was thorough in expressing his wishes [regarding the different elements of his estate], he didn't provide his estate with the tools to properly secure their realization...
* * *
Newman also may have assumed too much, White added, about the long-term fidelity of some of his close advisors to the vision for NOF he had shared before passing.
Similarly, the late Martin Morse Wooster of the Capital Research Center wrote incisively and intelligently about the various difficulties involved in trying to preserving donor intent when setting up a foundation.
The essential issue that all such donors face has to do with the simple passage of time. Founders can explain their vision for their specific foundation. They can compress it into a written statement and leave that statement in the hands of family members and trusted advisors who will oversee the foundation after the founder's passing.
But those family members and advisors will pass away as well. Eventually, that statement of purpose, however well expressed, must pass into the grasp of strangers who only know of the founder second- or even third-hand. The point comes where that statement is no longer the expressed will of the founder, but simply some words uttered by an unknown person who spoke long ago, leaving them open to interpretation and even radical re-intepretation.
No wonder, as Wooster often observed, many farsighted donors are often drawn to creating time-limited foundations, with the goal of donating the foundation's last dollar within the donor's anticipated natural lifespan. As Silicon Valley philanthropist Cari Tuna once told Wooster:
* * *
[W]hen you plan to spend down in your lifetime, you have much more to work with on an annual basis. Plus, you are not able to ensure that future stewards would do as good a job.
* * *
That's not a glibly pessimistic judgement, but more of a realistic assessment, informed by many examples and precedents. This latest chapter in the story of the Newman's Own Foundation may be taken by many potential creators of new foundations as one more reason to embrace the time-limited foundation option.
* * *
Neil Hrab, an author and life-long admirer of the American philanthropic tradition, lives in Toronto, Canada.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-newmans-own-foundation-can-litigation-restore-donor-intent/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: What's at Stake in FERC's Large Load Proposal?
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025:* * *
What's at Stake in FERC's Large Load Proposal?
By Aaron Yang, Ray Cai, Joseph Majkut and Mathias Zacarias
A new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order could determine whether the U.S. grid can scale quickly and responsibly enough to meet AI-driven demand.
In an assertive use of its authority, the Department of Energy directed FERC on October 23 to initiate a rulemaking (Docket No. RM26-4-000) to standardize how large loads--those over 20 megawatts (MW)--and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025: * * * What's at Stake in FERC's Large Load Proposal? By Aaron Yang, Ray Cai, Joseph Majkut and Mathias Zacarias A new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order could determine whether the U.S. grid can scale quickly and responsibly enough to meet AI-driven demand. In an assertive use of its authority, the Department of Energy directed FERC on October 23 to initiate a rulemaking (Docket No. RM26-4-000) to standardize how large loads--those over 20 megawatts (MW)--andcolocation facilities interconnect to the transmission system. In its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR), FERC grounded its proposal in its authority over transmission facilities, wholesale markets, and practices affecting wholesale rates under Section 201(b) of the Federal Power Act.
Responding to the ANOPR, utilities, data center developers, power producers, and state regulators submitted comments to FERC. This analysis draws upon aggregated comments and issue tracking provided by Halcyon, as well as a review of representative filings. These materials highlight the key questions that FERC must resolve before its April 30, 2026, deadline for a final rulemaking. Hyperlinks in this brief point to sample comments.
FERC's decision will set an important precedent for how regulators handle hybrid interconnections and, more broadly, how they integrate new load onto an already constrained grid.
Q1: What counts as a "large load?"
A1: Responses broadly reflect two distinct viewpoints: stakeholders comfortable with the proposed 20 MW floor, and those arguing for a higher threshold--often 50, 75, 100 MW or even 200-300 MW. For context, 20 MW is roughly enough to power 16,500 homes or a large university campus such as Louisiana State University. Supporters argue that the 20 MW threshold, aligned with FERC's existing generator interconnection procedure, would create a coherent regulatory framework for any customer large enough to affect the transmission system materially.
What once qualified as a "large load" at 20-30 MW now appears modest in a landscape where developments increasingly push into the hundreds of megawatts. Critics warn that 20 MW would sweep in midsized manufacturers and facilities traditionally served under state tariffs, effectively federalizing retail matters. Many stakeholders instead converge around 50-100 MW as a more practical threshold for federal involvement, noting that today's system-shaping data centers routinely exceed 200-300 MW.
Q2: How far does FERC's authority extend over large loads?
A2: The commission argues that very large loads resemble generators in how they affect reliability and system costs, and should fall under federal oversight when they interconnect to the bulk power system. Adopting this interpretation would establish a more uniform national framework, but it has drawn legal and political resistance from states.
Stakeholder comments split into two groups: those who want to accelerate development and those who want to preserve existing regulatory authority. Developers and technology companies favor a stronger federal role to reduce friction, shorten timelines, and manage transmission system impacts that extend beyond state boundaries. In contrast, states and many utilities oppose the proposal, viewing it as a threat to their traditional authority over retail service, distribution, and resource planning.
Q3: Who pays to upgrade the grid to serve large loads?
A3: U.S. data centers drove a 22 percent increase in electricity demand in 2025 and could triple by 2030, making them one of the largest sources of load growth. Yet national transmission studies show that the United States is building only a fraction of the high-capacity lines it needs each year. Because the grid cannot scale as fast as demand, policymakers now treat cost allocation not as a technical ratemaking issue but as a central question of who pays for grid expansion--and how fast it happens.
FERC's proposal adopts a 100 percent participant funding model that would require large load customers to pay the full cost of the network upgrades their projects trigger. Supporters argue this follows the logic of cost causation: when a data center or industrial campus connects in a constrained pocket of the grid, it should pay for the transmission it requires.
This policy marks a sharp departure from the traditional socialized model, in which transmission upgrades are treated as shared infrastructure and recovered through regional transmission rates. Proponents argue this design reflects the physical and economic reality: Once built, transmission improves reliability, reduces congestion, and enables power flows for everyone. Industrial manufacturers such as steelmakers also note that while large technology firms may be able to absorb major interconnection costs, capital-intensive facilities such as electric arc furnace steel mills often cannot. At the same time, socializing costs raises the political risk that ratepayers will view higher electricity bills as subsidies for corporate expansions, especially in regions already struggling with affordability or reliability.
FERC itself acknowledged this tension in the ANOPR, asking whether a later crediting mechanism could offset network upgrade costs. In response, state commissions, utilities, and technology firms proposed an intermediate model: Large loads would fund upgrades upfront but receive partial refunds or credits if those facilities later delivered systemwide benefits.
Q4: What does "bring your own power" mean for hybrid projects?
A4: Stakeholders generally agree that hybrid projects--large loads paired with colocated generation or storage--should move through a single, coordinated interconnection process rather than be treated as separate facilities. The dispute lies over how to model them. Developers and technology companies argue that when a data center "brings its own power" (BYOP), studies should measure its net use of the grid based on injection and withdrawal rights. From their perspective, colocated generation reduces system impacts and should translate into lower upgrade costs and faster processing.
Utilities and grid operators reject that logic, arguing planners cannot assume on-site generation will always perform as promised. They therefore insist hybrid facilities be studied on a gross basis--using full load and generation assumptions--so the grid can withstand contingencies when on-site power fails. Regardless of how hybrids are modeled, there is broad support for requiring physical protections--such as relays and control schemes--that prevent injections or withdrawals beyond approved limits.
Q5: Is load flexibility a real grid resource or regulatory fiction?
A5: Stakeholders broadly agree that flexible loads can help integrate new demand. The question is whether FERC treats that flexibility as a core resource or a secondary accommodation.
Recent studies suggest flexibility can materially reduce system stress and cost exposure--but only under strict conditions. Research from Camus, encoord, and Princeton University's ZERO Lab finds that pairing flexible interconnection with BYOP can speed interconnection while limiting both system expansion and ratepayer exposure. Similarly, Duke University's Nicholas Institute reports that enforcing load flexibility during a small number of critical hours can reduce both system stress and capacity requirements. Together, these studies frame load flexibility as a valuable planning tool, but not a substitute for transmission investment or reliability oversight. Its value depends on whether operators can observe it, enforce it, and incorporate it into planning.
Commenters disagree on how FERC should weigh that evidence. Some developers want FERC to offer expedited interconnection as an incentive to loads that agree to curtail, arguing controllable demand can ease congestion and defer network upgrades. Others--especially state commissions, consumer advocates, and utilities--warn that treating loads as dispatchable could increase reliability risks for ratepayers without strong safeguards. They note that most hyperscale data centers still operate as firm load, with limited willingness to curtail in practice--a point some technology firms, including Meta, acknowledge. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation likewise warns that rapidly changing large loads can destabilize frequency and voltage and raise fault risks unless planners model them conservatively.
* * *
Aaron Yang is a research intern with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Ray Cai is an associate fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS. Joseph Majkut is director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS. Mathias Zacarias is an associate fellow and energy transitions fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS.
* * *
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Drone Supply Chain War - Identifying the Chokepoints to Making a Drone
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025:* * *
The Drone Supply Chain War: Identifying the Chokepoints to Making a Drone
By Macdonald Amoah, Morgan Bazilian, Jahara Matisek and Katrina Schweiker
Every drone involved in the war in Ukraine depends on China. From palm-sized quadcopters guiding artillery to long-range loitering munitions, nearly every unmanned system on both sides contains materials and components that originate in Chinese factories and refineries. Carbon fiber, rare-earth magnets, lithium-ion cells, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 9, 2025: * * * The Drone Supply Chain War: Identifying the Chokepoints to Making a Drone By Macdonald Amoah, Morgan Bazilian, Jahara Matisek and Katrina Schweiker Every drone involved in the war in Ukraine depends on China. From palm-sized quadcopters guiding artillery to long-range loitering munitions, nearly every unmanned system on both sides contains materials and components that originate in Chinese factories and refineries. Carbon fiber, rare-earth magnets, lithium-ion cells,and gallium-nitride chips are critical nodes in the Chinese supply chain underpinning the architecture of modern drone warfare.
Most policymakers and military leaders tend to focus on higher-order hardware and software, from airframes to autonomy, AI, and ethics, but miss the underlying chemistry and metallurgy. The ability to sustain mass production of drones requires access to specialized composites, alloys, and semiconductors. In this sense, supply chain competition translates into a geopolitical battle for the raw materials needed to employ drones at scale.
Over recent decades, the United States and many allies shed capacity in mining, refining, manufacturing, and advanced fabrication. The result is a defense industrial base deeply entangled with adversary-controlled supply chains. China's increased imposition of global export controls on defense-related minerals and rare earths underscores how easily these dependencies can be weaponized. Unless the United States adapts quickly, warfighting capacity could be hamstrung by a shortage of specialized materials needed to build affordable mass.
This challenge will only grow. As future warfighting requires a wider array of drones across air, land, and maritime domains, securing the supply chains that enable their production may determine success in a crisis. The material dependency of a modern military drone reveals five strategic vulnerabilities in structural materials, propulsion, power (batteries), sensors (semiconductors), and logistics. Mitigating these vulnerabilities before an adversary can disrupt material flows has become essential for U.S. and allied readiness.
The Fragile Foundations of Drone Production: Five Strategic Risks
Each of the four material categories and the logistics chain that binds them together reveals a weak link. Together, they expose how industrial dependence has become a strategic vulnerability. These vulnerabilities concentrate in five material and component domains that determine the ability to surge drone production.
Structural Materials: Carbon Fiber, Aluminum-Lithium, and Titanium
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer is the skeletal foundation of most unmanned aircraft. The high-strength fibers are spun from a polyacrylonitrile precursor, produced mainly in Japan, the United States, and China. Global output in 2025 was nearly 150,000 metric tons and may triple by 2030, but aerospace-grade fiber capacity remains limited to a few firms and autoclave facilities. The primary risk is time. Carbon fiber production cannot be surged. Disruption would constrain production, slow reconstitution, and ripple across every composite-dependent aircraft program.
Metal aircraft structures are dominated by aluminum-lithium and specialized titanium (Ti-6Al-4V). Aluminum-lithium enables longer wings and greater fuel and munition margins. Over half the titanium used in aerospace applications is used for hard points, fasteners, landing gear components, and hot and erosive zones.
Propulsion: Magnets, Copper, and Engine Alloys
Neodymium-iron-boron magnets turn electrical current into lift and torque. Each small motor contains roughly 5-15 grams of these magnets, which can scale to tons across entire drone fleets. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that about 90 percent of global sintered-magnet output still occurs in China. Even when rare-earth oxides are mined elsewhere, magnetization and finishing remain largely Chinese. Magnetization and finishing remain concentrated in China because environmental and capital costs pushed these steps offshore two decades ago. The risk is geography; a single export restriction could disrupt both commercial and military drone production.
When it comes to bigger drones, their powerplants rely on aluminum-silicon-copper piston alloys--and also steel or titanium valvetrain parts, and magnesium castings in some housings to save weight.
Batteries: Lithium-Ion Cells, Copper, Graphite, and Gallium-Nitride Electronics
Energy storage defines drone endurance limits. Each kilowatt-hour of battery capacity requires between 0.5-1 kilogram of copper, aluminum, and graphite, plus tens to hundreds of grams of lithium, nickel, cobalt, or manganese. Refining, not mining, is the choke point. China processes roughly two-thirds of the world's lithium and more than seventy percent of its graphite anode material. The risk, again, is geography. Even a modest export control, such as Beijing's 2023 graphite restrictions, could disrupt drone assembly within weeks.
Market shifts also stress the supply chain as lithium-iron-phosphate batteries are becoming more preferred for energy storage, not nickel or cobalt, causing a shift in upstream metal demand.
Semiconductors and Sensors: Gallium-Nitride Amplifiers, Indium Antimonide, and Mercury Cadmium Telluride.
The "brains" and "eyes" of drones rely on gallium-nitride power amplifiers and infrared detectors made from indium antimonide and mercury cadmium telluride. These specialty semiconductors are produced in a handful of Western fabrication facilities that require years to expand. Moreover, flight controllers, navigation systems, and datalinks depend on specialized semiconductors. The risk is complexity. Scaling surveillance and targeting fleets will stretch an industrial base that cannot easily grow or absorb export shocks.
Logistics and Integration: The Neglected Risk
Composites, magnets, batteries, and semiconductors converge at the final assembly line, after their subcomponents cross multiple borders. The Department of Defense (recently renamed the Department of War) still lacks visibility below the prime-contractor level for many critical suppliers. Moreover, lighter and more effective munitions for a drone are also a focus, which means sourcing propellants and energetic materials to maximize lethality at the lowest weight. In wartime, when attrition drives rapid replacement, losing a single precursor chemical or magnet alloy can halt production across an entire class of drones. The risk is opacity. What cannot be traced cannot be protected.
Redefining Deterrence Through Industrial Resilience
Composites, magnets, batteries, semiconductors, and logistics for fielding a drone point to a simple truth in modern warfare: Industrial resilience is combat power. Reliance on drones for joint warfighting is moot if the carbon fiber stops flowing, the magnets are embargoed, or the raw materials for batteries are unrefined. The war in Ukraine shows that drone warfare scales not through innovation alone, but through manufacturing capacity built on secure material inputs, rarely of which can be easily substituted or surged.
Closing these vulnerabilities requires a shift in how the United States views industrial power as an element of national defense. Four steps can close this gap between technological ambition and industrial fragility.
The Department of War cannot defend what it cannot see. The Pentagon still lacks supply chain visibility below its tier-one contractors. Without traceability, a "Made in America" label on a drone means nothing if its motor magnets or battery foils originate in China. A national database linking defense acquisition programs to their critical material origins would expose vulnerabilities before crises do.
Second, redundancy must replace efficiency. Efficiency made supply chains global; deterrence now requires redundancy to make them resilient. The United States should expand coproduction with allies and partners that already lead in critical minerals and advanced materials, such as Australia for rare earths, Japan and South Korea for carbon fiber, and Canada for graphite and lithium refining. A distributed network of allied fabrication and finishing plants would shield drone production from single-country shocks. The Five Eyes model for intelligence sharing could become a Five Materials model for defense industry cooperation.
Third, stockpiles must shift from weapons to raw material inputs. Traditional strategic reserves focus on oil and ammunition. In a drone-saturated battlefield, the material chokepoint is upstream of manufacturing. Modest government or consortium-managed reserves of rare-earth magnets, carbon-fiber prepregs, and lithium-ion precursors could buffer production against export restrictions or surging wartime demand. These reserves need not be vast, just sufficient to buy time and capacity when it matters most.
Finally, resilience must become a doctrine to inform how the United States plans to mobilize and sustain its warfighters. The next war will not be won by who initially fields the most drones, but by who sustains building them at scale. The industrial dimension of airpower is now measured in kilograms of carbon fiber, grams of gallium, and milligrams of indium. A resilient drone supply chain is as strategic as any stealth program or artificial intelligence algorithm. Supply chain security is a foundational pillar of American deterrence.
Future U.S. warfighting will not hinge on algorithms or autonomous weapons, but on control of the materials that make mass possible. If the United States and its allies can secure the fibers, alloys, and semiconductors that power unmanned systems, they will remain resilient in a crisis. Deterrence demands resilient domestic and allied supply chains, especially as drones become central to joint warfighting. If the United States and its partners harden these supply chains now, deterrence will hold. If not, a single foreign factory could become a single point of failure.
* * *
Macdonald Amoah is a communications associate at the Payne Institute for Public Policy, where he researches topics bordering on critical minerals and general mining issues. Morgan D. Bazilian is a senior associate (non-resident) with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Lt. Col. Jahara "FRANKY" Matisek is a U.S. Air Force command pilot, nonresident research fellow at the U.S. Naval War College and the Payne Institute for Public Policy, and a visiting scholar at Northwestern University. Col. Katrina Schweiker is a U.S. Air Force physicist and a military fellow with the Defense and Security Department at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/drone-supply-chain-war-identifying-chokepoints-making-drone
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Massive Shift - Americans Support Returning Education to the States
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Dec. 9, 2025:* * *
Massive Shift: Americans Support Returning Education to the States
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement in support of President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's efforts to restore our education system by returning it to the states and local communities.
For decades, conservatives have talked about, and even promised, to bring education back to the states. But no serious efforts have been taken to make this ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Dec. 9, 2025: * * * Massive Shift: Americans Support Returning Education to the States Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement in support of President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's efforts to restore our education system by returning it to the states and local communities. For decades, conservatives have talked about, and even promised, to bring education back to the states. But no serious efforts have been taken to make thisa reality; that is, until now.
Recent national polling conducted by AFPI shows that in just six months, public support for returning education control from the federal Department of Education to the states has grown by a staggering 20 percentage points.
A clear majority of Americans now support returning education to the people. This upswing is an unmistakable signal that American families welcome America First education policies and desire more resources at the state and local level, and less in the DC swamp.
AFPI Executive Director, Martin Gillespie, offered the following statement in response to this news:
"At the core of any great political leader is a willingness to take on seemingly impossible tasks, with courage and conviction, to change both policies and public opinion at the same time. President Trump and Secretary McMahon have done just that, reducing the size and scope of the Department of Education, empowering state and local education leaders, dismantling woke ideology, and expanding choice in education. We celebrate this unprecedented progress and success--and look forward to more in the weeks and months ahead."
AFPI will continue advancing policies that grow opportunities, expand educational freedom, and move our nation toward a system that helps every student reach their full potential.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/massive-shift-americans-support-returning-education-to-the-states
[Category: ThinkTank]