Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Moscow Allows Then Kills Article Suggesting Russians Win at Home When They Lose Wars
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by Paul Goble, specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Moscow Allows Then Kills Article Suggesting Russians Win at Home When They Lose Wars
Executive Summary:
* Russian President Vladimir Putin will claim any outcome he gets in Ukraine is a victory. He is not going to achieve his stated goals, and the Kremlin is trying to figure out how to present something less than a triumph as exactly that.
* The Kremlin allowed an article to
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by Paul Goble, specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Moscow Allows Then Kills Article Suggesting Russians Win at Home When They Lose Wars
Executive Summary:
* Russian President Vladimir Putin will claim any outcome he gets in Ukraine is a victory. He is not going to achieve his stated goals, and the Kremlin is trying to figure out how to present something less than a triumph as exactly that.
* The Kremlin allowed an article toappear on May 24 in a major Moscow newspaper suggesting that military triumphs are overrated and that Russia has often benefited when it has suffered what others have described as a defeat.
* This proposition and its implications are so fraught with dangers for Putin that it was taken down from the paper's website four days later and is becoming part of the discussion among Russian elites.
-
As with any authoritarian leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin will claim any outcome he gets in his war against Ukraine as a victory. He will deploy his propaganda machine to ensure that most Russians accept that. It is increasingly obvious to all--ranging from war-weary Russians who want the war to end to supporters of the war who want him to fight on-- that Putin is not going to achieve his long-insisted goals (see EDM, April 23, 27 [1], [2], May 6, 13). As a result, the Kremlin is currently trying to figure out how to present something that will be less than a triumph as exactly that. Moscow needs to do so in ways that will not spark a challenge to Putin's rule. An obvious example of that effort and how fraught with problems it is likely to be came last week when the Kremlin allowed an article to appear in a major Moscow newspaper--even if only for a short time--suggesting that military triumphs are overrated and even that Russia has benefited at home when it has suffered what others have described as a defeat abroad. Such a proposition, when presented so baldly and already associated with the Russian opposition in emigration, was too much. The Kremlin ordered it taken down, although the text remains available and is certain to be widely discussed by both those who favor peace now and those who want the war to continue.
On May 24, Moskovsky Komsomolets, one of the most widely read of the pro-Kremlin newspapers in the Russian Federation, published a 1,200-word article entitled "Amazing Defeats: When Geopolitical Losses Can Be More Useful than Brilliant Victories," by Dmitry Krasnov, a lawyer and member of Moscow's Public Chamber. The article focused on the distant past rather than current events, but it rapidly attracted attention from commentators as Aesopian language about Russia's present situation abroad and at home (Telegram/@astrapress, May 27; Glavnoe in UA, May 28; Altyn-Orda, May 29; The Moscow Times, May 30). Unsurprisingly, those reactions and their implications for Putin sparked alarm, and four days later, the article was removed, with those using its original URL being informed that the article did not exist (Moskovsky Komsomolets, May 24; Tema.Glavnoe, May 29). The article has remained available on the paper's website and elsewhere, including in the PDF version of the entire issue of the paper for May 25 (Moskovsky Komsomolets, May 25; see an archived version here).
Krasnov begins his article with the proposition that Russians, like most peoples, are far more inclined "not to remember defeats." He writes, "In Russia, it is precisely lost wars and humiliating truces that have regularly paved the way for new surges of progress, reforms, and--astonishingly enough--new victories." He gives a series of examples of this phenomenon. The Mongol Yoke weakened the power of regional princes, united Russia, and opened the way for the ouster of that foreign power. Initial defeats by the Swedes allowed Russia to weather the Time of Troubles and then return to defeat the Swedes and open "a window on Europe." The loss in the Crimean War led to the end of serfdom and to political reforms that opened the way for national integration and dramatic economic growth in the decades leading up to World War I. From these examples, he concludes that any military defeat, or "humiliating peace" in Russian history, led to reform that included "a stripping down of the elites and greater freedom for the people" and resulted in a "defeated nation would begin to rapidly regain its strength."
Many Russian historians would agree with his analysis, at least as long as its lessons could be safely confined to the past. Krasnov, however, then discusses the issue in ways that make it clear he believes it remains relevant, even though he does not directly address Moscow's current war against Ukraine. He argues, "The mechanism of the Russian historical trajectory--which transforms defeat into victory--lies in the insatiable drive of anyone who has acquired even a shred of power or wealth to expand their position." This leads to the search for methods for combating greed and the lust for power. He explains, "In Russia, a cycle has emerged: the loosening of restrictions and the activation of social mobility--the formation of new elites--the halting of social mobility--the ossification of the elites--the stagnation of progress--defeat--and the launch of a new cycle."
If other countries have developed various means to limit the power of elites without war, Russia has often had to rely on military defeat, he suggests. In Russia, those with power increasingly use force against their own people to continue to enrich themselves despite the costs that Russians and Russia itself have to pay. Krasnov points out, however, that "tightening the screws to the absolute limit invariably strips the threads, and the country is guaranteed to lose ... to its own elites, who are ready to surrender both their Fatherland and their people just to prolong their own festivities." He explains that once the country has gotten into a war and suffers a defeat, it could face "total disintegration, dangerous revanchism, or assimilation into a foreign culture as a dominion or colony." He adds, "Fortunately, time and again--ever since the era of the Mongol yoke--Russia has chosen the path of salvation: reining in its unruly elites and granting greater freedom to the people."
Krasnov continues, Peter I earned the title "the Great" because "he managed to make the right decision following a defeat in a single battle rather than waiting for the loss of an entire war." As a result, he broke "the habitual Russian cycle by making reforms an immediate response to the very first setback." He adds, "It is no easy feat for a nation's leadership to decide to break this vicious cycle before defeat strikes."
It is no surprise that the Kremlin took down this article. On May 28, Krasnov gave an even more critical interview to a Ukrainian outlet (Ukraina.ru, May 28). His statements are virtually a call to arms for Russia's elites and masses to take action before it is too late. It is also an appeal to Putin himself. If Putin wants to be known as "the great" like his tsarist predecessor, he needs to recognize how Russian history works and change direction, however improbable that would be for a man who celebrates Russia's past as largely an unbroken series of triumphs.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/moscow-allows-then-kills-article-suggesting-russians-win-at-home-when-they-lose-wars/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minnesota Dept. of Ed Casts Doubt on Mississippi Success
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 3 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Minnesota Dept. of Ed casts doubt on Mississippi success
In a delayed report to the legislature, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) recently cast doubt on Mississippi's remarkable education gains -- the very gains that inspired Minnesota's own literacy reforms.
It is no secret that Mississippi's progress has captured national attention, with other
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 3 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Minnesota Dept. of Ed casts doubt on Mississippi success
In a delayed report to the legislature, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) recently cast doubt on Mississippi's remarkable education gains -- the very gains that inspired Minnesota's own literacy reforms.
It is no secret that Mississippi's progress has captured national attention, with otherstates seeking to replicate the sustained, systemic changes that have done a lot of good for a lot of students in The Magnolia State.
Minnesota is among the states that have taken notice. The 2023 READ Act was inspired by the success Mississippi has had with its early reading instruction. Even prior to this legislation, Minnesota followed Mississippi's path by giving its educators access to LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) training starting in 2021. LETRS is a program designed to help educators learn the science of reading in both theory and practice.
Mississippi's education gains did not happen overnight, or in a few years, or as a result of any single policy, which I break down here. This didn't stop MDE from insisting in its report that such progress is fraudulent:
"Some states, including Mississippi, have third grade retention policies that require students who are not yet reading at grade level to repeat third grade. Because these students are held back, they are a year older--or have had an extra year of schooling--by the time they reach fourth grade. This means they are no longer part of the same cohort of students who advanced on time. As a result, states with mandatory third grade retention can appear to perform better on fourth grade NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] reading scores, since a significant number of their lowest performing students are not included in the tested fourth grade group the following year."
And not observed outside of 4th grade:
"While Mississippi has seen impressive improvements in grade four NAEP scores, this has not resulted in corresponding improvements in the higher grades. Despite over 10 years of science of reading legislation and implementation, eighth grade scores have remained flat and below the national average."
MDE isn't the first to make such claims. Others have as well, essentially stating, we don't believe you.
But thorough articles and reports have debunked the skeptics and critics, letting two decades of data confirm Mississippi's gains are real and long-running.
The retention argument doesn't hold up
Under Mississippi's 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA), students who aren't reading at grade level by the end of 3rd grade are required to repeat the grade. Retention rates in the state, though, have been relatively low, and nowhere near the 10 percent that critics claim is inflating Mississippi's 4th grade NAEP test scores. In the years immediately following the LBPA's implementation, the retention rate was between 5.74 percent and 5.91 percentage points above the prior baseline. And it dropped sharply after that first year. By 2017-2018, the LBPA-driven retention rate was no higher than 1.58 percent with an overall retention rate under five percent.
The criticism that the state's gains are from weaker students being removed from the 4th grade NAEP sample doesn't align with timelines, as the state was already experiencing growth before the LBPA's passage.
Between 1992 and 2017, Mississippi had already gained 15 of its 20 scale points in 4th grade reading. The LBPA did not apply to 3rd graders until 2015. Because NAEP's 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests are administered every two years, the first children affected by the retention policy were 4th graders in 2017, by which point the overwhelming majority of Mississippi's gains were already on the books. As education policy expert Rachel Canter of Mississippi First has documented, the LBPA "can only explain 4th grade gains beginning in 2017," at most. Additionally, Canter continues, the average age of 4th graders taking the NAEP in Mississippi is no older than before the retention policy was put in place.
Even setting aside the above, students who are held back don't vanish from the data. They eventually enter 4th grade -- no Mississippi child can be retained more than once -- and show up in the NAEP data sample the next test cycle. The whole point of grade retention is to give struggling students the instruction they need to be successful. If retained students score better after remediation, that is the policy working, not cheating.
What about 8th grade?
Mississippi's 8th grade students have also improved in both reading and math over the past two decades, even as national scores remained largely flat or declined. On the 2024 NAEP, Mississippi's 8th grade math proficiency rate was 22 percent -- more than double the nine percent it was in 2000. The gap between Mississippi and the national average is now the smallest it has ever been in both reading and math at eighth grade.
In fact, the LBPA's retention policy could not have affected 8th grade NAEP scores at all before 2020. The first cohort of 3rd graders subject to retention would not reach 8th grade until the 2019-2020 school year. Yet Mississippi's 8th grade scores were improving throughout the 2000s and 2010s.
Policy choices matter
What the critics and skeptics miss (or avoid acknowledging) is that Mississippi's gains aren't the product of any single policy, but of smart policy choices and a long-term commitment to higher standards and accountability for over two decades. From adopting more rigorous, nationally aligned standards and rebuilding its assessment and accountability systems to layering in a science-of-reading instructional approach, early literacy intervention, and the LBPA retention policy, the state's broad strategy provides a repeatable model and is not a fluke. Other states that have undertaken similar standards and accountability reforms show similar patterns of improvement.
While Minnesota's recent literacy reform efforts are a step in the right direction, the state is about a decade behind Mississippi's policy reforms. And it shows up in the data, which is inconvenient for education bureaucrats like MDE criticizing a state that is educating its students far more effectively.
Mississippi v. Minnesota
Not only does Mississippi have a track record of meaningful achievement growth, it significantly outperforms Minnesota on a number of metrics.
In 4th grade reading, Mississippi not only outperformed Minnesota but its average score is also significantly higher than it was in 2013. Minnesota's average score is significantly lower since then. Among Mississippi black 4th graders, they outperform Minnesota black 4th graders and have a higher average reading score than 10 years ago. The average score for Minnesota black 4th graders is significantly lower than a decade ago. This growth and decline trend holds true among Mississippi and Minnesota 4th grade Hispanic students, as well -- the average reading score for Mississippi Hispanic 4th graders is higher than in 2013 whereas Minnesota Hispanic 4th graders have a lower average score than what was posted during that same time period.
Minnesota also has one of the worst 4th grade white-to-black NAEP reading gaps in the country, including being larger than Mississippi's. Mississippi's retention policy has been found to significantly narrow its racial achievement gaps.
NAEP Fourth-Grade Reading Minnesota and Mississippi Comparison
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
Since 2003, Minnesota's average scores in 4th grade reading, 4th grade math, 8th grade reading, and 8th grade math are lower than they were in 2003, and the gaps are even higher from 2013 scores. For Mississippi, 4th grade reading, 4th grade math, and 8th grade math have experienced significant score increases since 2003. Those increases continued from 2013.
When comparing the two states' average 4th grade math and 8th grade reading and math scores, Minnesota's are higher than Mississippi's. But because different states serve different student populations, comparing states' average NAEP scores can miss -- or overstate -- how well a state and its policies serve its different student populations.
That's why the Urban Institute (not a conservative organization) has, for nearly 10 years, published demographically adjusted NAEP scores. The methodology compares each state's performance against what would be expected given its actual student population, controlling for gender, age, race and ethnicity, poverty (free and reduced-price lunch status), special education status, and English language learner status.
The demographically adjusted results dramatically switch up not only Minnesota's position on the leaderboard but Mississippi's as well. Mississippi ranked #1 in the nation in 2024 across all four tested categories: 4th grade reading, 4th grade math, 8th grade reading, and 8th grade math. Mississippi's adjusted 8th grade math score alone is seven points above #2 ranked Florida.
Minnesota, on the other hand, using the Urban Institute's adjusted rankings, placed 39th in 4th grade reading, 26th in 4th grade math, 31st in 8th grade reading, and 15th in 8th grade math, for an overall ranking of 28th. Historically, Minnesota's raw NAEP scores placed it in the top seven states for 4th grade math.
NAEP Reading & Math, Demographically Adjusted Minnesota and Mississippi Comparison
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
Conclusion
MDE's statements are not only troubling due to their inaccuracies, especially given they occur in an official report, but also because of what they reveal about how the agency views particular students. The state education department is discrediting gains made overwhelmingly by low-income students and students of color -- the very populations Minnesota has failed to adequately serve. Mississippi students, over half of whom are children of color and many living in poverty, have reached and in some cases surpassed the national average after decades of hard work by students, teachers, and policymakers.
Dismissing and misstating what Mississippi has achieved won't get Minnesota's students where they need to be. And it raises real questions about whether MDE can be trusted to guide the reforms Minnesota's students urgently need.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minnesota-dept-of-ed-casts-doubt-on-mississippi-success/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Trump's Failed War in Iran Echoes Bush's Iraq Blunder
WASHINGTON, June 3 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on June 2, 2026:
* * *
Trump's Failed War in Iran Echoes Bush's Iraq Blunder
The Trump administration's disastrous war in Iran has failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives while harming the American people and reshaping the Middle East in ways detrimental to U.S. interests, according to a new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-failed-war-in-iran-echoes-bushs-iraq-blunder/) from the Center for American Progress.
This war of choice has also further undermined America's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on June 2, 2026:
* * *
Trump's Failed War in Iran Echoes Bush's Iraq Blunder
The Trump administration's disastrous war in Iran has failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives while harming the American people and reshaping the Middle East in ways detrimental to U.S. interests, according to a new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-failed-war-in-iran-echoes-bushs-iraq-blunder/) from the Center for American Progress.
This war of choice has also further undermined America'sglobal status. The analysis finds that the United States would have unquestionably been better off had Trump followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arguments for war.
Instead, President Donald Trump's Iran War has proved to be a strategic blunder that will characterize his presidency as did President George W. Bush's disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The analysis recounts the five primary objectives of the Iran war and finds:
* The war has not eliminated Iran's nuclear program, since the country retains 972 pounds of enriched uranium that is a short step from weapons-grade material.
* Iran's ballistic missile program has not been destroyed--it retains 70 percent of its ballistic missile stockpile and 70 percent of its mobile launchers.
* Iran's naval power has not been eliminated--it now relies on fast-attack craft and even commercial vessels to mine strategic waterways and launch drones.
* The war has failed to significantly weaken Iran's proxies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis.
* The war failed to overthrow the brutal Islamic Republic that has governed Iran for more than 50 years.
The war has also inflicted enormous costs on the American people and needlessly exposed U.S. service members and civilians to harm. Iran's effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz--through which 25 percent of oil and 20 percent of natural gas global supplies transit, along with other commodities critical to the global economy--has caused prices to skyrocket for consumers and businesses alike.
Read the column: "Trump's Failed War in Iran Echoes Bush's Iraq Blunder" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-failed-war-in-iran-echoes-bushs-iraq-blunder/) by Andrew Miller
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-trumps-failed-war-in-iran-echoes-bushs-iraq-blunder/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Securing Comprehensive Privacy Reform - The Federal Fix to the Patchwork Problem
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by Technology and Innovation Policy Director Nick Krosse:
* * *
Securing Comprehensive Privacy Reform: The Federal Fix to the Patchwork Problem
Executive Summary
* The United States is the only major economy without a comprehensive consumer data privacy law; in the absence of such a federal framework, states have enacted a patchwork of data privacy laws that increase compliance costs for businesses both large and small.
* The SECURE Data Act is the latest congressional proposal to create a comprehensive
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by Technology and Innovation Policy Director Nick Krosse:
* * *
Securing Comprehensive Privacy Reform: The Federal Fix to the Patchwork Problem
Executive Summary
* The United States is the only major economy without a comprehensive consumer data privacy law; in the absence of such a federal framework, states have enacted a patchwork of data privacy laws that increase compliance costs for businesses both large and small.
* The SECURE Data Act is the latest congressional proposal to create a comprehensivefederal data privacy standard for consumers in every state, while preempting the state patchwork of data privacy laws and creating a mechanism to develop industry-specific codes of conduct backed up by Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general enforcement.
* While critics argue the bill offers insufficient protections relative to the strongest state privacy laws, the existing state patchwork puts businesses in the position of having to focus on navigating minor differences in state laws rather than protecting privacy; a better approach would be to enact a single federal standard with incentives for industries to adopt stronger codes of conduct backed by government enforcement.
Introduction
In the past decade, as technology increasingly mediates our daily lives, demand for data privacy laws has grown across developed economies. The United States is the only G20 economy without a national privacy law covering every industry. In this gap, 21 states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws, leading to a patchwork of laws that are increasingly costly for businesses to coherently comply with.
In the wake of previous failed attempts to pass a national comprehensive data privacy law, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is currently considering the Securing and Establishing Consumer Uniform Rights and Enforcement over Data Act (SECURE Data Act). The bill establishes a federal privacy standard based on existing provisions in state privacy laws, creating a baseline set of rights and expectations for all consumers nationwide. It furthermore preempts state privacy laws and contains innovative provisions allowing the creation and registration of voluntary industry-specific codes of conduct that must meet or exceed the act's requirements.
The bill faces opposition from congressional Democrats and consumer groups, which argue that the framework offers insufficient protections for consumers, excessively preempts state privacy laws, and lacks a private right of action. But the existing state patchwork puts businesses in the position of having to focus on navigating minor differences in state laws rather than protecting privacy. A better approach would be to enact a single federal standard with incentives for industries to adopt stronger codes of conduct backed by government enforcement.
Background
With the growth of the internet and computing in the past few decades, our daily lives have increasingly been mediated through technology. From 2000 to 2025, the percentage of Americans adults reporting that they use the internet grew from 52 percent to 96 percent. In 2025, 91 percent of American adults reported owning a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011. The "Internet of Things" (IoT) has connected many everyday household items to the internet as well: In 2024, households and businesses were using 18.5 billion IoT devices worldwide, more than double the 7 billion in use in 2018.
This increase in internet usage and connected devices has also necessitated and allowed for the generation and collection of more consumer data. Often, this data generation and collection benefits consumers. For example, consumer data can reduce search and matching costs for consumers and businesses through targeted advertising. It can also help to prevent fraud, enable faster product innovation, and make goods and services lower-cost, free, or even just available to begin with. But consumers face risks as well, particularly from data breaches, or even data being misused after being acquired legally.
In the wake of a spate of data breaches in the latter part of the past decade, demand for comprehensive privacy laws swept developed economies, starting with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) internationally and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States. At the federal level, several, mostly industry-specific, privacy laws exist that predate the recent push for general privacy laws covering the entire economy. The most industry-agnostic federal law concerning privacy is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which merely forbids companies from engaging in "unfair and deceptive practices" as a general matter. While Congress has considered several proposals for a comprehensive federal privacy law since 2018, no proposal has yet been voted on by either chamber, much less passed.
The Patchwork Problem
In the vacuum created by Congress' inaction, 21 states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws. The first, as mentioned above, was California's CCPA, passed by voters through a ballot initiative in 2018, and subsequently amended by a second ballot initiative in 2020. The CCPA was the first law at the state or federal level to establish general consumer data access, deletion, correction, and collection opt-out rights, alongside a web of data transparency, minimization, security, and monitoring requirements on businesses large and small. The California Consumer Privacy Rights Act, which amended the CCPA, also established a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), to enforce the CCPA. The CCPA granted that agency (and before it, the state attorney general) broad rulemaking authority, which has allowed the CPPA to expand the reach of the CCPA even further. Unlike any of its subsequent counterparts in other states, the CCPA also governs employee and business-to-business data and gives consumers a narrow private right-of-action over data breaches.
Beginning with Virginia and Colorado in 2021, several states began passing comprehensive privacy laws based on the "Washington Privacy Act" model. This model abstractly provides the same kinds of rights to consumers and imposes similar obligations on businesses as the CCPA, albeit with important practical differences in these core rights and obligations. No state law based on the Washington Privacy Act model provides a private right of action for consumers, instead relying on enforcement by the respective state's attorney general, and only a few authorize any rulemaking by state agencies. Twenty states ultimately adopted this model, although each state has passed this model with its own variations on the underlying definitions, rights, and obligations.
Two recent state laws based on the Washington Privacy Act model are illustrative of the patchwork problem. Maryland's Online Data and Privacy Act introduces a new data minimization standard that is even stricter than California's and bans the sale of sensitive data even with customer consent. Minnesota's Consumer Data Privacy Act requires that businesses maintain an inventory of data that has been collected and processed. Both laws demonstrate that even while 20 of the 21 states with a comprehensive privacy law has modeled it on similar rights, obligations, and definitions, the insertion or alteration of one provision by a state can dramatically increase compliance costs in terms of money, time, and risks. Furthermore, it shows that interstate companies can no longer simply comply with the strictest state regime, as different states may have stricter requirements on different margins.
The Federal Fix
Following two failed attempts to pass a comprehensive federal privacy framework over the past two congresses, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is now examining the SECURE Data Act as a potential federal, economy-wide privacy framework. The SECURE Data Act is based on the Washington Privacy Act model used by all but one state with a comprehensive privacy law. It contains provisions covering consumer rights and business obligations that align with provisions enacted by states controlled by both Democrats and Republicans. While it does not contain some of the stricter provisions from versions such as Maryland's or Minnesota's, it goes further than most state laws in other ways. For example, it creates the first registry of "data brokers" (companies that collect personal information from third parties rather than directly from consumers) to make it easier for consumers to exercise rights created under the law. It also raises the age required for obtaining parental consent for processing sensitive data to 16 from the current 13 in the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The SECURE Data Act also preempts all state comprehensive privacy laws, ensuring one national baseline for all sectors of the economy. Having a single national standard to comply with reduces costs associated with duplication of compliance efforts where state laws vary. This is particularly true for small businesses, which, due to varying applicability thresholds at the state level, may have to comply with privacy laws in states where they do not regularly operate but may have few customers. While critics object that this will leave states without a role in regulating privacy, it empowers attorneys general to enforce the law alongside the FTC, still giving states a critical role in protecting their residents. Furthermore, nearly 30 states covering more than 40 percent of the U.S. population have no comprehensive privacy law; The legislation would give those state attorneys general new tools to protect their citizens.
Additionally, the SECURE Data Act offers an innovative mechanism by which industries can develop their own voluntary codes of conduct to be overseen by independent third parties and submit them to be enforced by the FTC. Companies that adhere to these guidelines will be given a rebuttable presumption that they are not violating the law. But if companies fail to adhere to the guidelines they agreed to, the FTC and state attorneys general can use their enforcement powers under the Act to ensure compliance and obtain relief for consumers.
What constitutes good practices for data collection, security, and privacy is dependent on the context in which the data will be used, which is more likely to vary based on industry-specific use cases rather than geography. For example, the automotive and advertising industries have very different use cases for consumer data: The former is concerned with helping customers diagnose mechanical problems or call emergency services, while the latter connects buyers and sellers more efficiently. Both serve different needs for consumers and need to approach issues of collection and minimization differently. U.S. federal privacy law already reflects this with its current sector-based approach to privacy. Furthermore, the legislation's inclusion of independent third-party overseers as well as the backstop of enforcement through FTC and state attorneys general are both critical to ensure the success of this mechanism. Through this innovative provision, the SECURE Data Act would provide consumers with a consistent baseline of privacy expectations to rely on across the economy while also giving flexibility to different industries to adapt to changing technological and social circumstances.
Critics of the legislation also object to the lack of a private right of action for consumers to bring lawsuits against companies they believe are violating or have violated the act themselves. Yet no existing state comprehensive privacy law has a general private right of action for consumers (as noted above, California has a limited private right of action for data breaches). Furthermore, many of the existing industry-specific federal privacy laws also lack general private rights of action, including those that cover health and financial information (except for credit reports). For those that do, because the actual financial damages individuals experience from privacy violations tend to be relatively small (often not exceeding the low thousands), a significant portion of awards end up being paid out in attorney's fees and other court costs, without any of the general enforcement benefits that FTC or state attorney general suits provide.
Legislative Outlook
The SECURE Data Act is being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. While it has been endorsed by Republican leadership on the committee, objections from Democratic leadership on the committee demonstrate that it may face an uphill battle in garnering enough support to pass both chambers of Congress. Regardless of whether it succeeds where previous attempts have failed, the underlying principles it contains are essential components of any future federal privacy law. Privacy concerns transcend geographic constraints and instead are driven more by the context in which the data will be used. The SECURE Data Act fixes the web of compliance created by the state patchwork and replaces it with a baseline that all consumers can expect across the economy, and gives industries, small businesses, and federal and state enforcers the tools to develop more robust protections for consumers based in actual data use cases.
* * *
Nick Krosse is the Director of Technology and Innovation Policy
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/securing_comprehensive_privacy/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: Don't Turn College Sports Into a Political Weapon
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by American Dream senior fellow Bruce Pearl:
* * *
Don't Turn College Sports Into a Political Weapon
There was a time in America when sports brought people together.
It didn't matter whether you were Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, from a big city or a small Southern town. Fans packed stadiums, students wore school colors with pride, and communities rallied behind young athletes chasing excellence.
In the SEC, that spirit is still alive.
That's why recent calls from Democratic
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by American Dream senior fellow Bruce Pearl:
* * *
Don't Turn College Sports Into a Political Weapon
There was a time in America when sports brought people together.
It didn't matter whether you were Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, from a big city or a small Southern town. Fans packed stadiums, students wore school colors with pride, and communities rallied behind young athletes chasing excellence.
In the SEC, that spirit is still alive.
That's why recent calls from Democraticleaders and activist organizations urging athletes to avoid SEC schools in states where Republicans have led redistricting efforts are so troubling. Instead of encouraging unity, they are injecting more division and politics into one of the last places Americans still come together.
When House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the NAACP suggest athletes should boycott schools in conservative-led states, they are sending a dangerous message: if Americans vote the "wrong" way, they deserve to be punished economically, culturally, and socially until they submit.
That is not leadership. That is coercion of young men and women trying to build a future for themselves and their families.
An 18-year-old recruit considering Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, or Texas should not have endure political intimidation before deciding where to attend college. Student-athletes should focus on academics, coaching, opportunity, player development, faith, culture, and relationships.
The SEC represents some of the greatest universities, athletic traditions, and communities in America. These schools have helped millions of students -- especially first-generation college students and minority athletes -- achieve dreams their families never thought possible.
I have coached players from every background imaginable. What mattered in our locker room was commitment, discipline, accountability, teamwork, and love for one another. Not partisan politics. That's the beauty of sports.
The same people who lecture Americans about inclusion and tolerance are openly encouraging political discrimination.
Millions of Americans living in SEC states support conservative leadership because they believe in secure borders, safer communities, lower taxes, energy independence, school choice, parental rights, religious liberty, and economic opportunity. Those voters are not extremists--they are hardworking Americans exercising their constitutional rights.
The SEC is successful because it reflects core American values: hard work, competition, pride in community, faith, patriotism, resilience, and personal responsibility.
I also think this boycott fundamentally misunderstands athletes. Most recruits are focused on developing their talents, earning a degree, supporting their families, and preparing for the future. They are not interested in becoming props for national political campaigns--and they shouldn't have to be.
One question worth asking: If this proclamation was made 20 years ago, how many African American men and women would have been affected? How many would have been discouraged from attending SEC schools, and robbed of life-changing opportunities that changed their family tree? How many families would be worse off because the potential for a scholarship, degree, or professional success was snuffed out before it could even begin? These are not abstract questions. These decisions affect real families for generations.
I also fundamentally reject the idea that conservative states are hostile environments for minority athletes. Black, Hispanic and other athletes are celebrated across the SEC. They are leaders on campus, stars in their communities, and beloved by fans who care about effort, character, and success.
Sports has always had the power to transcend politics because competition creates mutual respect. Teammates learn to trust one another regardless of background. Fans unite around shared pride and common purpose.
As a Jewish basketball coach living in Alabama, I have experienced that unity firsthand. I have felt safe, welcomed, and supported because of my faith and the relationships built through teaching and coaching. While cynics in New York and Washington might try to goad us into falling for their divisive rhetoric and political litmus tests, the communities I have been privileged to serve value character, commitment, and relationships far more than these shallow labels. Because in the SEC, it just means more.
America needs more of that right now.
If leaders disagree with redistricting policies, they should debate them, campaign against them, and vote. That's how democracy works.
But punishing schools and student-athletes because voters chose Republican leadership is a dangerous road to go down.
College sports should remain one of the few places where people from different backgrounds can come together and build relationships rooted in something bigger than politics.
And to every athlete and family considering an SEC school, my message is simple: do not let politicians decide your future.
Choose the place that will help you grow as a student, athlete, and person. Choose the coaches who believe in you. Choose the community that feels like home.
Sports should unite us. The SEC still does. And that is worth protecting.
* * *
Coach Bruce Pearl is the former head coach of the Auburn Tigers basketball team and currently serves as Senior Fellow for the American Dream at the America First Policy Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/dont-turn-college-sports-into-a-political-weapon
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI-NM Executive Director Vincent Torres on Today's Primary Elections
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 2, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-NM Executive Director Vincent Torres on Today's Primary Elections
ALBUQUERQUE, NM - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) New Mexico Executive Director Vincent Torres today urges residents to vote in the state's primary election, with polls open across New Mexico from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and offices up and down the ballot. Today's primary will set the November matchups for U.S. Senate, New Mexico's congressional seats, the governor's office, and a host of statewide, legislative,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 2, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-NM Executive Director Vincent Torres on Today's Primary Elections
ALBUQUERQUE, NM - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) New Mexico Executive Director Vincent Torres today urges residents to vote in the state's primary election, with polls open across New Mexico from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and offices up and down the ballot. Today's primary will set the November matchups for U.S. Senate, New Mexico's congressional seats, the governor's office, and a host of statewide, legislative,and county races, and it marks the state's first semi-open primary, allowing independent voters to take part.
Vincent Torres, Executive Director of AFPI's New Mexico Chapter, stated:
"Every election is a chance for New Mexicans to shape the future of our state and today is one of those moments. Polls are open until 7 p.m., and I'd encourage every eligible voter to make their voice heard.
The choices we make at the ballot box have real consequences. They affect whether working families get to keep more of what they earn, whether our energy industry can continue to thrive, and whether New Mexico moves toward greater opportunity and prosperity.
The federal Working Families Tax Cuts are a great example. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, a larger Child Tax Credit, and bigger refunds are helping hardworking New Mexicans get ahead. At the same time, our oil and gas industry powers the nation, supports thousands of jobs, and helps fund our schools and communities.
The future of our state depends on the leaders we elect, and the direction voters choose. So, make the time to vote today. New Mexico's future is worth it."
Learn more about AFPI New Mexico here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/state-chapter/america-first-new-mexico).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-nm-executive-director-vincent-torres-on-todays-primary-elections
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Responds to New AI EO
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 2, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Responds to New AI EO
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Yusuf Mahmood, director of AI and Emerging Technology, in response to President Trump's new Executive Order on Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security:
"We commend President Trump for signing this Executive Order to strengthen American national security and promote advanced AI innovation.
The America First AI Agenda is clear: America must achieve complete
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 2, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Responds to New AI EO
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Yusuf Mahmood, director of AI and Emerging Technology, in response to President Trump's new Executive Order on Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security:
"We commend President Trump for signing this Executive Order to strengthen American national security and promote advanced AI innovation.
The America First AI Agenda is clear: America must achieve completeAI dominance. This order advances that mission. It recognizes the need to advance American AI innovation, while ensuring that the most powerful frontier models can be tested by our national security enterprise in a voluntary and timely manner.
Now it is up to the tasked offices to build the AI expertise and testing apparatus to make this framework effective. AFPI stands ready to help build that roadmap."
The America First AI Agenda, published by AFPI earlier this year, calls for a holistic approach to AI policy. We must balance the demand for innovation with the duty to uphold American values, national security, and human dignity.
AFPI will continue to develop policy recommendations across all four principles of the America First AI Agenda: American Leadership, Human Dignity, American Security, and Government Efficiency and Readiness.
Click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/policy-areas/ai-and-emerging-technology) to learn more about AFPI's AI and Emerging Technology work. Yusuf Mahmood, director of AI and Emerging Technology at AFPI, is available for interviews. Click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/contact/comms-team) to schedule.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-responds-to-new-ai-eo
[Category: ThinkTank]
