Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Georgia Weighs Diplomatic Cost of Mourning Khamenei
WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Georgia Weighs Diplomatic Cost of Mourning Khamenei
Executive Summary:
* Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili traveled to Tehran on July 3 to attend the funeral of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
* The visit has divided Georgia's political class, with critics arguing that the delegation's rank and the attendance itself turned a condolence gesture ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Georgia Weighs Diplomatic Cost of Mourning Khamenei Executive Summary: * Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili traveled to Tehran on July 3 to attend the funeral of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. * The visit has divided Georgia's political class, with critics arguing that the delegation's rank and the attendance itself turned a condolence gestureinto a political statement against Georgia's Western partners.
* Supporters frame the trip as balanced diplomacy toward a neighboring power under explicit Iranian pressure, while opponents warn that deepening ties with Tehran risks isolation, the expansion of sanctions-evasion channels, and lasting damage to Georgia's international reputation and constitutionally mandated Euro-Atlantic course.
-
On July 3, a Georgian state delegation headed by President Mikheil Kavelashvili arrived in Tehran to attend the funeral of Iran's late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On the same day, Kavelashvili met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and both sides expressed their commitment to expanding bilateral ties in trade, culture, and science. Kavelashvili noted in a statement that during his meeting with Pezeshkian he "once again extended condolences over the tragic events that took place in Iran and paid respect to the memory of the deceased" (Facebook/MikheilKavelashvili, July 3). Kavelashvili also thanked Pezeshkian for supporting Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity (Interpressnews; Sovanews, July 3).
Kavelashvili's participation in the mourning ceremonies has sparked heated debate in Georgia. Politicians and experts are divided over the appropriateness of the visit at a time when the United States and Israel have not yet concluded a final peace agreement with Tehran. Georgia, according to its constitution, considers itself part of the Euro-Atlantic community, aspires to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and retains its status as a candidate for EU membership (Matsne, August 24, 1995).
Opposition parties, including former President Mikheil Saakashvili's United National Movement (UNM), Lelo, Akhali, and others, accused the ruling Georgian Dream party of aligning Georgia with an anti-Western regime hostile to the United States (Democracy & Freedom Watch, July 4). Tengiz Sharmanashvili, a member of parliament and one of Georgian Dream's most influential voices, stated that delegations from all countries of the region, including Armenia, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan, had visited Tehran in recent days, asking opponents whether those countries are "enemies of the United States and Israel" (Interpressnews, July 3).
Valeri Chechelashvili, co-founder of the political party Georgia First!, director of geopolitical studies at the Georgian Strategic Analysis Center, and former ambassador to Ukraine, argues that high-level attendance at the funeral was a mistake. He asserted that if Georgia had to be represented at all, a deputy foreign minister would have sufficed (Interpressnews, July 6). Tbilisi, however, did have a precedent to point to. In May 2024, after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze traveled to Iran for the funeral ceremony (JAMnews, May 5, 2024). Chechelashvili contends that the precedent no longer applies. Raisi's death was a tragic accident, whereas Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the airstrikes of the United States and Israel, raising the stakes of any high-level Georgian presence in Tehran. Given that Georgia's main priority is its strategic partnership with Western countries, above all the United States, Chechelashvili argued it was a mistake to attend a funeral procession where crowds chanted "death to America" and "death to Israel." He therefore considers Kobakhidze's decision to stay home a good one but sending Kavelashvili in his place an error. Under the Georgian constitution, the president is a largely ceremonial figure, while the prime minister wields real power, meaning Kobakhidze's absence could be read as a deliberate gesture toward the United States and Israel (YouTube/@PalitraNews, July 6).
Many Georgian Dream supporters argue that Tbilisi must maintain a "balanced policy" to survive in a complicated regional situation, given the wars in the Gulf and Ukraine. In an interview with this author, political analyst Ghia Abashidze stated that Georgia-Iran relations "are cooperative but not allied," arguing that the "Georgian government has numerously reiterated that it follows a multi-vectoral political and economic policy and it is not going to affiliate with any opposing camp or bloc." Abashidze concluded that "Kavelashvili's visit was officially a condolence funeral visit, but politically also served to reaffirm Georgia-Iran ties and demonstrate Tbilisi's willingness to maintain balanced relations with regional powers" (Author's interview, July 7).
Other Georgian politicians and experts contend that the problem is not Georgia's participation in Khamenei's funeral itself. The problem is the political context in which it took place. Giorgi Shaishmelashvili, co-founder of the political party Freedom Square, in an interview with this author, argued that under normal circumstances, no one would expect Georgia to pursue an ideologically driven foreign policy, and Western partners would likely have accepted such a visit as a matter of pragmatic diplomacy. In the current political environment, however, it could instead be perceived as a political gesture directed against Georgia's Western partners. "Together with a series of other developments, this decision will have serious long-term consequences for Georgia's security, leaving the country increasingly isolated in a region where it must confront Russia and other authoritarian regimes," Shaishmelashvili emphasized (Author's interview, July 7). He fears that closer business and trade cooperation with the Iranian regime will "inevitably create obligations that could become a serious challenge for Georgia," including "the potential spread of violent extremist ideas" as well as the "creation of channels for money laundering and sanctions evasion" that could "seriously damage Georgia's international reputation."
Zaal Anjaparidze, a Georgian political analyst and civil society development expert, identified three distinct viewpoints in the debate, centering on political prudence, moral legitimacy, and realpolitik. "I think that the attendance was rather a recognition of the Iranian state than an endorsement of its political system," Anjaparidze contends, pointing out that Georgia "has practical interests in maintaining stable relations with neighboring regional powers" and that Georgia, "as a small state, often hedges its diplomacy with regional geopolitical realities in mind." He concluded that Kavelashvili's trip to Tehran will not by itself shape Georgia-West relations, as the "policies of the United States and the European Union regarding Georgia are influenced by a range of strategic considerations." He underscored, "Nevertheless, symbolic diplomatic actions play a role in shaping the overall perception of the Georgian government's foreign policy direction" (Author's interview, July 7).
The visit also took place against the backdrop of explicit Iranian pressure on Tbilisi. Davit Avalishvili of the Georgian outlet Nation.ge noted that several months before Kavelashvili's visit, Iranian Ambassador to Georgia Seyed Ali Mojani warned the Georgian government against ceding territory or airspace to U.S. or allied military operations. Following the landing of a U.S. military transport aircraft at Tbilisi International Airport and a security call between Kobakhidze and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the ambassador stated that countries supporting U.S. "adventurism" will ultimately "pay the price" at home (Civil.ge, March 31). "Georgia is a small and weak country. It does not have an ally like Turkiye is for Azerbaijan, and Georgia is not a member of any collective security organization," Avalishvili observed, adding that "a small and weak country must be very careful during the clash between geopolitical titans" (Author's interview, July 7). It appears that no one in Georgia's political elite or expert community doubts that Tbilisi's future policy toward Iran will depend on the regional configuration that emerges after the conflict in the Middle East ends.
* * *
Giorgi Menabde is a journalist based in Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/georgia-weighs-diplomatic-cost-of-mourning-khamenei/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Georgia Weighs Diplomatic Cost of Mourning Khamenei
Executive Summary:
* Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili traveled to Tehran on July 3 to attend the funeral of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
* The visit has divided Georgia's political class, with critics arguing that the delegation's rank and the attendance itself turned a condolence gesture ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Georgia Weighs Diplomatic Cost of Mourning Khamenei Executive Summary: * Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili traveled to Tehran on July 3 to attend the funeral of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. * The visit has divided Georgia's political class, with critics arguing that the delegation's rank and the attendance itself turned a condolence gestureinto a political statement against Georgia's Western partners.
* Supporters frame the trip as balanced diplomacy toward a neighboring power under explicit Iranian pressure, while opponents warn that deepening ties with Tehran risks isolation, the expansion of sanctions-evasion channels, and lasting damage to Georgia's international reputation and constitutionally mandated Euro-Atlantic course.
-
On July 3, a Georgian state delegation headed by President Mikheil Kavelashvili arrived in Tehran to attend the funeral of Iran's late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On the same day, Kavelashvili met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and both sides expressed their commitment to expanding bilateral ties in trade, culture, and science. Kavelashvili noted in a statement that during his meeting with Pezeshkian he "once again extended condolences over the tragic events that took place in Iran and paid respect to the memory of the deceased" (Facebook/MikheilKavelashvili, July 3). Kavelashvili also thanked Pezeshkian for supporting Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity (Interpressnews; Sovanews, July 3).
Kavelashvili's participation in the mourning ceremonies has sparked heated debate in Georgia. Politicians and experts are divided over the appropriateness of the visit at a time when the United States and Israel have not yet concluded a final peace agreement with Tehran. Georgia, according to its constitution, considers itself part of the Euro-Atlantic community, aspires to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and retains its status as a candidate for EU membership (Matsne, August 24, 1995).
Opposition parties, including former President Mikheil Saakashvili's United National Movement (UNM), Lelo, Akhali, and others, accused the ruling Georgian Dream party of aligning Georgia with an anti-Western regime hostile to the United States (Democracy & Freedom Watch, July 4). Tengiz Sharmanashvili, a member of parliament and one of Georgian Dream's most influential voices, stated that delegations from all countries of the region, including Armenia, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan, had visited Tehran in recent days, asking opponents whether those countries are "enemies of the United States and Israel" (Interpressnews, July 3).
Valeri Chechelashvili, co-founder of the political party Georgia First!, director of geopolitical studies at the Georgian Strategic Analysis Center, and former ambassador to Ukraine, argues that high-level attendance at the funeral was a mistake. He asserted that if Georgia had to be represented at all, a deputy foreign minister would have sufficed (Interpressnews, July 6). Tbilisi, however, did have a precedent to point to. In May 2024, after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze traveled to Iran for the funeral ceremony (JAMnews, May 5, 2024). Chechelashvili contends that the precedent no longer applies. Raisi's death was a tragic accident, whereas Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the airstrikes of the United States and Israel, raising the stakes of any high-level Georgian presence in Tehran. Given that Georgia's main priority is its strategic partnership with Western countries, above all the United States, Chechelashvili argued it was a mistake to attend a funeral procession where crowds chanted "death to America" and "death to Israel." He therefore considers Kobakhidze's decision to stay home a good one but sending Kavelashvili in his place an error. Under the Georgian constitution, the president is a largely ceremonial figure, while the prime minister wields real power, meaning Kobakhidze's absence could be read as a deliberate gesture toward the United States and Israel (YouTube/@PalitraNews, July 6).
Many Georgian Dream supporters argue that Tbilisi must maintain a "balanced policy" to survive in a complicated regional situation, given the wars in the Gulf and Ukraine. In an interview with this author, political analyst Ghia Abashidze stated that Georgia-Iran relations "are cooperative but not allied," arguing that the "Georgian government has numerously reiterated that it follows a multi-vectoral political and economic policy and it is not going to affiliate with any opposing camp or bloc." Abashidze concluded that "Kavelashvili's visit was officially a condolence funeral visit, but politically also served to reaffirm Georgia-Iran ties and demonstrate Tbilisi's willingness to maintain balanced relations with regional powers" (Author's interview, July 7).
Other Georgian politicians and experts contend that the problem is not Georgia's participation in Khamenei's funeral itself. The problem is the political context in which it took place. Giorgi Shaishmelashvili, co-founder of the political party Freedom Square, in an interview with this author, argued that under normal circumstances, no one would expect Georgia to pursue an ideologically driven foreign policy, and Western partners would likely have accepted such a visit as a matter of pragmatic diplomacy. In the current political environment, however, it could instead be perceived as a political gesture directed against Georgia's Western partners. "Together with a series of other developments, this decision will have serious long-term consequences for Georgia's security, leaving the country increasingly isolated in a region where it must confront Russia and other authoritarian regimes," Shaishmelashvili emphasized (Author's interview, July 7). He fears that closer business and trade cooperation with the Iranian regime will "inevitably create obligations that could become a serious challenge for Georgia," including "the potential spread of violent extremist ideas" as well as the "creation of channels for money laundering and sanctions evasion" that could "seriously damage Georgia's international reputation."
Zaal Anjaparidze, a Georgian political analyst and civil society development expert, identified three distinct viewpoints in the debate, centering on political prudence, moral legitimacy, and realpolitik. "I think that the attendance was rather a recognition of the Iranian state than an endorsement of its political system," Anjaparidze contends, pointing out that Georgia "has practical interests in maintaining stable relations with neighboring regional powers" and that Georgia, "as a small state, often hedges its diplomacy with regional geopolitical realities in mind." He concluded that Kavelashvili's trip to Tehran will not by itself shape Georgia-West relations, as the "policies of the United States and the European Union regarding Georgia are influenced by a range of strategic considerations." He underscored, "Nevertheless, symbolic diplomatic actions play a role in shaping the overall perception of the Georgian government's foreign policy direction" (Author's interview, July 7).
The visit also took place against the backdrop of explicit Iranian pressure on Tbilisi. Davit Avalishvili of the Georgian outlet Nation.ge noted that several months before Kavelashvili's visit, Iranian Ambassador to Georgia Seyed Ali Mojani warned the Georgian government against ceding territory or airspace to U.S. or allied military operations. Following the landing of a U.S. military transport aircraft at Tbilisi International Airport and a security call between Kobakhidze and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the ambassador stated that countries supporting U.S. "adventurism" will ultimately "pay the price" at home (Civil.ge, March 31). "Georgia is a small and weak country. It does not have an ally like Turkiye is for Azerbaijan, and Georgia is not a member of any collective security organization," Avalishvili observed, adding that "a small and weak country must be very careful during the clash between geopolitical titans" (Author's interview, July 7). It appears that no one in Georgia's political elite or expert community doubts that Tbilisi's future policy toward Iran will depend on the regional configuration that emerges after the conflict in the Middle East ends.
* * *
Giorgi Menabde is a journalist based in Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/georgia-weighs-diplomatic-cost-of-mourning-khamenei/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Deteriorates
MUNICH, Germany, July 14 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 13, 2026:
* * *
Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Deteriorates
Sentiment in residential construction in Germany has deteriorated further, with the business climate falling in June from -29.5 to -31.0 points. Companies assessed both the current situation and their prospects for the coming months as worse.
Their expectations fell to the lowest level since March 2025. "Hopes for a gradual recovery were dashed once again," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Many companies currently ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, July 14 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 13, 2026: * * * Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Deteriorates Sentiment in residential construction in Germany has deteriorated further, with the business climate falling in June from -29.5 to -31.0 points. Companies assessed both the current situation and their prospects for the coming months as worse. Their expectations fell to the lowest level since March 2025. "Hopes for a gradual recovery were dashed once again," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Many companies currentlysee no signs of a sustained recovery in residential construction."
Pressure remains high in operating business: The share of companies with too few orders rose from 42.2 to 43.7%. At 11.4%, the cancellation rate remained at a higher level. Concerns about the supply of materials persist: 9.7% of companies once again reported bottlenecks for key intermediate products.
"Despite an increase in building permits, companies are continuing to struggle with weak demand," says Wohlrabe. "A decline in cancellations would not make up for the lack of new orders and therefore not reverse the trend."
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-13/business-climate-residential-construction-germany-deteriorates)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-13/business-climate-residential-construction-germany-deteriorates
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Deteriorates
Sentiment in residential construction in Germany has deteriorated further, with the business climate falling in June from -29.5 to -31.0 points. Companies assessed both the current situation and their prospects for the coming months as worse.
Their expectations fell to the lowest level since March 2025. "Hopes for a gradual recovery were dashed once again," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Many companies currently ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, July 14 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 13, 2026: * * * Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Deteriorates Sentiment in residential construction in Germany has deteriorated further, with the business climate falling in June from -29.5 to -31.0 points. Companies assessed both the current situation and their prospects for the coming months as worse. Their expectations fell to the lowest level since March 2025. "Hopes for a gradual recovery were dashed once again," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Many companies currentlysee no signs of a sustained recovery in residential construction."
Pressure remains high in operating business: The share of companies with too few orders rose from 42.2 to 43.7%. At 11.4%, the cancellation rate remained at a higher level. Concerns about the supply of materials persist: 9.7% of companies once again reported bottlenecks for key intermediate products.
"Despite an increase in building permits, companies are continuing to struggle with weak demand," says Wohlrabe. "A decline in cancellations would not make up for the lack of new orders and therefore not reverse the trend."
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-13/business-climate-residential-construction-germany-deteriorates)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-13/business-climate-residential-construction-germany-deteriorates
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary on How the Banned Books Panic Became a Lucrative Retail Trend
WASHINGTON, July 14 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by senior fellow Liel Leibovitz to First Things:
* * *
Ban the Books
Walk into a bookstore anywhere in the country. Chances are that, somewhere toward the front, you'll see a glossy display table labeled "Banned Books." The same is true for public libraries, which give "banned books" the prominent treatment once reserved for new and noteworthy releases. At Nordstrom, they sell a "Read Banned Books" canvas ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by senior fellow Liel Leibovitz to First Things: * * * Ban the Books Walk into a bookstore anywhere in the country. Chances are that, somewhere toward the front, you'll see a glossy display table labeled "Banned Books." The same is true for public libraries, which give "banned books" the prominent treatment once reserved for new and noteworthy releases. At Nordstrom, they sell a "Read Banned Books" canvastote for $43.
Why the sudden rush to advertise the claim that books are being widely banned in America? Listen to our literati, and you'll hear a grim story: During the previous school year, the fine folks at PEN America recently informed their followers, no fewer than 6,870 book bans were imposed across the nation, or roughly eighteen bans per day. We're in the midst of an inquisition, the organization warns, that targets mainly "books by authors of color, by LGBTQ+ authors, by women," as well as books about "racism, sexuality, gender, history."
Pass the smelling salts! If this claim--advanced by our nation's premier guardian of literary freedom--is true, then we're living in a hellscape of bigotry and ignorance, with our town squares just one bonfire away from resembling Berlin's Opernplatz in 1933.
I have some good news: "Banned books" are a big, fat, dumb hoax.
Responding to PEN America's drummed-up hysteria, researchers at the Heritage Foundation set out in 2023 to test the claim, armed with a simple methodology: They printed out PEN's list of allegedly banned books, logged on to the library catalogs in the school districts where these books were supposedly being banned, and tried to see how hard it would be, in reality, for anyone to procure the contraband.
The results should not surprise you. For example, The Hate U Give is young-adult agitprop shlock about police brutality and systemic racism and other Black Lives Matter talking points. It is one of the books PEN advertises as most frequently banned. According to the organization, the novel was removed from the shelves of public schools in Goddard, Kansas. Yet the Heritage researchers logged on to the district's website and soon learned that the book was so completely suppressed that no fewer than nine copies of it were available in circulation, including three that were checked out at the time of the investigation. PEN judged the Indian River School District in Florida, another of its favorite targets, even more harshly for banning The Hate U Give. Yet in the district's library catalog, twenty copies were available. The researchers reported similar findings for 74 percent of the books PEN and others alleged were being targeted by big, bad banning campaigns.
Why make so much noise about something that isn't happening? To answer this important question, we need look no further than the lists of allegedly banned books, which PEN and other organizations publish each year. Routinely, these lists include timeless classics like The Diary of Anne Frank or Jack London's The Call of the Wild that have been singled out by some concerned school board member somewhere who disliked Frank's candid discussion of sexuality or London's penchant for socialism. But these examples are distractions because, for the most part, the lists of "banned books" feature the same repeating roster of offending titles.
One is Gender Queer, a graphic novel by Maia Kobabe. It's PornHub for the alternative teen set, complete with graphic illustrations of oral sex. Another is All Boys Aren't Blue, a self-described "memoir-manifesto" by George M. Johnson, which features more than a few wildly explicit scenes depicting gay sex between two minors. And, for those who like their stuff a little less X-rated, there's Ibram X. Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist, which argues cheerfully that "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination."
Would you like your children--or anyone's children, for that matter--to feed on morally and intellectually rotten fare of this sort? And would you feel comfortable knowing that their school's library, as a recent expose by the Free Press revealed, is very likely to shelve Kendi and Karl Marx but not at all likely to offer Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, John McWhorter, or any book that does not toe the radical progressive party line?
If the answer is "no," and if you believe you have the right--as a parent or a taxpayer--to say which books belong in your community's schools, mazal tov: You're now one of those benighted, know-nothing book banners our self-appointed moral and intellectual elites love to cackle over.
How can we combat this rampant and ruinous Maoism and its evident ambition to spur a cultural revolution? Here's a modest proposal: We should do precisely what we're falsely accused of and get on with the salutary task of banning books. En masse. With gusto.
Does this shock you? It shocks me, too: I've dedicated my life to the sacred work of reading and writing books, a calling that confers upon those foolish enough to answer it penury and the opposite of fame. Traveling to bookstores to give talks to an audience of four; begging acquaintances to mention the latest release on their podcasts; working for years only to have your book drop the same week as some celebrity divorce and slip into oblivion: That's the life of an author. These are the indignities that only those of us with supreme faith in the healing power of books can withstand.
And it's precisely this faith in the power of the written word that ought to inspire true book lovers like us to rise to their defense. Bad books drive out good ones, which means if we care about transmitting a healthy, critical, and capacious culture of reading to our children, we need to ban bad books from school libraries. If we don't, books themselves will become meaningless, and the next generation will come to regard the written word as just another weapon in the ever-swelling arsenal of our culture wars--which is exactly how the Maoist school librarians see them.
The offensive currently mounted by publishers, PEN America, the ACLU, and just about everyone else in the corporate-nonprofit industrial complex is a dangerous one. Put crassly, the strategy is this: Publish some vile bit of smut, hail it as culturally important and virtuous (or progressive--the words are treated as synonyms), wait for some Midwestern mom to find it in her daughter's book bag and get upset, and then argue that parents who believe they have the right to choose their kids' books are mirthless Mussolinis. It's a gambit for power, and the only possible outcome is shattered trust in publishing houses, libraries, and other institutions vital to a strong civic society.
This cynical approach is already so widespread and propulsive that it's going to take equal or greater force to stop it. If we want books to matter again, we must state plainly that it's precisely because we cherish them that we refuse to let pornographic propaganda masquerade as literature in our classrooms and curricula.
It is true that you needn't reach too far back to recall masterpieces described as useless smut. See: Ulysses. But the tables, we should realize, have since turned. Now it's the publishers and the critics who are the censors, arguing not for their right to contribute to the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas but for the privilege of singlehandedly determining who gets to read what and why. Squawking about freedom of speech is rich coming from an industry that has spent the last decade publishing only its preferred minority groups and only those whose opinions it sanctions.
If we are to survive this onslaught, we must counter the duplicitous "book banning" narrative with a much stronger one that argues for the right of Americans to ensure that their children are nourished by a much more wholesome and nutritious intellectual diet.
The courts, hallelujah, seem to agree. For example, when Iowa exercised its right to remove certain books from its schools' shelves after deeming them entirely inappropriate for young children, the state was sued by a murderers' row of plaintiffs, including publishers like Random House and best-selling authors like Jodi Picoult, who all characterized the move as a violation of free speech. (By this reasoning, if school districts don't buy your book, you're being denied your constitutional rights.) A lower court blocked the law last year, but, this spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the injunction. A Florida court issued a similar ruling in a case last fall: A school library, ruled Judge Allen Winsor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, is an educational platform, not a public forum for the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. And those students who want to read the so-called banned books, the judge went on, can easily buy the books and read them to their hearts' content. It's not as though any official in Florida were blocking Amazon deliveries, although, as we know, Amazon refuses to sell certain disfavored books, which are always conservative and never progressive.
These victories should cheer us up and spur us on. Let's keep the barbarians from having complete control over our public bookshelves. That imperative isn't censorship--it's simply a duty we have to future generations of readers.
Read in First Things (https://firstthings.com/ban-the-books/).
* * *
Liel Leibovitz is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
URL: First Things
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/ban-books-liel-leibovitz
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Ban the Books
Walk into a bookstore anywhere in the country. Chances are that, somewhere toward the front, you'll see a glossy display table labeled "Banned Books." The same is true for public libraries, which give "banned books" the prominent treatment once reserved for new and noteworthy releases. At Nordstrom, they sell a "Read Banned Books" canvas ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by senior fellow Liel Leibovitz to First Things: * * * Ban the Books Walk into a bookstore anywhere in the country. Chances are that, somewhere toward the front, you'll see a glossy display table labeled "Banned Books." The same is true for public libraries, which give "banned books" the prominent treatment once reserved for new and noteworthy releases. At Nordstrom, they sell a "Read Banned Books" canvastote for $43.
Why the sudden rush to advertise the claim that books are being widely banned in America? Listen to our literati, and you'll hear a grim story: During the previous school year, the fine folks at PEN America recently informed their followers, no fewer than 6,870 book bans were imposed across the nation, or roughly eighteen bans per day. We're in the midst of an inquisition, the organization warns, that targets mainly "books by authors of color, by LGBTQ+ authors, by women," as well as books about "racism, sexuality, gender, history."
Pass the smelling salts! If this claim--advanced by our nation's premier guardian of literary freedom--is true, then we're living in a hellscape of bigotry and ignorance, with our town squares just one bonfire away from resembling Berlin's Opernplatz in 1933.
I have some good news: "Banned books" are a big, fat, dumb hoax.
Responding to PEN America's drummed-up hysteria, researchers at the Heritage Foundation set out in 2023 to test the claim, armed with a simple methodology: They printed out PEN's list of allegedly banned books, logged on to the library catalogs in the school districts where these books were supposedly being banned, and tried to see how hard it would be, in reality, for anyone to procure the contraband.
The results should not surprise you. For example, The Hate U Give is young-adult agitprop shlock about police brutality and systemic racism and other Black Lives Matter talking points. It is one of the books PEN advertises as most frequently banned. According to the organization, the novel was removed from the shelves of public schools in Goddard, Kansas. Yet the Heritage researchers logged on to the district's website and soon learned that the book was so completely suppressed that no fewer than nine copies of it were available in circulation, including three that were checked out at the time of the investigation. PEN judged the Indian River School District in Florida, another of its favorite targets, even more harshly for banning The Hate U Give. Yet in the district's library catalog, twenty copies were available. The researchers reported similar findings for 74 percent of the books PEN and others alleged were being targeted by big, bad banning campaigns.
Why make so much noise about something that isn't happening? To answer this important question, we need look no further than the lists of allegedly banned books, which PEN and other organizations publish each year. Routinely, these lists include timeless classics like The Diary of Anne Frank or Jack London's The Call of the Wild that have been singled out by some concerned school board member somewhere who disliked Frank's candid discussion of sexuality or London's penchant for socialism. But these examples are distractions because, for the most part, the lists of "banned books" feature the same repeating roster of offending titles.
One is Gender Queer, a graphic novel by Maia Kobabe. It's PornHub for the alternative teen set, complete with graphic illustrations of oral sex. Another is All Boys Aren't Blue, a self-described "memoir-manifesto" by George M. Johnson, which features more than a few wildly explicit scenes depicting gay sex between two minors. And, for those who like their stuff a little less X-rated, there's Ibram X. Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist, which argues cheerfully that "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination."
Would you like your children--or anyone's children, for that matter--to feed on morally and intellectually rotten fare of this sort? And would you feel comfortable knowing that their school's library, as a recent expose by the Free Press revealed, is very likely to shelve Kendi and Karl Marx but not at all likely to offer Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, John McWhorter, or any book that does not toe the radical progressive party line?
If the answer is "no," and if you believe you have the right--as a parent or a taxpayer--to say which books belong in your community's schools, mazal tov: You're now one of those benighted, know-nothing book banners our self-appointed moral and intellectual elites love to cackle over.
How can we combat this rampant and ruinous Maoism and its evident ambition to spur a cultural revolution? Here's a modest proposal: We should do precisely what we're falsely accused of and get on with the salutary task of banning books. En masse. With gusto.
Does this shock you? It shocks me, too: I've dedicated my life to the sacred work of reading and writing books, a calling that confers upon those foolish enough to answer it penury and the opposite of fame. Traveling to bookstores to give talks to an audience of four; begging acquaintances to mention the latest release on their podcasts; working for years only to have your book drop the same week as some celebrity divorce and slip into oblivion: That's the life of an author. These are the indignities that only those of us with supreme faith in the healing power of books can withstand.
And it's precisely this faith in the power of the written word that ought to inspire true book lovers like us to rise to their defense. Bad books drive out good ones, which means if we care about transmitting a healthy, critical, and capacious culture of reading to our children, we need to ban bad books from school libraries. If we don't, books themselves will become meaningless, and the next generation will come to regard the written word as just another weapon in the ever-swelling arsenal of our culture wars--which is exactly how the Maoist school librarians see them.
The offensive currently mounted by publishers, PEN America, the ACLU, and just about everyone else in the corporate-nonprofit industrial complex is a dangerous one. Put crassly, the strategy is this: Publish some vile bit of smut, hail it as culturally important and virtuous (or progressive--the words are treated as synonyms), wait for some Midwestern mom to find it in her daughter's book bag and get upset, and then argue that parents who believe they have the right to choose their kids' books are mirthless Mussolinis. It's a gambit for power, and the only possible outcome is shattered trust in publishing houses, libraries, and other institutions vital to a strong civic society.
This cynical approach is already so widespread and propulsive that it's going to take equal or greater force to stop it. If we want books to matter again, we must state plainly that it's precisely because we cherish them that we refuse to let pornographic propaganda masquerade as literature in our classrooms and curricula.
It is true that you needn't reach too far back to recall masterpieces described as useless smut. See: Ulysses. But the tables, we should realize, have since turned. Now it's the publishers and the critics who are the censors, arguing not for their right to contribute to the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas but for the privilege of singlehandedly determining who gets to read what and why. Squawking about freedom of speech is rich coming from an industry that has spent the last decade publishing only its preferred minority groups and only those whose opinions it sanctions.
If we are to survive this onslaught, we must counter the duplicitous "book banning" narrative with a much stronger one that argues for the right of Americans to ensure that their children are nourished by a much more wholesome and nutritious intellectual diet.
The courts, hallelujah, seem to agree. For example, when Iowa exercised its right to remove certain books from its schools' shelves after deeming them entirely inappropriate for young children, the state was sued by a murderers' row of plaintiffs, including publishers like Random House and best-selling authors like Jodi Picoult, who all characterized the move as a violation of free speech. (By this reasoning, if school districts don't buy your book, you're being denied your constitutional rights.) A lower court blocked the law last year, but, this spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the injunction. A Florida court issued a similar ruling in a case last fall: A school library, ruled Judge Allen Winsor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, is an educational platform, not a public forum for the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. And those students who want to read the so-called banned books, the judge went on, can easily buy the books and read them to their hearts' content. It's not as though any official in Florida were blocking Amazon deliveries, although, as we know, Amazon refuses to sell certain disfavored books, which are always conservative and never progressive.
These victories should cheer us up and spur us on. Let's keep the barbarians from having complete control over our public bookshelves. That imperative isn't censorship--it's simply a duty we have to future generations of readers.
Read in First Things (https://firstthings.com/ban-the-books/).
* * *
Liel Leibovitz is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
URL: First Things
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/ban-books-liel-leibovitz
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for Economic & Policy Research: How to Fix the Financialization Crisis in the Health Care System
WASHINGTON, July 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on July 13, 2026:
* * *
New Paper: How to Fix the Financialization Crisis in the Health Care System
A new policy paper lays out the state of the heavily financialized health care system, identifying seven areas where financial actors and powerful industry players have exploited existing laws and regulations for private gain at the expense of patients, workers and taxpayers. The paper recommends specific policy reforms that can rein in industry profiteering.
The paper, End Profiteering ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on July 13, 2026: * * * New Paper: How to Fix the Financialization Crisis in the Health Care System A new policy paper lays out the state of the heavily financialized health care system, identifying seven areas where financial actors and powerful industry players have exploited existing laws and regulations for private gain at the expense of patients, workers and taxpayers. The paper recommends specific policy reforms that can rein in industry profiteering. The paper, End Profiteeringin Healthcare, was written by CEPR co-director Eileen Appelbaum, Cornell University professor emeritus and CEPR senior research fellow Rosemary Batt, and Brandon Novick, CEPR's Domestic Policy Coordinator. It is being released as part of the Game Changers series, a project of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The Game Changers project seeks to identify bold, realistic policies across a range of economic issues - from health care and housing to the environment, labor, and trade - that defy conventional wisdom and offer a more compelling and inclusive vision.
The End Profiteering in Healthcare paper focuses on seven areas:
Public Infrastructure Financing
The decline of direct federal funding of construction of nonprofit hospitals and facilities leaves these healthcare organizations dependent on private financial markets. A return to a public system of loans and grants will create a more inclusive and equitable system where hospitals can put more emphasis on patients instead of the profit-seeking motives that boost their standing with financial markets.
Stronger Rules for Tax-Exempt Hospitals
Nonprofit hospitals enjoy tax-exempt status based on vague 'community benefits' standards that studies show rarely yield meaningful results for local communities. A return to stronger rules that require hospitals to provide indigent care and the enforcement of the prohibition against self-enrichment would make healthcare more equitable.
Bankruptcy Debts Should Belong to the Financiers
Financial actors and investors in the healthcare system have created heightened levels of overall financial distress and higher bankruptcy rates, especially when private equity investors are involved. Existing bankruptcy rules that make it easier for these investors to saddle providers with debt linked to mergers and acquisitions must be re-written to ensure that all interested parties with a financial interest in the healthcare entity are responsible for the debts created by financial engineering.
Stronger Staffing and Labor Rights
One of the most urgent problems facing healthcare workers and patients is understaffing, which causes hazardous and unsafe working conditions that negatively affect patient care. These staffing decisions are driven by financial calculations that boost profitability - all while CEO pay has risen dramatically. Mandated minimum staffing laws that raise nurse staffing ratios - like those in California and several other states - would improve care and bolster workers' rights. Expanding education and training programs will help deal with staffing needs across the industry.
Hospital Chain Consolidation
Decades of consolidation have undermined competition in local markets, leading to higher prices and reduced consumer choice. By 2022, 97 percent of metropolitan areas were defined as highly concentrated, with 47 percent having only one or two hospitals or health systems offering inpatient care. A robust antitrust enforcement agenda could prevent anticompetitive mergers and also break up companies with excessive market power.
Vertically Integrated Conglomerates
The healthcare industry has seen a wave of vertical integration, especially in the privatized Medicare Advantage program and the nursing home sector. The many subsidiaries of a health conglomerate provide services to each other at prices set by the parent or holding company. This encourages self-dealing that pads the conglomerate's bottom line. Stronger policies to break up these conglomerates would reduce costs and increase competition.
Replace the Patent System
The United States spends more on prescription drugs than any other country, and the existing system of patent monopolies for prescription drugs and other medical products is the main driver. Patent monopolies not only lead to exorbitant prices, but they stifle true innovation, encourage dangerous secrecy, and promote corruption. Replacing this broken system with public funding of research through contracts and prize funds would re-orient priorities towards improving public health instead of industry profits.
* * *
REPORT: https://peri.umass.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/End-Profiteering-in-Healthcare.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/new-paper-how-to-fix-the-financialization-crisis-in-the-health-care-system/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
New Paper: How to Fix the Financialization Crisis in the Health Care System
A new policy paper lays out the state of the heavily financialized health care system, identifying seven areas where financial actors and powerful industry players have exploited existing laws and regulations for private gain at the expense of patients, workers and taxpayers. The paper recommends specific policy reforms that can rein in industry profiteering.
The paper, End Profiteering ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on July 13, 2026: * * * New Paper: How to Fix the Financialization Crisis in the Health Care System A new policy paper lays out the state of the heavily financialized health care system, identifying seven areas where financial actors and powerful industry players have exploited existing laws and regulations for private gain at the expense of patients, workers and taxpayers. The paper recommends specific policy reforms that can rein in industry profiteering. The paper, End Profiteeringin Healthcare, was written by CEPR co-director Eileen Appelbaum, Cornell University professor emeritus and CEPR senior research fellow Rosemary Batt, and Brandon Novick, CEPR's Domestic Policy Coordinator. It is being released as part of the Game Changers series, a project of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The Game Changers project seeks to identify bold, realistic policies across a range of economic issues - from health care and housing to the environment, labor, and trade - that defy conventional wisdom and offer a more compelling and inclusive vision.
The End Profiteering in Healthcare paper focuses on seven areas:
Public Infrastructure Financing
The decline of direct federal funding of construction of nonprofit hospitals and facilities leaves these healthcare organizations dependent on private financial markets. A return to a public system of loans and grants will create a more inclusive and equitable system where hospitals can put more emphasis on patients instead of the profit-seeking motives that boost their standing with financial markets.
Stronger Rules for Tax-Exempt Hospitals
Nonprofit hospitals enjoy tax-exempt status based on vague 'community benefits' standards that studies show rarely yield meaningful results for local communities. A return to stronger rules that require hospitals to provide indigent care and the enforcement of the prohibition against self-enrichment would make healthcare more equitable.
Bankruptcy Debts Should Belong to the Financiers
Financial actors and investors in the healthcare system have created heightened levels of overall financial distress and higher bankruptcy rates, especially when private equity investors are involved. Existing bankruptcy rules that make it easier for these investors to saddle providers with debt linked to mergers and acquisitions must be re-written to ensure that all interested parties with a financial interest in the healthcare entity are responsible for the debts created by financial engineering.
Stronger Staffing and Labor Rights
One of the most urgent problems facing healthcare workers and patients is understaffing, which causes hazardous and unsafe working conditions that negatively affect patient care. These staffing decisions are driven by financial calculations that boost profitability - all while CEO pay has risen dramatically. Mandated minimum staffing laws that raise nurse staffing ratios - like those in California and several other states - would improve care and bolster workers' rights. Expanding education and training programs will help deal with staffing needs across the industry.
Hospital Chain Consolidation
Decades of consolidation have undermined competition in local markets, leading to higher prices and reduced consumer choice. By 2022, 97 percent of metropolitan areas were defined as highly concentrated, with 47 percent having only one or two hospitals or health systems offering inpatient care. A robust antitrust enforcement agenda could prevent anticompetitive mergers and also break up companies with excessive market power.
Vertically Integrated Conglomerates
The healthcare industry has seen a wave of vertical integration, especially in the privatized Medicare Advantage program and the nursing home sector. The many subsidiaries of a health conglomerate provide services to each other at prices set by the parent or holding company. This encourages self-dealing that pads the conglomerate's bottom line. Stronger policies to break up these conglomerates would reduce costs and increase competition.
Replace the Patent System
The United States spends more on prescription drugs than any other country, and the existing system of patent monopolies for prescription drugs and other medical products is the main driver. Patent monopolies not only lead to exorbitant prices, but they stifle true innovation, encourage dangerous secrecy, and promote corruption. Replacing this broken system with public funding of research through contracts and prize funds would re-orient priorities towards improving public health instead of industry profits.
* * *
REPORT: https://peri.umass.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/End-Profiteering-in-Healthcare.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/new-paper-how-to-fix-the-financialization-crisis-in-the-health-care-system/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Enemies of Energy - Michael Bloomberg
WASHINGTON, July 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun:
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg has been living up to his pledge to send a billion bucks to the nonprofits seeking to shut down America's major sources of energy.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center.
* * *
Donor type: direct grant maker
A September 2023 New York Times report offered this summation of local billionaire ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun: * * * Enemies of Energy: Michael Bloomberg Bloomberg has been living up to his pledge to send a billion bucks to the nonprofits seeking to shut down America's major sources of energy. Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. * * * Donor type: direct grant maker A September 2023 New York Times report offered this summation of local billionaireMichael Bloomberg:[i]
Michael Bloomberg is many things: former New York City mayor, founder of a financial data company, failed presidential candidate and the 11th richest man in the world.
Since leaving public office 10 years ago, Mr. Bloomberg, 81, has also emerged as perhaps the world's single largest funder of climate activism, making himself an expensive thorn in the side of the fossil fuel industry. The former mayor says that so far he has spent $500 million in an effort to shut down coal and gas plants. This month he said he planned to spend another $500 million on the effort.[ii]
As of March 2026, Forbes estimated Bloomberg's net worth at $109.4 billion--now good for 13th on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans and 18th on the Forbes ranking of world billionaires.[iii]
Bloomberg's major giving platform has been Bloomberg Philanthropies (previously the Bloomberg Family Foundation). The grants reported by his foundation demonstrate that Bloomberg has been living up to his pledge to send a billion bucks to the nonprofits seeking to shut down America's major sources of energy.
The most recent publicly available IRS filing from Bloomberg Philanthropies covers grants paid during 2024. The report shows at least $24.2 million in cumulative grants to five of the fifteen anti-energy NGOs profiled earlier in this report:[iv]
* Earthjustice: $8.5 million
* Environmental Defense Fund: $6 million
* Rocky Mountain Institute: $4.7 million
* World Resources Institute: $4.3 million
* Natural Resources Defense Council: $767,000
The IRS filing also shows cumulative grants of $9 million sent during 2024 from Bloomberg Philanthropies to three of the pass-through donors to anti-energy NGOs profiled in this section. [v]
* U.S. Energy Foundation: $8 million
* Windward Fund: $1 million.
The total grants for 2024 reported by Bloomberg to either the anti-energy NGOs profiled earlier in this report, or the other anti-energy donors profiled later on this list exceeded $33.2 million. [vi]
Future filings may reveal even larger commitments to the anti-energy NGOs from Bloomberg. The 2024 IRS filing includes a section for grants that have been "approved for future payment," and one of the line items is a $20.4 million grant approved for the Environmental Defense Fund. [vii]
PDF hyperlink to full report (https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf)
* * *
[i] Gelles, David. "Michael Bloomberg Dials Up a War on Plastics." New York Times. September 20, 2023. Accessed March 27, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20231001041040/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/climate/michael-blooomberg-climate-petrochemicals.html
[ii] Gelles, David. "Michael Bloomberg Dials Up a War on Plastics." New York Times. September 20, 2023. Accessed March 27, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20231001041040/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/climate/michael-blooomberg-climate-petrochemicals.html
[iii] "Michael Bloomberg." Forbes | Real time net worth. Accessed March 27, 2026. https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/?sh=4e8bbada1417
[iv] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
[v] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
[vi] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
[vii] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
REPORT:
* * *
Original text here:https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-michael-bloomberg/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg has been living up to his pledge to send a billion bucks to the nonprofits seeking to shut down America's major sources of energy.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center.
* * *
Donor type: direct grant maker
A September 2023 New York Times report offered this summation of local billionaire ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun: * * * Enemies of Energy: Michael Bloomberg Bloomberg has been living up to his pledge to send a billion bucks to the nonprofits seeking to shut down America's major sources of energy. Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. * * * Donor type: direct grant maker A September 2023 New York Times report offered this summation of local billionaireMichael Bloomberg:[i]
Michael Bloomberg is many things: former New York City mayor, founder of a financial data company, failed presidential candidate and the 11th richest man in the world.
Since leaving public office 10 years ago, Mr. Bloomberg, 81, has also emerged as perhaps the world's single largest funder of climate activism, making himself an expensive thorn in the side of the fossil fuel industry. The former mayor says that so far he has spent $500 million in an effort to shut down coal and gas plants. This month he said he planned to spend another $500 million on the effort.[ii]
As of March 2026, Forbes estimated Bloomberg's net worth at $109.4 billion--now good for 13th on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans and 18th on the Forbes ranking of world billionaires.[iii]
Bloomberg's major giving platform has been Bloomberg Philanthropies (previously the Bloomberg Family Foundation). The grants reported by his foundation demonstrate that Bloomberg has been living up to his pledge to send a billion bucks to the nonprofits seeking to shut down America's major sources of energy.
The most recent publicly available IRS filing from Bloomberg Philanthropies covers grants paid during 2024. The report shows at least $24.2 million in cumulative grants to five of the fifteen anti-energy NGOs profiled earlier in this report:[iv]
* Earthjustice: $8.5 million
* Environmental Defense Fund: $6 million
* Rocky Mountain Institute: $4.7 million
* World Resources Institute: $4.3 million
* Natural Resources Defense Council: $767,000
The IRS filing also shows cumulative grants of $9 million sent during 2024 from Bloomberg Philanthropies to three of the pass-through donors to anti-energy NGOs profiled in this section. [v]
* U.S. Energy Foundation: $8 million
* Windward Fund: $1 million.
The total grants for 2024 reported by Bloomberg to either the anti-energy NGOs profiled earlier in this report, or the other anti-energy donors profiled later on this list exceeded $33.2 million. [vi]
Future filings may reveal even larger commitments to the anti-energy NGOs from Bloomberg. The 2024 IRS filing includes a section for grants that have been "approved for future payment," and one of the line items is a $20.4 million grant approved for the Environmental Defense Fund. [vii]
PDF hyperlink to full report (https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf)
* * *
[i] Gelles, David. "Michael Bloomberg Dials Up a War on Plastics." New York Times. September 20, 2023. Accessed March 27, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20231001041040/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/climate/michael-blooomberg-climate-petrochemicals.html
[ii] Gelles, David. "Michael Bloomberg Dials Up a War on Plastics." New York Times. September 20, 2023. Accessed March 27, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20231001041040/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/climate/michael-blooomberg-climate-petrochemicals.html
[iii] "Michael Bloomberg." Forbes | Real time net worth. Accessed March 27, 2026. https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/?sh=4e8bbada1417
[iv] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
[v] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
[vi] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
[vii] Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc, (EIN: 20-5602483). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205602483/202503189349103700/full
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
REPORT:
* * *
Original text here:https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-michael-bloomberg/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: War Costs Make Up a Third of the $87.6 Billion Supplemental Request
WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by Mark F. Cancian, senior adviser with the CSIS Defense and Security Department, and Chris H. Park, research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy:
* * *
War Costs Make Up a Third of the $87.6 Billion Supplemental Request
On June 24, the White House sent Congress an $87.6 billion supplemental request. About one-third of the request appears to be driven by the costs of the Iran war. The remainder funds other administration priorities.
Analysis of funds requested ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by Mark F. Cancian, senior adviser with the CSIS Defense and Security Department, and Chris H. Park, research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy: * * * War Costs Make Up a Third of the $87.6 Billion Supplemental Request On June 24, the White House sent Congress an $87.6 billion supplemental request. About one-third of the request appears to be driven by the costs of the Iran war. The remainder funds other administration priorities. Analysis of funds requestedfor the Department of Defense (DOD) indicates that the main driver is not war costs, but rather the DOD's highest priorities based on judgments about future conflicts. This implies that some wartime costs are not in this supplemental. These might be picked up in a subsequent supplemental or be absorbed by the department in its base budget.
What's in the Supplemental?
The administration's supplemental request covers three categories of costs:
* Iran war costs: activities directly related to the war, mostly incurred by the DOD, but some by other federal agencies.
* Nonwar national security activities: high-priority administration needs that are not directly related to the war but nevertheless support U.S. national security.
* Unrelated activities: activities unrelated to national security. These are sometimes criticized as "Christmas ornaments" because agencies try to secure funding for items that failed to get into the regular budget by "hanging" them onto a supplemental request.
Note: A supplemental appropriation adds money for a fiscal year when the base budget has already been enacted. This supplemental would be for FY 2026, the current fiscal year, although it will be considered with a variety of budget measures for FY 2027.
* * *
Table 1: War Supplemental, by Cost Category
* * *
Funding for the Defense Department
The supplemental requests $67.1 billion for the DOD. The transmittal letter notes that the request includes "military personnel and readiness expenses, operational costs to rebuild stocks expended by DOW, classified programs, and other key expenses" incurred during Operation Epic Fury. Russ Vought, the Office of Management and Budget director, told Congress on June 30 that the Iran war has cost about $30 billion--about half the funds requested for the DOD. Implicitly, the rest is not directly tied to the Iran war.
There are 10 line items listed for the DOD, but they lack the detailed explanations that are provided for other departments. Allocating these items to the three categories, therefore, involves some guesswork. A more accurate accounting will be possible when the White House publishes appropriation details and justification documents. Several items in the DOD request (munitions, operational costs, cybersecurity and autonomy, and classified programs) are too broad to fit entirely within a single category and are therefore allocated across several categories.
CSIS allocated the DOD's 10 line items between Iran war costs and other national security costs based on previous war supplemental requests and so that the DOD's total war cost matched Vought's $30 billion. They are listed below in the order they were presented in the transmittal letter.
1. $1.7 billion for readiness: The DOD incurred costs to mobilize and deploy units to the Middle East.
2. $17.3 billion for operational costs: This presumably encompasses costs to operate units at a higher tempo and to replace aircraft and equipment losses. Some of the requested funds may cover costs from Operation Southern Spear and Absolute Resolve--war costs but for different wars.
3. $0.8 billion for National Guard support: National Guard units have deployed for the Iran war. Since this item may also cover the cost of National Guard deployments to the Southwest border or S. cities, half was attributed to the war.
4. $1.5 billion for fuel costs: This reflects higher DOD fuel costs due to war-related global energy disruptions.
5. $1.2 billion for administration priorities: No details are offered here, and these are presumed to be unrelated to the war.
6. $21 billion for munitions: Munitions procurement is a priority for the administration. Operation Epic Fury has exacerbated an existing inventory shortfall. The amount appears to not represent a 1:1 replacement of all expenditures. CSIS estimates $7.6 billion to be for war use. The request may prioritize needs in other theaters, such as the Pacific, or investments in the 14 "critical munitions" identified by the Munitions Acceleration Council. Some munition expenditures thus will have to be covered by the base budget or the reconciliation--the other two mechanisms the administration plans to use to fund the DOD in FY 2027.
7. $5.1 billion for cybersecurity and autonomy: While this amount is far larger than what was likely driven by the war, there may have been some wartime costs associated with offensive and defensive operations. Thus, $0.5 billion is assumed to be for wartime costs. The remainder likely funds the development of future capabilities.
8. $2.4 billion for drones: This is not described as funding replacements for the 25 MQ-9 drones lost during the war. Instead, it appears to fund future drone capabilities, adding to the amount requested in the reconciliation bill. "Drone dominance" is a stated priority for the DOD.
9. $4 billion for airborne moving target indication and space data network backbone: This funds development programs the DOD believes the U.S. military will need in the future.
10. $12.1 billion for other classified programs: Details are lacking. As with cybersecurity, the amount is far larger than would be driven by wartime operations. Thus, $1 billion is assumed to be for war-related activities in the intelligence community, with the rest going toward classified acquisition programs and intelligence community activities not directly related to the war.
A major omission is the repair and rebuilding of damaged bases. Damage was extensive, with The Washington Post identifying 228 destroyed structures. The DOD is reviewing U.S. posture in the region and has stated that it may not rebuild all of the damaged bases, so this omission is defensible.
Funding for Other Departments
Eight other agencies would receive funds in the supplemental request.
* * *
Table 2: War Supplemental, Non-DOD Funding by Category
Figure 1: War Supplemental, Non-DOD Funding by Category
* * *
Below is an agency-by-agency analysis and explanation for allocating items to the three categories: war costs, nonwar national security activities, and unrelated activities.
* Agriculture, $11,100 million total: Funding for the Department of Agriculture is the second largest request in the supplemental, after the DOD. It provides support for "row and specialty crops" and "damages from winter storms"--activities unrelated to the Iran war or national security.
* State, $3,361 million total: $400 million funds embassy repairs and U.S. citizen support for evacuation due to the Iran war, and $1.5 billion supports security improvements for U.S. diplomatic presence around the world. The remainder funds Ebola response.
* Homeland Security, $2,044 million total: Most would go to the Coast Guard, which surged operations for port security and to replace Navy assets in the Western hemisphere. Some equipment purchases included in this funding may not be war related--for example, "legacy communications equipment" --but details are lacking. $13 million funds a "classified request" unrelated to the war.
* Labor, $1,000 million total: This funds nonmilitary pension plans and is unrelated to the war or national security.
* Transportation, $1,000 million total: A Trump administration proposal to renovate New York's Penn Station would receive funding.
* Energy, $768 million total: All supports war-related activities: $672 million for the "complete and verifiable termination" of Iranian nuclear weapons program and $95.5 million for "classified activities related to the war."
* General Services Administration, $600 million total: Funds are requested for the maintenance of government facilities, including elevator repair and heating and air-conditioning.
* Interior, $500 million total: This funds National Park repairs on the World War II Memorial and tidal basin seawall.
* Treasury, $36 million total: This "classified request" is described to be unrelated to the war.
Supplemental Versus CSIS War Cost Estimate
CSIS's recent estimate, published on June 23, put the costs of the Iran war at approximately $40 billion, including $4.0-9.4 billion for repairing and rebuilding damaged bases. Analysis of the supplemental request puts the Office of Management and Budget estimate of war costs at $32.7 billion for the DOD and other federal agencies.
* * *
Table 3: Comparison of CSIS Cost of War Estimate with the Administration's Supplemental Request, Total
* * *
While the totals are comparable, there are inconsistencies in what is included, as shown in Table 4. The lack of detail in the DOD figures makes exact comparisons difficult.
* * *
Table 4: Comparison of CSIS Cost of War Estimate with the Administration's Supplemental Request, Line-by-Line
* * *
Other estimates of war costs are far higher than any of these figures. An estimate of a trillion-dollar war assumed Operation Epic Fury would be far longer and more intense than it has been. Estimates in the hundreds of billions did not account for the decline in the daily cost of the war after the first few days. This was due to U.S. forces using cheaper, shorter-range strike munitions as the coalition achieved air superiority, as well as the large decline in Iranian launches that required fewer interceptors. A detailed discussion of the difference between the various estimates can be found here.
The Budget Battle Ahead
The supplemental will likely become part of the broader budget battle as Congress considers the FY 2027 budget government wide. However, the supplemental will receive additional attention as it will likely become a focus of opposition to the war.
The administration has sent a $4.3 billion reprogramming request to Congress that would move FY 2026 funds around. Most of the money would go to Army personnel and operations. It is likely driven by an increasing number of soldiers, which had been planned for FY 2027, and not the war. A forthcoming CSIS analysis will discuss these budget dynamics.
* * *
Table 5: Breakdown of the DOD's Reprogramming Request
* * *
Meanwhile, as of July 13, the war continues. Iran has repeatedly attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States has responded with strikes. President Trump has declared the ceasefire to be "over" and that the United States should "finish the job." The framework agreement signed on June 18 gives 60 days to hammer out a final deal, but the future of U.S.-Iran diplomacy is in doubt. A full return to major combat operations would incur more costs and require developing new estimates.
* * *
Mark F. Cancian (Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, ret.) is a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Chris H. Park is a research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-costs-make-third-876-billion-supplemental-request
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
War Costs Make Up a Third of the $87.6 Billion Supplemental Request
On June 24, the White House sent Congress an $87.6 billion supplemental request. About one-third of the request appears to be driven by the costs of the Iran war. The remainder funds other administration priorities.
Analysis of funds requested ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 13, 2026, by Mark F. Cancian, senior adviser with the CSIS Defense and Security Department, and Chris H. Park, research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy: * * * War Costs Make Up a Third of the $87.6 Billion Supplemental Request On June 24, the White House sent Congress an $87.6 billion supplemental request. About one-third of the request appears to be driven by the costs of the Iran war. The remainder funds other administration priorities. Analysis of funds requestedfor the Department of Defense (DOD) indicates that the main driver is not war costs, but rather the DOD's highest priorities based on judgments about future conflicts. This implies that some wartime costs are not in this supplemental. These might be picked up in a subsequent supplemental or be absorbed by the department in its base budget.
What's in the Supplemental?
The administration's supplemental request covers three categories of costs:
* Iran war costs: activities directly related to the war, mostly incurred by the DOD, but some by other federal agencies.
* Nonwar national security activities: high-priority administration needs that are not directly related to the war but nevertheless support U.S. national security.
* Unrelated activities: activities unrelated to national security. These are sometimes criticized as "Christmas ornaments" because agencies try to secure funding for items that failed to get into the regular budget by "hanging" them onto a supplemental request.
Note: A supplemental appropriation adds money for a fiscal year when the base budget has already been enacted. This supplemental would be for FY 2026, the current fiscal year, although it will be considered with a variety of budget measures for FY 2027.
* * *
Table 1: War Supplemental, by Cost Category
* * *
Funding for the Defense Department
The supplemental requests $67.1 billion for the DOD. The transmittal letter notes that the request includes "military personnel and readiness expenses, operational costs to rebuild stocks expended by DOW, classified programs, and other key expenses" incurred during Operation Epic Fury. Russ Vought, the Office of Management and Budget director, told Congress on June 30 that the Iran war has cost about $30 billion--about half the funds requested for the DOD. Implicitly, the rest is not directly tied to the Iran war.
There are 10 line items listed for the DOD, but they lack the detailed explanations that are provided for other departments. Allocating these items to the three categories, therefore, involves some guesswork. A more accurate accounting will be possible when the White House publishes appropriation details and justification documents. Several items in the DOD request (munitions, operational costs, cybersecurity and autonomy, and classified programs) are too broad to fit entirely within a single category and are therefore allocated across several categories.
CSIS allocated the DOD's 10 line items between Iran war costs and other national security costs based on previous war supplemental requests and so that the DOD's total war cost matched Vought's $30 billion. They are listed below in the order they were presented in the transmittal letter.
1. $1.7 billion for readiness: The DOD incurred costs to mobilize and deploy units to the Middle East.
2. $17.3 billion for operational costs: This presumably encompasses costs to operate units at a higher tempo and to replace aircraft and equipment losses. Some of the requested funds may cover costs from Operation Southern Spear and Absolute Resolve--war costs but for different wars.
3. $0.8 billion for National Guard support: National Guard units have deployed for the Iran war. Since this item may also cover the cost of National Guard deployments to the Southwest border or S. cities, half was attributed to the war.
4. $1.5 billion for fuel costs: This reflects higher DOD fuel costs due to war-related global energy disruptions.
5. $1.2 billion for administration priorities: No details are offered here, and these are presumed to be unrelated to the war.
6. $21 billion for munitions: Munitions procurement is a priority for the administration. Operation Epic Fury has exacerbated an existing inventory shortfall. The amount appears to not represent a 1:1 replacement of all expenditures. CSIS estimates $7.6 billion to be for war use. The request may prioritize needs in other theaters, such as the Pacific, or investments in the 14 "critical munitions" identified by the Munitions Acceleration Council. Some munition expenditures thus will have to be covered by the base budget or the reconciliation--the other two mechanisms the administration plans to use to fund the DOD in FY 2027.
7. $5.1 billion for cybersecurity and autonomy: While this amount is far larger than what was likely driven by the war, there may have been some wartime costs associated with offensive and defensive operations. Thus, $0.5 billion is assumed to be for wartime costs. The remainder likely funds the development of future capabilities.
8. $2.4 billion for drones: This is not described as funding replacements for the 25 MQ-9 drones lost during the war. Instead, it appears to fund future drone capabilities, adding to the amount requested in the reconciliation bill. "Drone dominance" is a stated priority for the DOD.
9. $4 billion for airborne moving target indication and space data network backbone: This funds development programs the DOD believes the U.S. military will need in the future.
10. $12.1 billion for other classified programs: Details are lacking. As with cybersecurity, the amount is far larger than would be driven by wartime operations. Thus, $1 billion is assumed to be for war-related activities in the intelligence community, with the rest going toward classified acquisition programs and intelligence community activities not directly related to the war.
A major omission is the repair and rebuilding of damaged bases. Damage was extensive, with The Washington Post identifying 228 destroyed structures. The DOD is reviewing U.S. posture in the region and has stated that it may not rebuild all of the damaged bases, so this omission is defensible.
Funding for Other Departments
Eight other agencies would receive funds in the supplemental request.
* * *
Table 2: War Supplemental, Non-DOD Funding by Category
Figure 1: War Supplemental, Non-DOD Funding by Category
* * *
Below is an agency-by-agency analysis and explanation for allocating items to the three categories: war costs, nonwar national security activities, and unrelated activities.
* Agriculture, $11,100 million total: Funding for the Department of Agriculture is the second largest request in the supplemental, after the DOD. It provides support for "row and specialty crops" and "damages from winter storms"--activities unrelated to the Iran war or national security.
* State, $3,361 million total: $400 million funds embassy repairs and U.S. citizen support for evacuation due to the Iran war, and $1.5 billion supports security improvements for U.S. diplomatic presence around the world. The remainder funds Ebola response.
* Homeland Security, $2,044 million total: Most would go to the Coast Guard, which surged operations for port security and to replace Navy assets in the Western hemisphere. Some equipment purchases included in this funding may not be war related--for example, "legacy communications equipment" --but details are lacking. $13 million funds a "classified request" unrelated to the war.
* Labor, $1,000 million total: This funds nonmilitary pension plans and is unrelated to the war or national security.
* Transportation, $1,000 million total: A Trump administration proposal to renovate New York's Penn Station would receive funding.
* Energy, $768 million total: All supports war-related activities: $672 million for the "complete and verifiable termination" of Iranian nuclear weapons program and $95.5 million for "classified activities related to the war."
* General Services Administration, $600 million total: Funds are requested for the maintenance of government facilities, including elevator repair and heating and air-conditioning.
* Interior, $500 million total: This funds National Park repairs on the World War II Memorial and tidal basin seawall.
* Treasury, $36 million total: This "classified request" is described to be unrelated to the war.
Supplemental Versus CSIS War Cost Estimate
CSIS's recent estimate, published on June 23, put the costs of the Iran war at approximately $40 billion, including $4.0-9.4 billion for repairing and rebuilding damaged bases. Analysis of the supplemental request puts the Office of Management and Budget estimate of war costs at $32.7 billion for the DOD and other federal agencies.
* * *
Table 3: Comparison of CSIS Cost of War Estimate with the Administration's Supplemental Request, Total
* * *
While the totals are comparable, there are inconsistencies in what is included, as shown in Table 4. The lack of detail in the DOD figures makes exact comparisons difficult.
* * *
Table 4: Comparison of CSIS Cost of War Estimate with the Administration's Supplemental Request, Line-by-Line
* * *
Other estimates of war costs are far higher than any of these figures. An estimate of a trillion-dollar war assumed Operation Epic Fury would be far longer and more intense than it has been. Estimates in the hundreds of billions did not account for the decline in the daily cost of the war after the first few days. This was due to U.S. forces using cheaper, shorter-range strike munitions as the coalition achieved air superiority, as well as the large decline in Iranian launches that required fewer interceptors. A detailed discussion of the difference between the various estimates can be found here.
The Budget Battle Ahead
The supplemental will likely become part of the broader budget battle as Congress considers the FY 2027 budget government wide. However, the supplemental will receive additional attention as it will likely become a focus of opposition to the war.
The administration has sent a $4.3 billion reprogramming request to Congress that would move FY 2026 funds around. Most of the money would go to Army personnel and operations. It is likely driven by an increasing number of soldiers, which had been planned for FY 2027, and not the war. A forthcoming CSIS analysis will discuss these budget dynamics.
* * *
Table 5: Breakdown of the DOD's Reprogramming Request
* * *
Meanwhile, as of July 13, the war continues. Iran has repeatedly attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States has responded with strikes. President Trump has declared the ceasefire to be "over" and that the United States should "finish the job." The framework agreement signed on June 18 gives 60 days to hammer out a final deal, but the future of U.S.-Iran diplomacy is in doubt. A full return to major combat operations would incur more costs and require developing new estimates.
* * *
Mark F. Cancian (Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, ret.) is a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Chris H. Park is a research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-costs-make-third-876-billion-supplemental-request
[Category: ThinkTank]
CAP's Neera Tanden Praises State AGs for Stepping Up To Block Dangerous Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on July 13, 2026:
* * *
CAP's Neera Tanden Praises State AGs for Stepping Up To Block Dangerous Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
Today, 12 attorneys general from states across the nation filed a lawsuit to block the anticompetitive merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Trump administration recently approved the merger at the federal level amid reports that career antitrust officials who raised concerns were left out of the process. In response, Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on July 13, 2026: * * * CAP's Neera Tanden Praises State AGs for Stepping Up To Block Dangerous Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Today, 12 attorneys general from states across the nation filed a lawsuit to block the anticompetitive merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Trump administration recently approved the merger at the federal level amid reports that career antitrust officials who raised concerns were left out of the process. In response, Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for AmericanProgress, issued the following statement:
The Paramount-Warner Bros. merger is emblematic of the corrupt policies of the Trump administration. A close ally of President Donald Trump reportedly gets the Department of Justice to approve this deal over the objections of career officials in order to fuel a merger that will limit choices of Americans, probably raise their prices, and, by controlling CBS and CNN, damage democracy as well. The state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, are waging an indispensable fight on behalf of the American people.
For more information or to talk to an expert, please contact Julia Cusick at jcusick@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-caps-neera-tanden-praises-state-ags-for-stepping-up-to-block-dangerous-paramount-warner-bros-merger/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
CAP's Neera Tanden Praises State AGs for Stepping Up To Block Dangerous Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
Today, 12 attorneys general from states across the nation filed a lawsuit to block the anticompetitive merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Trump administration recently approved the merger at the federal level amid reports that career antitrust officials who raised concerns were left out of the process. In response, Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on July 13, 2026: * * * CAP's Neera Tanden Praises State AGs for Stepping Up To Block Dangerous Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Today, 12 attorneys general from states across the nation filed a lawsuit to block the anticompetitive merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Trump administration recently approved the merger at the federal level amid reports that career antitrust officials who raised concerns were left out of the process. In response, Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for AmericanProgress, issued the following statement:
The Paramount-Warner Bros. merger is emblematic of the corrupt policies of the Trump administration. A close ally of President Donald Trump reportedly gets the Department of Justice to approve this deal over the objections of career officials in order to fuel a merger that will limit choices of Americans, probably raise their prices, and, by controlling CBS and CNN, damage democracy as well. The state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, are waging an indispensable fight on behalf of the American people.
For more information or to talk to an expert, please contact Julia Cusick at jcusick@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-caps-neera-tanden-praises-state-ags-for-stepping-up-to-block-dangerous-paramount-warner-bros-merger/
[Category: ThinkTank]