Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Labor's Radical Dream of the 'General Strike'
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026:* * *
Labor's radical dream of the "general strike"
Big Labor in Europe, particularly in France, can launch strikes against the whole of society, rather than just a specific employer. Left-wing labor activists want to bring this institutionalized revolution to America.
By Michael Watson
There is one power organized labor craves above all others. One power to rule all workers, willing or not; one power to find the leftist cadres to lead street demonstrations; one power to shut down economic and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026: * * * Labor's radical dream of the "general strike" Big Labor in Europe, particularly in France, can launch strikes against the whole of society, rather than just a specific employer. Left-wing labor activists want to bring this institutionalized revolution to America. By Michael Watson There is one power organized labor craves above all others. One power to rule all workers, willing or not; one power to find the leftist cadres to lead street demonstrations; one power to shut down economic andsocial life. In the mind of leftists, this power would grant Big Labor the ability to secure Everything Leftism--open borders, Palestinian sovereignty, government-funded abortions and transgender surgeries, massive tax hikes, racial reparations, the anti-capitalist "warmth of collectivism"--and bind the nation to it all forever.
Crudely analogous to J.R.R. Tolkien's One Ring, that power is the "general strike," a union-activist led demonstration that shuts down a city, state, or entire nation for explicitly political activist purposes. It is worth interrogating that power, especially as activists--some of them on the ostensible right--propose to lift legal barriers Republicans of old placed in the way of general strikes.
What a "general strike" is
What makes a general strike "general" is that unlike a targeted work stoppage under American law (loosely, the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947), a general strike targets all employers. The work stoppage and public demonstrations (usually, but not always, accompanied by public disorder of a kind with which Minnesota residents are very familiar) is not aimed at pressuring any particular employer do anything. Instead, the objective is to force the government to capitulate to the demonstrators.
To discover what a general strike looks like in practice, look to Europe (especially France), where labor unions fueled by sectoral bargaining powers periodically try to overturn representative democracy by violence and intimidation. In Europe, unions (which are frequently aligned with radical forces like national Communist Parties) can shut down essential services (especially government-monopolized services like the railroads). French unions have tried to depose legislative leaders over tax policy and have asserted the power of social liberalism in an annual "General Feminist Strike."
The precious
For leftists infatuated with the concept of the general strike, its power goes far beyond merely expressing disgruntlement with government policy. The New York Times looked upon it and marveled:
* * *
In many countries, labor unrest has often served as a political counterweight. A wave of public-employee strikes in France, in 1995, essentially shut down the country for weeks, forcing the conservative government to abandon several proposed cuts to the welfare state. And in 2024, South Korea's second-largest union called for a general strike in the wake of the president's declaration of martial law, a move that helped persuade him to back down.
* * *
The paper sought comment from union activists (mostly affiliated with the Federal Unionists Network, a coalition of labor union activist government workers), who expressed their wishes that French-style union-fueled street struggle will come to America. Commenting on increased activism by federal worker unions, which are barred by law from striking, it reports:
* * *
"If we could strike -- I'm not implying anything -- I think it would make a big difference," Kelley, the president of A.F.G.E., told me. Federal workers have struck before, notably in 1970, when 200,000 postal workers staged a wildcat strike that won them higher wages and the right, unprecedented for employees of the federal government, to bargain for wages and benefits. But the legacy of the 1981 air traffic controllers strike, and the Reagan administration's harsh reprisal, continues to cast a pall on the labor movement. (In 1980, there were 187 major strikes; in 2024, there were 31.)
* * *
One does not simply walk into the Paris Commune
There are barriers to the leftist workers' paradise. First and foremost are the workers--a fact even AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler admitted to the Times. As it reports:
* * *
Liz Shuler, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., who represents 15 million private- and public-sector workers, told me that internal data shows workers are not ready for a general strike. "We are not there," she said. "There's a lot of deep education and mobilization that's happening within our unions to get us ready for a moment where we might need to strategically call for a one-day strike or a strike in a particular industry."
* * *
The writer's disappointment drips from the Times page, and if the framing is accurate, arguably Shuler's comment conveys it as well. Judge Glock of the Manhattan Institute pointed out that "For over a century the "general strike" has been seen as a semi-revolutionary act designed to fundamentally upset society. Liz Shuler is treating it as just a matter of time."
The last alliance of Taft and Hartley
And there enters the second barrier to a general strike: the capstone legislation of the late Sen. Robert A. Taft (R-OH), the "Mister Republican" of the 1930s and 1940s. After a massive strike wave hit post-war America from 1945 through 1946--perhaps the closest the United States has come to a general strike--the public in its justified wrath raised the moribund Republican Party from the dead and gave it control of Congress. (The GOP had been locked out of federal authority since the Great Depression.)
With Sen. Taft running point, that Republican Congress, with support from union-skeptical Democrats, passed labor-reform legislation that would carry Taft's name and that of his House counterpart, Rep. Fred Hartley (R-NJ) long after his 1953 demise. Their Taft-Hartley legislation came to define the Republican approach to labor relations for the following 80 years. The law contained numerous provisions (most notably the provision protecting state-level "right to work" laws allowing dissenting nonmembers not to financially support labor unions), but the one most relevant to the leftist dream of the general strike is the prohibition on "secondary boycotts" or "secondary strikes."
Essentially, the Taft-Hartley Act bans unions from striking except to change their own employer's behavior. (For a more comprehensive explanation of what is banned, the National Labor Relations Board provides one. It's complicated.) Since a general strike targets someone else (usually the government), federal legal protections for strikes and strike-related damage do not apply.
Sectoral bargaining
Perhaps the worst move that would empower a "general strike" would be granting unions "sectoral bargaining" powers to speak for tens of millions of unwilling workers. (Sectoral bargaining permits collective bargaining against entire industries--sectors-- rather than against specific firms within the sector.) In 2024, I presented four cases against adopting the practice; all apply to the general strike.
Practically, allowing sectoral bargaining all but guarantees general strikes, reversing 80 years of Republican (and frankly national) consensus that civilians and the national economy should be protected from the effects of work stoppages. Unions that would wield the general strike are overwhelmingly partisan for progressive Democratic interests, even though working Americans are as evenly divided as the country. (In 2024, even union households were only about as Democratic as the state of Maine, even as union political contributions were about as Democratic as the District of Columbia.) Those unions are fundamentally collectivist and hostile to traditional American individualism and exceptionalism. And the economic case that sectoral-bargaining unions that general-strike so often it becomes a national stereotype (cough *France* cough) hurt the economy remains as clear as ever.
Unmaking the threat
The dream of a general strike, and the AFL-CIO entertaining it, is yet another indication that as Big Labor becomes increasingly unrepresentative of American workers, its politics will become increasingly unhinged and leftist. And the leaderships of interest groups do not become saner and more centrist when given more power, as they would under a French-style sectoral bargaining regime. Such a policy would make the threat of the general strike for leftist ends more real, not less real. As I have written before:
Expanding union power through sectoral bargaining, whether or not that comes with bigger union budgets filled with forced dues, will further empower these left-wing ideologues. It is these ideologues, not the union membership at large and certainly not a minority (however substantial) of that membership, who decide how unions operate. Some have argued that organized labor can be a counter to the coordination of "woke capitalism" and the elite-class formal institutions. If anything, organized labor is a vehicle to increase the coordination of the elite formal institutions, and through ESG investing of pension funds organized labor is a perpetrator, not an opponent, of woke capitalism.
Keep French labor relations in France. Leave Taft-Hartley alone. Throw the "general strike," a leftist dream, into the fire.
* * *
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/labors-radical-dream-of-the-general-strike/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Gazprom Increasing Natural Gas Exports to Georgia
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Feb. 3, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Gazprom Increasing Natural Gas Exports to Georgia
By Giorgi Menabde
Executive Summary:
* On January 14, Russian energy giant Gazprom announced its natural gas supplies to Georgia increased by more than 40 percent between 2024 and 2025. Russian natural gas supplies to Georgia have been growing steadily since 2021, strengthening Moscow's influence over Georgian energy supplies.
* Moscow has repeatedly wielded energy access to exert pressure on Georgia. In 2006, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Feb. 3, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Gazprom Increasing Natural Gas Exports to Georgia By Giorgi Menabde Executive Summary: * On January 14, Russian energy giant Gazprom announced its natural gas supplies to Georgia increased by more than 40 percent between 2024 and 2025. Russian natural gas supplies to Georgia have been growing steadily since 2021, strengthening Moscow's influence over Georgian energy supplies. * Moscow has repeatedly wielded energy access to exert pressure on Georgia. In 2006,during a crisis in Russian-Georgian relations, Russia completely cut off fuel supplies to Georgia following a suspicious gas pipeline explosion in North Ossetia.
* The Georgian opposition and independent experts say that an increased share of Russian gas in Georgia's energy market will lead to greater deference to Moscow. Georgia's increasing Azerbaijani natural gas supplies, in contrast, have historically strengthened the country's pro-Western development.
On January 13, several Georgian media outlets, including Formula TV and Business Media Georgia, reported that the Georgian Government published a decree, dated December 20, 2025, on its official website with an annex containing details of a deal between Gazprom Export and the Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation (GOGC) (Business Media Georgia, January 13; Facebook/TVFormula, accessed February 4). The government soon removed the decree (Business Media Georgia, January 15). The decree provided information on the cost of natural gas purchased from Gazprom, a Russian majority-state-owned oil company. The Georgian government still published the annex to the document together with the decree, despite it being formally classified as a commercial secret. This deal is another example of Moscow wielding energy access to exert pressure on Georgia to strengthen its influence over the country.
The annex describes how the natural gas GOGC purchases from Gazprom is then sold to State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR)-Georgia gas, Georgia's largest gas distributor. The contract states that the price for the first 250 million cubic meters of Russian gas is $215 per 1,000 cubic meters, and any volume above 2050 cubic meters is sold at $185 per 1,000 cubic meters (Business Media Georgia, January 13). Business Media Georgia previously reported that Georgia had been paying $185 per 1,000 cubic meters in 2023 and 2024, based on import volumes and total payments. The government had not officially disclosed these details until now (Business Media Georgia, January 13).
The annex disappeared from the government's official site shortly after these independent media reports. On January 15, Georgia's State Security Service (SSSG) said it launched a criminal investigation into "sabotage" and the "unauthorized penetration of a government computer system." The SSSG claims, "The investigation was initiated on the basis of information received from the Administration of the Government of Georgia, stating that a suspected cyberattack and certain manipulations were carried out on the administration's website" (Tvpirveli, January 20).
David Avalishvili, from the Georgian outlet Nation.ge, said in a January 24 interview with this author that the documents were presumably published by mistake by government employees, and Gazprom could sue Georgia for disclosing classified information (Author's Interview, January 24).
The scandal surrounding the publication of secret agreements with the Russian energy giant only confirmed unofficial reports that, starting in 2021 and 2022, Gazprom has been steadily increasing its share of the Georgian natural gas market. Experts were able to accurately calculate the specific volumes of natural gas supplied from Russia and identified an upward trend in the amounts Georgia paid Russia for the gas, despite the specific volumes never being officially published (Radio Tavisupleba, January 13; Civil Georgia, January 14). Geostat, the Georgian government statistics agency, regularly published these figures (Geostat, accessed February 4). According to these calculations and the Natural Gas Balance approved by the Ministry of Economy, Georgia purchased 200 million cubic meters of gas from Russia in 2021. This volume amounts to just 7.32 percent of Georgia's total gas consumption for 2021, which was 2.73 billion cubic meters. In 2021, gas from Azerbaijan accounted for 92.3 of Georgia's total consumption. On January 14, Gazprom confirmed that it supplied 40.4 percent more gas to Georgia in 2025 than in 2024 as part of a broader increase in gas exports to the People's Republic of China (PRC), Central Asia, and the South Caucasus (Telegram/@gazprom, January 12; Civil Georgia, January 14).
Former president of the State (Central) Bank of Georgia, economics and energy expert Roman Gotsiridze, told this author that Gazprom's natural gas exports to Georgia reached 1.1 billion cubic meters in 2025 (Author's Interview, January 20). Georgia's total consumption last year was 3.2 billion cubic meters. Gotsiridze said, "Georgia also receives 5 percent of its natural gas as transit fees for natural gas from the Caspian shelf that runs through the South Caucasus pipeline, which belongs to the British petroleum-led 'Shah Deniz consortium'" (Author's Interview, January 20). According to Gotsiridze, following the agreement between Georgia's state energy company and the Shah Deniz consortium, Georgia is purchasing another 500 million cubic meters of natural gas from the consortium at a preferential price, which in 2025 was only $70 per 1,000 cubic meter. Going on, he said:
* * *
In total, Georgia received about 1.7 billion cubic meters of natural gas from the consortium free of charge or at a reduced price ... Until recently, almost all remaining natural gas in Georgia was supplied by the Azerbaijani state energy company SOCAR (Author's Interview, January 20).
* * *
The expert expressed confidence that Gazprom reached an agreement with SOCAR to increase Russian natural gas supplies to Georgia. In doing so, "Azerbaijan received the opportunity to sell more of its gas ... to Turkiye and Europe" (Author's Interview, January 20).
Petre Tsiskarishvili, general secretary of the United National Movement (UNM) opposition party, argued that dependence on Russian gas has often had tragic consequences for Georgia (Author's Interview, December 17, 2025). He recalled the 2006 gas pipeline explosion on Russian territory, which left Georgia without fuel during a cold winter (Civil Georgia, January 22, 2006). Tsiskarishvili said:
* * *
We never doubted that this was an act of sabotage by Moscow aimed at punishing Georgia for its pro-Western course. That is why our government, under President Mikheil Saakashvili, developed relations with Azerbaijan and the international consortium, not Gazprom (Author's Interview, December 17, 2025).
* * *
Georgia received 10 percent of its natural gas as payment for the transit of Russian gas to Armenia until 2017, when Gazprom forced the Georgian authorities to agree to the "monetization" of the transit fee (Civil Georgia, January 11, 2017). This change was Moscow's first step in a long-term strategy to increase its influence over Georgia through the energy sector. By 2025, thanks to this strategy, Moscow had increased its share of the Georgian natural gas market from 7.32 percent to 25-30 percent, and it appears there is more to come. These trends indicate that Moscow will continue to exert pressure on Georgia through the natural gas market, maintaining its position in the South Caucasian country and Tbilisi's deference to Moscow.
* * *
Giorgi Menabde is a journalist based in Georgia. He has collaborated with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio France International, Kommersant, the Carnegie Moscow Center, Vestikavkaza, Nezavisimaya gazeta, in addition to Georgian newspapers, including 7 Day, Msgepsi, Temi, Droeba, Kvirioni, Mimomxilveli, Republic of Georgia, Free Georgia, Meridiani, Dilis gazeti, Dron, and Alia. He is also an author for the analytical resource Experti.ge.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/gazprom-increasing-natural-gas-exports-to-georgia/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Moscow and Ankara to Lose Status as Guarantors of Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Moscow and Ankara to Lose Status as Guarantors of Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan
By Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic is--with Baku's approval--moving to drop references in its constitution to the 1921 Moscow and Kars treaties, which made Moscow and Ankara guarantors of the non-contiguous Azerbaijani territory.
* These moves effectively abrogate the Moscow and Kars treaties and put the borders and status of the Nakhchivan Autonomous ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Moscow and Ankara to Lose Status as Guarantors of Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan By Paul Goble Executive Summary: * Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic is--with Baku's approval--moving to drop references in its constitution to the 1921 Moscow and Kars treaties, which made Moscow and Ankara guarantors of the non-contiguous Azerbaijani territory. * These moves effectively abrogate the Moscow and Kars treaties and put the borders and status of the Nakhchivan AutonomousRepublic under Baku's sole discretion, potentially opening the way for future changes in either.
* Turkiye is unlikely to be upset because more recent agreements secure its standing with Azerbaijan, but Russia may oppose these developments as an additional sign of Baku's increasing independence from Moscow.
The status of Azerbaijan's non-contiguous autonomous region, Nakhchivan, one of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's most fateful acts of ethnic engineering more than a century ago, is about to change. The parliament of the autonomous republic asked Baku to approve new constitutional language that drops any reference to the Moscow and Kars treaties of 1921, which made Moscow and Ankara guarantors of the status and borders of Nakhchivan (Minval Politika, February 2). The Azerbaijani parliament took this step on February 2 (Azernews, February 2). That move effectively puts the status and borders of the autonomous region--a place increasingly important as part of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) (also referred to as the Zangezur Corridor) linking Azerbaijan and the West-- exclusively under Baku's discretion. This constitutional change opens the way for future changes in either. The Turkish government is unlikely to be disturbed by this move because its standing with Azerbaijan has been secured by more recent bilateral treaties (see EDM, January 22, 28). Moscow, however, is likely to oppose this development as another sign of Azerbaijan's increasingly independent stance and Russia's loss of leverage in the South Caucasus. This loss makes this move particularly infuriating because it comes on the eve of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance's visit to that region (Minval Politika; Azernews, February 2).
The history of Nakhchivan over the last century has been fraught. When the Red Army restored Moscow's control over the region in July 1920, it first assigned the territory to Armenia but later transferred it to Azerbaijan. To ensure Soviet control of the South Caucasus and to block Turkiye from having an uninterrupted ground path to Azerbaijan and Central Asia, Stalin, as Soviet Russia's People's Commissar for Nationality Affairs at that time, drew borders in the region that separated Nakhchivan from Azerbaijan proper with the Armenian Syunik oblast in between. To make that permanent, the Kremlin arranged for the signing of two treaties between Soviet Russia and Turkiye in 1921, the Treaty of Moscow and the Treaty of Kars, which declared that while Nakhchivan was part of and under the protection of Azerbaijan, Moscow and Ankara were the guarantors of both its status and its borders. After the Soviet Union was formed in 1922, Nakhchivan formally became part of Azerbaijan. This arrangement continued until near the end of Soviet times, when, during the parade of sovereignties, Nakhchivan declared itself an independent republic. In 1991, after the Soviet Union disintegrated, it became part of Azerbaijan, albeit a non-contiguous one.
Even during the Soviet period, many Azerbaijanis dreamed of recovering the Zangezur corridor between Azerbaijan proper and Nakhchivan, much as many Armenians hoped to annex Karabakh, where ethnic Armenians had a majority, to Armenia. Until the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia broke out in 1988, however, Azerbaijanis could travel through Armenia to Nakhchivan, and ethnic Armenians in Azerbaijan, including Karabakh, could travel to Armenia because the entire region remained under Soviet control. After the so-called first Karabakh war, that changed. For most of the war, from 1988 to 1994, Armenia controlled Karabakh and neighboring portions of Azerbaijan while Azerbaijan was blocked from using the Zangezur corridor through Armenian territory to reach Nakhchivan and trade with Turkiye and the West. From 1994 to 2020, Nagorno-Karabakh was effectively independent but with economic, political, and military reliance on Armenia. Recurrent clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued in the region. In 2020, when Azerbaijani forces recaptured most of Karabakh during the six-week Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the issue of Zangezur, as Azerbaijanis refer to the corridor, heated up again, especially as trade through it became more important to more parties, including the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the European Union (see EDM, October 11, 2023, September 19, 2024).
The international system has understandable apprehension about any changes to state borders, and Russia and Iran have specific opposition to shifts in the South Caucasus (see EDM, July 29, 2025). Almost all governments have opposed any change in the political status of the corridor between Azerbaijan proper and Nakchivan, rejecting the possibility of a swap earlier and, more recently, proposing alternatives, including a route through Iran./[1] Despite that history, however, many observers remain convinced that neither Baku nor Ankara will ever give up hopes of putting the Zangezur corridor under full Azerbaijani control (Window on Eurasia, January 15, 2024).
Speculation about that has only intensified since the August 2025 meeting between Baku and Yerevan in Washington. On the one hand, many in the West viewed the steps toward peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan accomplished at the summit and the plans for a U.S.-regulated transportation route (the TRIPP) between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan as a solution (see EDM, September 8, 2025). On the other hand, some in Moscow and Tehran saw it not only as a threat to north-south trade but to their influence in the region, given the expanded U.S. role. Some viewed it simply as another move toward the establishment of Azerbaijani control over that route and ultimately of Azerbaijani sovereignty (Window on Eurasia, September 24, 2024, August 12, 2025; see EDM, January 22). The history of the region, especially the developments of the last year, provides context for understanding these moves, as do the constitutional changes in Nakhchivan.
The effects of these changes are certain to be greatest in Azerbaijan. Baku has not formally denounced the 1921 accords, however, and the Azerbaijani government could back away from its latest move if circumstances require. In the short term, however, this action will certainly be read as a declaration by Baku that it will continue to pursue an ever more independent international role, one that rejects Russian efforts to control its policies and others' efforts to dominate it. That, in effect, returns Baku to the position it sought during the First Azerbaijani Republic after the Russian Revolution, when it sought to be an independent regional actor of the first rank. Over the longer term, what has just happened opens the way for Baku to suppress Nakhchivan's autonomy, reduce it to the status of the other regions of the country, and even seek changes to its borders and, by extension, to Azerbaijan's borders as a whole. Many in Azerbaijan could see this as a commitment to eventually making Azerbaijan whole (Window on Eurasia, January 15, 2024).
Other international players will also be affected. Russia will certainly play up that threat, not only to try to force Baku to back down but also to undermine the increasing cooperation of the Armenian government with Azerbaijan. Moscow could also take broader steps to seek to replace the current government in Yerevan lest Armenia moves to cooperate closely with Azerbaijan as it is now doing, and even seek to close the Russian base in Gyumri. The current Iranian government will also likely continue to do what it can to torpedo U.S. involvement in the corridor between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan (see EDM, July 29, 2025). Nakhchivan's latest moves with Baku's support--actions that might appear to some as a kind of diplomatic house cleaning--seem certain to have a major effect on the geopolitics of the South Caucasus now and in the future.
[1] On a possible swap, see this author's "Coping with the Karabakh Crisis," Fletcher Forum, 16:2 (1992); for a discussion of the fate of this idea, see Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty via reliefweb, June 9, 2000. For the alternative route via Iran, see Window on Eurasia, November 19, 2023.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/moscow-and-ankara-to-lose-status-as-guarantors-of-azerbaijans-nakhchivan/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CRC News: Helpers of the ICE opposition
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following news:* * *
CRC News: Helpers of the ICE opposition
The NGOs giving advice to ICE protesters and the mysteries of USAID spending top the list of recent media hits for CRC and InfluenceWatch.
The Washington Times (Rowan Scarborough)-- Expect more Democrat cover-ups to be revealed: The left loves to sweep fraud under the rug
Parker Thayer, an investigator for Capital Research Center, just published a list of groups that received over $4 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development. President Joe Biden turned ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following news: * * * CRC News: Helpers of the ICE opposition The NGOs giving advice to ICE protesters and the mysteries of USAID spending top the list of recent media hits for CRC and InfluenceWatch. The Washington Times (Rowan Scarborough)-- Expect more Democrat cover-ups to be revealed: The left loves to sweep fraud under the rug Parker Thayer, an investigator for Capital Research Center, just published a list of groups that received over $4 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development. President Joe Biden turnedUSAID into a taxpayer-financed political op. Mr. Thayer showed spreadsheets of USAID payments to groups whose names are concealed and referred to as "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees."
What is the American taxpayer financing? We have no idea.
* * *
Chronicle of Philanthropy--How One Foundation Built a Board That's Standing Up to Trump: Young, racially diverse trustees who include several grantees are helping the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation hold the line on equity despite threats from the administration.
But critics question the outcomes of diversity efforts that prioritize race, gender, and sexual orientation in the way RWJF has remade its board. The result is a collection of individuals who make decisions from the same liberal worldview. "Grant making is going to reflect insularity, a narrowing -- you have to be 'in the club,'" says Michael Hartmann, a senior fellow at the Capital Research Center, a conservative advocacy group.
* * *
California Globe--Arizona Migrant Rights Groups Exposed in Viral Harassment Incident Amid ICE Raids--Protester Tied to AG Mayes and Rep Stanton: Puente Human Rights Movement and Mijente's tax filings should be audited due to their ties to political figures and continued obstruction of law enforcement
Mijente, a 501(c)(4) Chicano activist organization, is associated with Mijente Support Committee, a 501(c)(3) funded by billionaire philanthropists, including George Soros' Tides foundation.
According to Influence Watch:
In conjunction with the AFL-CIO labor union, Mijente Support Committee published a toolkit for activists and employers to resist raids and audits from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce immigration-related employment laws. In 2022, the organization spent $3,944,202 on its program activities.
Mijente Support Committee runs several left-of-center activist campaigns. Its No Tech for ICE campaign opposes the use of technology by Department of Homeland Security agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Bureau to identify and deport illegal immigrants. 12 The "Chinga la Migra" campaign (Spanish for "F**k ICE") opposes immigration raids and deportations. 13 Las Vidas Negras Importan campaign supports the far-left Black Lives Matter Movement.
* * *
The Federalist--Exclusive: House Judiciary Committee Probes Leftist Group Helping To Cement Biden's Border Invasion
On Friday, Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, sent a letter requesting information from Acacia Center for Justice (ACJ) Executive Director Shaina Aber about her organization's efforts "to help illegal aliens remain in the United States at the expense of the American taxpayer." As described by InfluenceWatch, the ACJ "is a left-of-center advocacy organization that provides legal advice and counsel to illegal immigrants, including those facing deportation proceedings."
* * *
JUNGE FREIHEIT (Germany)--"Influence Watch" research initiative: How US philanthropy finances left-wing networks around the world
They operate in secret and mobilize millions of people - NGOs (non-governmental organizations) . Take demonstrations, for example: What often appears at first glance to be spontaneous outrage is in reality the result of years of highly professional organization - financed with billions from foundations of self-proclaimed philanthropists and through sometimes opaque channels. The " Influence Watch " project of the conservative think tank Capital Research Center (CRC) has been meticulously exposing precisely these networks for years. JUNGE FREIHEIT spoke with Scott Walter, president of the investigative think tank CRC.
NGOs are a political force capable of mobilizing the masses, and not just in Europe. A slogan on a protest sign has an almost empowering ring to it: "Now it is our duty to remain vigilant, to stand together, and to continue resisting." The president is ruling like an autocratic monarch. The person in question is Donald Trump--not Nicolas Maduro. "America has no kings, and power belongs to the people," is another slogan of the so-called "No Kings" movement, which has become active again after the US intervention in Venezuela. The streets are seething once more.
Walter: "The American left is masterfully organized."
* * *
Hoodline (San Antonio)-- Northside GOP Slugfest, LaHood vs. McArthur Blows Past $1 Million
LaHood is not exactly going it alone either. Pro LaHood groups and newer advocacy outfits have scrambled to defend the first term incumbent, airing ads that say he stood up to big insurers and trucking interests. One of those organizations, the Citizens for Integrity and Accountability Foundation, has run pro LaHood messaging and is profiled on InfluenceWatch, which details the group's formation and ad campaigns. The result is a crowded field of outside spenders, each pushing its own version of what the Republican primary should be about.
* * *
Resist the Mainstream--Capital Research Center Raises Red Flags Over Somali-Led Columbus Foundation's $1.2M in Taxpayer Funding: Report
Federal and state authorities are scrutinizing the UNIK Foundation, a Columbus-based nonprofit led by Dr. Hanad Duale, after public records revealed opaque financial practices despite over $1 million in taxpayer funding.
The findings were uncovered by Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher with Capital Research Center, a nonprofit watchdog that monitors transparency and accountability in tax-funded organizations.
[...]
This situation highlights why strict transparency is critical when public funds flow to nonprofits serving vulnerable communities," said one government oversight analyst. "Even without evidence of wrongdoing, the concentration of funds and lack of independent accounting raises serious questions."
[...]
Capital Research's findings provide a detailed starting point for officials and the public to assess how taxpayer dollars are managed and whether greater oversight is warranted.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/crc-news-helpers-of-the-ice-opposition/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: CMS' Third IRA Negotiation List - Selections, Signals, and Potential Savings
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026:* * *
CMS' Third IRA Negotiation List: Selections, Signals, and Potential Savings
By Michael Baker
Executive Summary
* The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the third round of selected drugs for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, the implementation of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)-authorized government price-setting for prescription drugs.
* This round - which will have an initial pay applicability year (IPAY) of 2028 - includes high spend, single source ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026: * * * CMS' Third IRA Negotiation List: Selections, Signals, and Potential Savings By Michael Baker Executive Summary * The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the third round of selected drugs for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, the implementation of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)-authorized government price-setting for prescription drugs. * This round - which will have an initial pay applicability year (IPAY) of 2028 - includes high spend, single sourcedrugs in Part D and, for the first time, in Part B; this round represents 1.8 million beneficiaries and separately includes a renegotiation of a previously selected drug.
* While the IPAY 2028 process is just beginning, it is important to understand the selections that were made and the next steps in the negotiation process - and to remember that no data has yet been collected on the impact of the drug negotiation regime on Medicare expenditures or beneficiary costs and access.
Introduction
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the 15 drugs selected for the third cycle of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (MDNP) under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with the eventual negotiated prices - maximum fair prices (MFPs) - set to take effect January 1, 2028. For the first time, the selection pool for initial pay applicability year (IPAY) 2028 includes drugs payable under Part B alongside Part D drugs.
Through successive selection cycles, as the highest spend and highest utilized drugs have been picked, the impacted beneficiary population and the total Medicare spending on the available drugs has slowly shrunk. The selected drugs in this cohort represent approximately 1.8 million Medicare beneficiaries and Part B and Part D expenditures totaling roughly $27 billion. In another new front, CMS also identified the program's first renegotiation. The IRA set three explicit criteria for the potential renegotiation of a drug, including changes to its monopoly status, changes in the approved indications, or sufficient enough time has passed that the initial Maximum Fair Price (MFP) could be renegotiated for substantial savings.
Although the IPAY 2028 process is just beginning and there are many iterations of input and negotiations to work through, it is important to understand the selections that were made and the next steps in the negotiation process. Even more importantly, there is a cautionary tale that should be remembered throughout the IRA drug negotiation process: no data has been collected as of yet on the impact of the drug negotiation regime on Medicare expenditures or beneficiary costs and access.
Calendar Year 2026 Selected Drugs
In the third negotiation cycle, the most notable change is that CMS is now including Part B-payable drugs into the selection framework. Below is the list of selected drugs, with aggregated Part B/Part D expenditures and beneficiary utilization numbers.
The composition of the selected drugs reflects a shift toward higher-cost specialty therapies, including several drugs used in oncology and immunology, alongside high-spend chronic therapies. CMS reported that about 1.8 million Medicare beneficiaries used the selected products in the measurement window and that total Part B and Part D expenditures for the cohort were roughly $27 billion (about 6 percent of combined Part B/Part D drug spending). The level of spending suggests a list that is not only large in aggregate dollars but also relatively concentrated among a handful of products at the top - an important feature when thinking about where negotiated savings would most likely accrue.
Using Past Negotiation Results to Estimate Potential Savings
To understand the potential impacts of negotiations on selected drugs, past savings rates were used to as a starting point for a third-cycle savings range:
* First cycle (IPAY 2026; 10 Part D drugs): CMS estimated that if the MFPs had been in effect in 2023, Medicare would have saved $6 billion in net covered prescription drug costs, representing 22 percent lower net spending across those drugs.
* Second cycle (IPAY 2027; 15 Part D drugs): CMS stated that if those MFPs had been in effect in 2024, they would have saved $8.5 billion in net covered drug costs inclusive of Coverage Gap Discount Program spending - about 36 percent lower net spending in aggregate. (CMS has also described this cycle as $12 billion in net savings under a different net savings convention.)
A reasonable, CMS-anchored estimate is therefore to apply a 22-44 percent net savings rate to the third-cycle cohort's $27 billion baseline expenditures.
Resulting annualized savings range:
* Low (22 percent): $5.9 billion
* Mid (36 percent): $9.7 billion
* High (44 percent): $11.9 billion
Renegotiation
Under the MDNP's renegotiation framework (which begins for IPAY 2028), CMS must look back to drugs that were already negotiated for 2026 or 2027 to determine whether any of them should be renegotiated in line with the criteria listed in the IRA. In IPAY 2028, the only drug that qualifies for renegotiation is Tradjenta.
CMS starts with the set of previously selected drugs for which the agency has not determined that a generic or biosimilar is both approved or licensed and marketed, focusing renegotiation attention on products that remain functionally single source in the market. Next, CMS identifies which of those drugs are "renegotiation-eligible" based on whether: (a) the drug's monopoly status has changed to long monopoly since the original negotiation, (b) the drug has received a new indication, or (c) there has been a material change in one of the statutory negotiation factors used in the original negotiation.
If these criteria are met, CMS indicates that all drugs eligible due to a change in monopoly status will be selected for renegotiation. Drugs that are eligible because of a new indication or material change are selected when CMS believes renegotiation is likely to produce a significant change in the MFP. Such a change is defined in guidance as a renegotiated MFP that is likely to be at least 15 percent different from the current MFP and likely to impact the Medicare program - evaluated through a holistic review of the available information and circumstances.
Why the Third Cycle Could Land Above - or Below - Historical Levels
A few policy mechanics will determine where actual results fall inside (or outside) the above estimated savings. The inclusion of Part B changes the topline savings that CMS may be able to claim in this round. Part B drugs are reimbursed off average sale price-based methodologies and interact with provider "buy-and-bill" incentives. Adding Part B expands the addressable spend, but it also introduces new behavioral channels (site-of-care shifts, alternative selection, utilization management) that can dampen or amplify savings relative to Part D-only rounds.
The net vs. gross price also matters more for specialty drugs. The first cycle's 22 percent-savings rate is explicitly measured against net spending (after rebates/fees). Specialty biologics can have very different rebate profiles than high-volume retail drugs, so you should expect meaningful dispersion around any single "average" savings rate.
Forthcoming Timelines for the IPAY 2028 Cycle
At this juncture, the basic timeline has become routine for interested stakeholders. The next milestones are set in statute:
* February 28, 2026: Deadline for participating drug companies for the third cycle of negotiations to sign agreements to participate in the negotiation program.
* March 1, 2026: Deadline for participating drug companies to submit manufacturer-specific data to CMS for consideration in the negotiation of an MFP.
* April 2026: CMS will host patient-focused and clinical-focused public engagement sessions.
* June 1, 2026: Deadline for CMS to send an initial offer of an MFP for a selected drug with a concise justification to each drug company participating in the Negotiation Program.
One key difference, however, is having reached IPAY2026, where concrete data will begin to show both CMS and industry the impact of MFP on sales, and may inform the level of savings that each side may be comfortable with accepting.
A Continued Cautionary Tale
Although the drug selection process for the MDNP is a predictable policy baseline at this point, it is worth pausing to consider a basic reality in the program's implementation. As mentioned above, the health care sector is only at the very beginning of observing what the first negotiated prices do in practice. Basic utilization and spending metrics rely on data that are not instantaneous - claims and encounter-level analyses typically lag - and early-month snapshots are vulnerable to noise, seasonality, and one-time operational adjustments that do not represent steady-state effects.
The initial tranche - 10 Part D drugs with MFPs published in August 2024 - only became effective at the pharmacy counter on January 1, 2026, meaning there has been, at most, a single month of post-effectuation experience as of early February 2026. In that context, most of what is "known" today is still prospective: CMS has provided negotiated prices and counterfactual estimates of what those prices would have done if applied earlier, rather than documented, claims-based results from 2026.
Those numbers are informative for magnitude, but they are not the same as observing realized savings after implementation, because realized savings require measurement of what flows through the Part D payment system. It also requires understanding how Part D plans operationalize the new pricing environment - through formulary placement, tiering, prior authorization, preferred pharmacy networks, and bidding assumptions - and how pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and manufacturers adjust contracting behavior in response.
Utilization impacts are similarly not simple to measure: lower prices can improve affordability and persistence for some patients, but plans may also re-optimize benefit design and steering in ways that shift volume within a therapeutic class, and prescribers may respond to changing relative prices by switching some patients to alternatives. Each of these channels can move total spending even when unit prices fall. Quality outcomes are even further behind the calendar: If a policy goal is better adherence and fewer downstream complications, that requires months (often years) of follow-up and careful attribution, especially because drug utilization and outcomes are influenced by multiple concurrent factors.
Conclusion
CMS's latest announcement on the MDNP is notable not only for the products themselves - several of which are among Medicare's highest-spend therapies in oncology, immunology, HIV, and cardiometabolic disease - but also because this is the first cycle in which both Part D and Part B drugs are included. Applying historical percentages to the third-cycle cohort's reported spending base yields an illustrative range of several billion dollars per year in potential savings, while continuing to be threatened by the central uncertainties of beneficiary behavior and drug demand that will determine where actual results land.
* * *
Michael Baker is the Director of Health Care Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/cms-third-ira-negotiation-list-selections-signals-and-potential-savings/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute: Proposed PA Budget Expands Government at the Expense of Families
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:* * *
Proposed PA Budget Expands Government at the Expense of Families
Chair of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Jondavid (JD) Longo shared his concerns in response to the proposed state budget and its impact on Pennsylvanian taxpayers:
"This budget prioritizes government growth over the empowerment of Pennsylvania families," said Longo. "A stronger path forward focuses on fiscal restraint, energy independence, and opportunity for workers and communities across the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release: * * * Proposed PA Budget Expands Government at the Expense of Families Chair of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Jondavid (JD) Longo shared his concerns in response to the proposed state budget and its impact on Pennsylvanian taxpayers: "This budget prioritizes government growth over the empowerment of Pennsylvania families," said Longo. "A stronger path forward focuses on fiscal restraint, energy independence, and opportunity for workers and communities across theCommonwealth."
The budget relies on unsustainable spending, expanded government programs, and uncertain revenue sources that risk draining state reserves and creating long-term deficits. At a time when families are already struggling with higher energy and housing costs, this approach increases the likelihood of future tax hikes or service cuts.
The proposal also imposes new energy regulations that will raise utility costs, discourage investment, and weaken Pennsylvania's position as a national energy leader. The proposal also harms Pennsylvania's education system by prioritizing government funding formulas over parental choice and workforce-aligned pathways that better prepare students for good-paying jobs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/proposed-pa-budget-expands-government-at-the-expense-of-families
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Companies in Germany Give Poor Grades for Government's Economic Policy
MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 6 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:* * *
Companies in Germany Give Poor Grades for Government's Economic Policy
Companies in Germany give the government's economic policy a bad report card. On average, the companies awarded a grade1 of 4.2, according to an ifo Institute survey. The criticism covers all policy areas and is voiced by all sectors alike; positive assessments are rare. "Companies currently see hardly any progress on key economic policy issues," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "The verdict is accordingly negative."
The companies ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 6 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * Companies in Germany Give Poor Grades for Government's Economic Policy Companies in Germany give the government's economic policy a bad report card. On average, the companies awarded a grade1 of 4.2, according to an ifo Institute survey. The criticism covers all policy areas and is voiced by all sectors alike; positive assessments are rare. "Companies currently see hardly any progress on key economic policy issues," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "The verdict is accordingly negative." The companiesgave the government's social and pension policy the worst rating with an average grade of 4.6. The ratings of 4.1 to 4.2 for labor market, industrial, energy and climate policy are also only "sufficient". The government scores somewhat better, albeit also only with a "sufficient" rating, in fiscal policy, and infrastructure and digitalization policy, each with 4.0.
There are hardly any differences between sectors. In industry and the service sector, the grades range between 3.8 and 4.5. No sector rates economic policy as good on average. Even the best grades awarded remain in the "satisfactory" range, tending toward "sufficient", while individual sectors, such as industry or labor market related services, award significantly lower grades.
The companies are clear about the urgent fields of action. 40.4 percent of companies call for a reduction in bureaucracy and regulation as a priority. Tax and duty reforms, such as tax cuts or a simplification of the tax system, follow in second place at 37.1 percent. 24.6 percent cite the labor market and skilled workers, and 23.3 percent energy policy. A further 21.3 percent point to investments, location conditions and infrastructure.
"Companies now expect concrete progress on the key reform issues," says Klaus Wohlrabe. "Announcements alone are no longer enough in their view."
Grades range from 1 to 6, with 1 being the highest grade and 6 being the lowest.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Versetzungsgefahrdet? Wie Unternehmen die Wirtschaftspolitik der Bundesregierung bewerten
Klaus Wohlrabe
ifo Schnelldienst digital, 2026, 7, Nr. 2 01-06
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/versetzungsgefaehrdet)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-02-05/companies-germany-give-poor-grades-governments-economic-policy
[Category: ThinkTank]