Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Hungarian Elections Will Have Drastic Effects on Georgia
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Hungarian Elections Will Have Drastic Effects on Georgia
Executive Summary:
* Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze congratulated Peter Magyar's victory in Hungary's April 12 parliamentary elections, expressing hope for continued Georgian-Hungarian cooperation. He also thanked outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orban for his long-standing support of Georgia's national interests.
* Orban's defeat has elicited various reactions in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Hungarian Elections Will Have Drastic Effects on Georgia Executive Summary: * Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze congratulated Peter Magyar's victory in Hungary's April 12 parliamentary elections, expressing hope for continued Georgian-Hungarian cooperation. He also thanked outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orban for his long-standing support of Georgia's national interests. * Orban's defeat has elicited various reactions inGeorgia, as Hungary was the ruling Georgian Dream party's only friend in Europe. The Georgian government and opposition will have to adjust their methods following Budapest's change in direction.
* Opposition figures and non-governmental organization leaders in Georgia fear that the Georgian government may tighten pressure on their ongoing protest movement and intensify repression to avoid the same fate as Orban and his party.
* A few hours after the results of Hungary's April 12 parliamentary elections were announced, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze congratulated Peter Magyar and his Tisza party on their victory. He also expressed gratitude to outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orban for his long-standing support of Georgia. In a statement posted on social media, Kobakhidze wrote:
I would like to thank Viktor Orban and his team for their outstanding and steadfast support of Georgia's national interests and the Georgian people over the years. Georgia and Hungary are bound by a long history of friendship and partnership, which will undoubtedly continue (X/@PM_Kobakhidze; Interpressnews; 1tv.ge, April 13).
Shortly before the Hungarian elections, on March 21, Kobakhidze attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest and expressed his support for Orban. Kobakhidze described Hungary's upcoming parliamentary elections as "a watershed" moment not only for Hungary but also for Europe, expressing hope that the vote will take place "without the rough interference of the Brussels bureaucracy." He thanked Orban "for his steadfast support for Georgia" and added that Orban's leadership has helped Georgia protect its "democracy, national sovereignty, and identity" (Facebook/KobakhidzeOfficial, March 21). After returning to Georgia, Kobakhidze told reporters that Orban's Hungary "remains the main defender of Georgia's national interests in Europe" (see EDM, April 8).
Despite Georgian Dream's congratulations for Tisza's victory, Member of Parliament Levan Machavariani demonstrated the prevailing attitude within the ruling Georgian Dream party's leadership. In an interview with journalists, Machavariani stated that the Hungarian people "most likely did not see the dangers that Mr. Orban was talking about." Machavariani further argued, "In our case, the Georgians perceived very well the dangers that our country was facing and still faces today, and the vast majority of citizens consider Georgian Dream under the leadership of [Georgian Dream founder and billionaire] Bidzina Ivanishvili to be the guarantor from these dangers"(Facebook/Mtavarinow, April 14).
The most experienced Georgian politicians say the opposition's victory in the Hungarian elections did not come as a surprise. David Berdzenishvili, who founded the Republican Party of Georgia in 1979, back during the communist tyranny, said in his April 14 interview with this author that in a post-totalitarian space, "power begets power." Berdzenishvili asserted that "Magyar turned out to be for Orban what, in essence, Saakashvili was for Eduard Shevardnadze" (Journal of Democracy, April 2004)./[1] Berdzenishvili is sure that Orban's defeat in Hungary is very significant for Georgia in several respects. First, Orban was a landmark for right-wing movements worldwide and appeared very strong. Berdzenishvili underlined, "His loss demonstrated that elections have a meaning even in hybrid democracies. Because of this, Hungary is an example for us" (Author's interview, April 14).
A change of power in Hungary and the victory of the pro-European party will complicate Georgian Dream's positions in Georgia and in Brussels. Former Member of Parliament Teona Akubardia stipulated in her April 15 interview with this author that Orban's defeat would sever the Russian influence corridor that shielded the Georgian Dream regime. Akubardia asserted, "Without Hungary's veto, the European Union is poised to move from rhetoric to targeted personal sanctions against Bidzina Ivanishvili and Georgian Dream leadership, utilizing the already finalized OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] Moscow Mechanism report as the evidentiary basis for their accountability." She went on saying, "Stripped of its 'European shield,' Georgian Dream faces a pre-election dead end: total isolation and overt reliance on Moscow, or a coerced realignment with the West." Akubardia concluded, "The 'Hungarian model' of illiberalism within the European Union has collapsed, leaving the Georgian regime diplomatically naked. The choice now rests solely with Georgian Dream" (Author's interview, April 15).
Many Georgian experts and the most influential opinion-makers agree that Orban's Hungary was the main stronghold of the Georgian government in Europe, and that Georgia is now losing its partners. Dr. Aleksander Tvalchrelidze, vice president of the Georgian Academy of Natural Sciences and academician of the European Academy of Arts and Sciences, said in his April 15 interview with this author that Orban's government has always blocked EU sanctions against Georgian Dream leaders. He stated, "Georgian Dream will have to adjust its policy and cooperate with Peter Magyar. Mr. Magyar, himself, has already expressed his desire to cooperate with Georgia." He pointed out, however, that the principles of this cooperation will be completely different. "Magyar is pro-European. Magyar will not continue Orban's policy toward Georgia. Hungary's foreign policy will be integrated into the European Union's common foreign policy," Tvalchrelidze stated. He added, "Georgia will have to change its rhetoric toward the European Union and cooperate more actively with Brussels" (Author's interview, April 15).
Another important aspect of the Hungarian events' impact on Georgian politics is the extent to which Orban's defeat and the victory of pro-European forces will influence Georgian Dream's rhetoric. These narratives are radically critical of the "European bureaucracy," the so-called "deep state," and non-profit organizations (NGOs) funded by Western foundations (see Strategic Snapshot, September 10, 2025).
Ghia Nodia from Ilia State University does not think that Orban's defeat in Hungary will directly affect Georgian Dream's message box. Nodia stated, "Maybe they will say that this was a victory of the deep state in Hungary. Or all these elections were a conspiracy by Orban himself, he left somebody like him, and so on." He added, "Georgian Dream leaders will say that even if the deep state wins in Hungary, Georgia still stands strong in its position and would not give up. So Georgian Dream discourse will not change." He concluded by claiming, "Of course, objectively speaking, Georgian Dream's position is weakened, because they lost their best friend or maybe only important friend in Europe. So Orban's defeat is bad news for Georgian authorities, but they will not admit that it's bad news for them" (Author's interview, April 14).
Negative expectations of how Orban's defeat will affect the situation in Georgia--where opposition and civil society protests have continued--stem from some opposition politicians' fear of increased repression. Petre Tsiskarishvili, the general secretary of Georgia's main opposition party, the United National Movement (UNM), stated that, by losing Orban and Budapest as a partner, Georgian Dream becomes almost completely isolated from the European Union. As he underlined, however, this is a result of their own political choice and priorities. He stated, "They will draw their own lessons from Orban's loss and further crack down on dissent, abolish political parties, and arrest anybody that could potentially become Georgia's Peter Magyar." He concluded by claiming, "Embarking on an ever-deteriorating circle of relations with Brussels and without the Budapest shield against sanctions, Georgian Dream elites will face immense pressure from the EU institutions" (Author's interview, April 16).
All political forces in Georgia, both the ruling party and the opposition, as well as Georgian civil society and the public, are now closely following the first steps of the new Hungarian government regarding Brussels, Washington, and Moscow. These steps, along with the initial reactions or decisions of Budapest's external partners, will immediately affect the positions of all Georgian actors, as the pro-European agenda remains the defining factor in the Caucasian country.
* * *
[1] Mikheil Saakashvili was Georgia's third president and served as a minister in the government of the second President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze. Saakashvili entered politics in 2002 and became president in 2004 after Georgia's Rose Revolution.
* * *
Giorgi Menabde is a journalist based in Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/hungarian-elections-will-have-drastic-effects-on-georgia/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Arab News: Blueprint for Ambitious Ukraine-Gulf Ties
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News:* * *
A Blueprint for Ambitious Ukraine-Gulf Ties
The Iran war has created multiple geopolitical challenges and uncertainties but also some opportunities. One of these is the role that Ukraine has been playing as a promoter of global security in recent weeks. President Volodymyr Zelensky saw a window of opportunity to improve security in the Gulf, while deepening ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News: * * * A Blueprint for Ambitious Ukraine-Gulf Ties The Iran war has created multiple geopolitical challenges and uncertainties but also some opportunities. One of these is the role that Ukraine has been playing as a promoter of global security in recent weeks. President Volodymyr Zelensky saw a window of opportunity to improve security in the Gulf, while deepeningrelations with Arab countries, and seized it. The relationships that will result will be mutually beneficial for both Ukraine and the Gulf states.
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Kyiv became an importer of outside assistance and military systems. But more than four years later, times have changed. As recent events in the Middle East have shown, Ukraine has not only survived the invasion and halted Russia's advance, it has also developed a modern, technology-based defense industry that can provide much-needed security assistance to other regions of the world, particularly the Gulf.
The fact that Zelensky has been able to sign security agreements with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar in recent weeks should come as no surprise. The threat these countries face from Iranian drones and missiles is significant. Due to the intensity of the war in Ukraine and the fact that most airstrikes against Ukraine have been conducted by drones -- many originally manufactured, designed or inspired by Iranian systems -- there is no country in the world with more recent experience confronting Iranian aerial threats than Ukraine.
But this recent diplomatic engagement did not emerge overnight. It is the result of sustained statecraft by Zelensky and his team. Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, Kyiv has engaged with Arab countries on issues ranging from unlocking grain exports in the Black Sea to seeking regional assistance with prisoner exchanges and peace efforts with Russia. Ukrainian officials have traveled frequently to the region, building relationships that now provide the foundation for deeper security cooperation.
So far, the results speak for themselves. More than 200 Ukrainian personnel, including military specialists, have reportedly deployed across the region to assist Gulf states in defending their skies against drone threats. Ukraine has also developed domestically produced counterdrone systems that have been shared with partners in the Gulf. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Gulf states gain access to combat-tested Ukrainian technology and hard-earned operational experience, while Ukraine receives much-needed financial support and energy cooperation.
Even if the current ceasefire temporarily reduces the immediate threat from Iranian drones and missiles, there is no guarantee this will last. Ukraine and the Gulf states should seize this moment to elevate their partnership.
First, Ukraine should finalize agreements with the remaining Gulf Cooperation Council states. Talks with Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman are reportedly ongoing. It is in the interest of these countries to conclude agreements quickly so they can begin integrating Ukrainian expertise and equipment into their defense structures. Kyiv has demonstrated both willingness and capability; the remaining Gulf states should take advantage of this opportunity.
Second, Ukraine and its Gulf partners should develop joint procurement and financing mechanisms, including co-production of air defense capabilities inside Ukraine. Ukraine's defense industrial base has enormous potential. Prior to Russia's 2014 invasion, Ukraine consistently ranked among the world's top 10 arms exporters. Today, after years of high-intensity conflict, Ukraine's defense sector has become even more innovative and battle-tested.
However, while Ukraine has the engineering talent and industrial capacity, it lacks sufficient investment capital. Zelensky has made it clear that additional financial support would allow Ukraine to significantly expand production. Gulf investment could help scale this capacity, while ensuring faster access to critical systems for Gulf partners.
Third, cooperation should expand beyond air defense to include maritime security. Ukraine could play a meaningful role in efforts to secure the Strait of Hormuz and ensure the continued flow of global trade. Drawing on its experience in the Black Sea, Ukraine has developed advanced capabilities in mine countermeasures and unmanned naval systems.
In fact, Ukraine is now among the most experienced actors in the use of maritime drones for combat operations. Zelensky has indicated Ukraine's willingness to contribute to efforts to keep strategic waterways open and, with sufficient financing, Kyiv could scale production of its unmanned maritime platforms to support such missions.
Finally, this growing Ukraine-Gulf partnership presents an opportunity to bring NATO and the GCC closer together on shared security challenges. Air defense is a natural starting point. Both Europe and the Gulf face similar threats from missiles and drones and there is a clear expectation from their populations that governments will act to protect critical infrastructure and civilian lives. Ukraine, given its unique experience, can serve as a bridge between NATO and Gulf partners to help develop a more integrated air defense picture stretching from the Gulf of Finland to the Gulf of Oman.
This is not only about military cooperation. It is about protecting civilian populations, securing vital infrastructure such as desalination plants and ensuring that airspace and maritime routes remain open for the safe movement of people and goods.
The recent agreements between Ukraine and several Gulf states are an important first step. But they should be seen as the beginning of a broader strategic partnership. The conditions now exist to deepen cooperation in ways that benefit both Ukraine and the Gulf. The next phase should focus on expanding participation, increasing investment and widening the scope of collaboration.
Ukraine is no longer just a recipient of security assistance. It is emerging as a provider of it. The Gulf states have recognized this reality. Now is the time to build on it.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2640251).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/blueprint-ambitious-ukraine-gulf-ties-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minnesota School Board Toolkit
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, April 21 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley and policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:* * *
New: Minnesota School Board Toolkit
American Experiment is pleased to announce the Minnesota School Board Toolkit, a comprehensive, all-in-one resource hub designed specifically for school board members, advisory members, and engaged stakeholders across Minnesota's education communities. These materials are intended ... Show Full Article GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, April 21 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley and policy fellow Catrin Wigfall: * * * New: Minnesota School Board Toolkit American Experiment is pleased to announce the Minnesota School Board Toolkit, a comprehensive, all-in-one resource hub designed specifically for school board members, advisory members, and engaged stakeholders across Minnesota's education communities. These materials are intendedto support informed local decision-making and to serve as a practical starting point for guiding district policy.
Serving on a school board is a critical form of local education governance, as policy decisions directly impact the community. Achievement-focused school boards can change the trajectories of countless students, families, and neighborhoods for the better. American Experiment is proud to offer resources for those engaged in this work.
The Minnesota School Board Toolkit provides practical training materials and guidance for Minnesota school board members on core governance responsibilities, including understanding the role of the board, accessing and interpreting student achievement data, and navigating curricula decisions.
It also connects school board members to achievement-focused resources, including model policies and budget tools, and links to local and national partner organizations for further support. The toolkit includes a growing library of training videos on key policy issues, including the timeline for ethnic studies implementation, school board authority over curricula selection, district procedures for parental review of instructional materials, and the requirement for parent and community participation on district advisory committees.
In July, American Experiment will partner with School Boards for Academic Excellence (SBAE) to host a seminar for Minnesota school board members focused on open enrollment policies -- an issue of growing importance for families seeking greater educational options. Elected school board members who are interested in attending should email info@americanexperiment.org for more information.
* * *
View The school board Toolkit here: http://www.mnschoolboardtoolkit.com/
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/new-minnesota-school-board-toolkit/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: State Strategies for Protecting Higher Education Funding After the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
WASHINGTON, April 21 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 20, 2026:* * *
State Strategies for Protecting Higher Education Funding After the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Colleges and universities across the United States are facing a funding crisis thanks to the Trump administration's Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), enacted into law in July 2025.
The BBB will slash $186 billion in food assistance and more than $1 trillion in health care spending over the next decade. As states absorb these costs, a new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/stabilizing-and-strengthening-state-funding-for-public-higher-education-after-the-big-beautiful-bill/) ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 20, 2026: * * * State Strategies for Protecting Higher Education Funding After the 'Big Beautiful Bill' Colleges and universities across the United States are facing a funding crisis thanks to the Trump administration's Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), enacted into law in July 2025. The BBB will slash $186 billion in food assistance and more than $1 trillion in health care spending over the next decade. As states absorb these costs, a new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/stabilizing-and-strengthening-state-funding-for-public-higher-education-after-the-big-beautiful-bill/)from the Center for American Progress pinpoints public higher education as one of the most vulnerable sectors for budget cuts.
The report compares each state's higher education funding level to its overall fiscal capacity, identifying the states that allocate relatively little support for higher education relative to their wealth. The report identifies promising ways to boost state tax revenue for public colleges and universities based on existing strategies at play in Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. It also highlights the importance of building robust rainy day funds and creating dedicated funds for education.
Key findings from the CAP analysis include:
* Following the Great Recession, inflation-adjusted state funding per full-time equivalent student dropped from $10,714 to $8,213 from 2008 to 2012, resulting in an 18 percent spike in average tuition.
* Currently, 21 states fall below the national average in both per-student funding levels and state funding effort.
* New Mexico, Wyoming, and Hawaii boast both high postsecondary education funding and state effort.
* In contrast, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Colorado, Rhode Island, and Delaware all rank low on both funding levels and funding effort.
* Federal funding cuts disproportionately affect community colleges, which are important lanes of opportunity for low-income students.
"State leaders have a choice to make," said Sara Partridge, associate director of Higher Education at CAP and author of the report. "They can let public higher education become a budget casualty, or they can take proactive steps to ensure program quality remains high and degrees remain accessible to future generations."
Read the report: "Stabilizing and Strengthening State Funding for Public Higher Education After the Big Beautiful Bill" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/stabilizing-and-strengthening-state-funding-for-public-higher-education-after-the-big-beautiful-bill/) by Sara Partridge
For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, contact Mishka Espey at eespey@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-state-strategies-for-protecting-higher-education-funding-after-the-big-beautiful-bill/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Nordic Nukes - Seeking Strategic Agency in Uncertain Times
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by visiting fellow Astrid Chevreuil, former visiting fellow Gine Lund Bolling and former intern Sara von Bonsdorff, all of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program:* * *
Nordic Nukes: Seeking Strategic Agency in Uncertain Times
Following French President Emmanuel Macron's March 2 speech at Ile-Longue, most Nordic countries--Sweden, Denmark, and Norway--have expressed interest in an additional European nuclear protection, to complement U.S. extended deterrence. For the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by visiting fellow Astrid Chevreuil, former visiting fellow Gine Lund Bolling and former intern Sara von Bonsdorff, all of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program: * * * Nordic Nukes: Seeking Strategic Agency in Uncertain Times Following French President Emmanuel Macron's March 2 speech at Ile-Longue, most Nordic countries--Sweden, Denmark, and Norway--have expressed interest in an additional European nuclear protection, to complement U.S. extended deterrence. For theNordics, once the world's most vocal advocates for nuclear disarmament, the recent transition to a formal reliance on nuclear deterrence, and primarily U.S. extended deterrence, has been a profound strategic coming of age. Yet this pivot has birthed a unique dilemma: These states have anchored their survival to NATO's nuclear posture at the exact moment the U.S. National Defense Strategy has begun to increasingly prioritize domestic interests over international commitments.
Consequently, the nuclear debate in the Nordic countries has reached a historical fever pitch. Spanning the traditional NATO umbrella, the provocative concept of an indigenous "Nordic Nuke," and the European path of Macron's forward deterrence, these discussions signal a move beyond traditional disarmament to champion a more autonomous form of strategic thinking. This article explores these evolving options and how they might provide the Nordic countries with greater agency in an increasingly uncertain nuclear landscape.
Nordic Nuclear Trajectories: From Disarmament Champions to Deterrence Realists
For decades, the Nordic region's security architecture was defined by a delicate balance: While Norway and Denmark relied on NATO's nuclear umbrella, nonaligned Sweden and Finland acted as global champions for arms control and nonproliferation. Even as NATO members, Oslo and Copenhagen maintained strict "peacetime bans" on nuclear stationing to avoid provoking Moscow--even though it was revealed in the 1990s that Denmark secretly allowed U.S. storage of nuclear weapons in Greenland from 1958 to 1965. Meanwhile, Stockholm and Helsinki leveraged their neutrality to lead initiatives like the 1975 Helsinki Accords and the 2013 humanitarian impact conference, framing the Nordics as the moral conscience of the nuclear order. This political positioning was reinforced by strong popular support for unilateral disarmament across the region, particularly in Norway and Denmark.
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine shattered this equilibrium. Finland and Sweden's subsequent NATO accession was characterized by a "no preconditions" strategy, prioritizing immediate Article 5 guarantees over traditional caveats. In Helsinki and Stockholm, governing Social Democratic parties--once the ideological backbone of the disarmament movement--orchestrated rapid internal reviews to align with the alliance's nuclear posture. In Sweden, then-opposition leader Ulf Kristersson publicly pledged support for following the Norwegian and Danish model of prohibiting nuclear weapons in peacetime to build domestic consensus. The speed of the process--spanning only from February to May 2022--deliberately prioritized a swift accession, leaving little space for opposition movements to organize for a deep public debate on the nuclear implications of membership. This marked a profound shift in the region from being the world's fiercest advocates for disarmament to becoming frontline states in a nuclear alliance.
Today, the Nordic region is in a state of legislative and political flux. While Norway, Denmark, and Sweden maintain their non-stationing policies through political commitments and defense cooperation agreements, these remain executive policy choices rather than hard law. Finland stands as the starkest exception, with its 1987 Nuclear Energy Act that explicitly criminalizes the import and transport of nuclear weapons. However, the current government's proposal to repeal these restrictions signals a move toward an alignment with other NATO members in the region--a move designed to maximize preventative deterrence that has instead sparked a domestic political debate. It is worth noting that leaders who once avoided the topic now speak openly of nuclear realities: Finnish President Alexander Stubb has highlighted the increasing role of nuclear assets, and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has indicated openness to hosting them in wartime scenarios.
This internal realignment is colliding with a fundamental shift in Washington. Following the June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague--where President Trump demanded allies reach a 5 percent GDP defense spending target by 2035--the subsequent 2026 Greenland crisis acted as a strategic shock to the Nordic region. By threatening military force to annex Danish territory, the United States transformed from an unconditional protector into an unpredictable strategic risk. For the Nordics, the U.S. nuclear umbrella, while still present, is no longer perceived as an absolute or unconditional guarantee. This erosion of trust has turned strategic agency from a theoretical goal into an existential necessity, prompting a search for more predictable forms of European security.
Options on the Table: Navigating the New Deterrence Landscape
In response to heightened geopolitical tensions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and growing uncertainty about U.S. security guarantees, Nordic countries are now actively debating three main strategic options.
1. Doubling Down on U.S. Security Guarantee
The foremost strategic priority for the Nordic countries remains the preservation of U.S. engagement in NATO, specifically the credibility of the U.S. extended nuclear guarantee. This focus stems from a stark military reality: Europe remains structurally dependent on U.S. nuclear capabilities. This deterrence is embedded in a dense network of transatlantic institutions and operational arrangements that underpin its durability. Even amid shifting U.S. domestic politics, many in Washington argue that a stable Europe is a prerequisite for a pivot to the Indo-Pacific. This reinforces the Nordic view that extended deterrence is a mutual strategic interest rather than a liability, making sustained U.S. leadership the indispensable cornerstone of regional security.
Within this framework, Nordic states have solidified their roles as essential strategic partners. Their advanced capabilities, Arctic warfare expertise, and proximity to Russia's Northern Fleet strengthen the alliance's posture. This commitment is reflected in full institutional support for NATO's nuclear policy, as all Nordic members now participate in the Nuclear Planning Group.
Norway continues to play a sophisticated balancing act, marrying fierce alliance solidarity with a commitment to transparency. The Norwegian National Security Strategy and the Long-Term Defence Plan for 2025-2036 explicitly reaffirm that that while nuclear weapons exist, a mix of forces remains essential. Simultaneously, Oslo promotes arms control and nonproliferation as core elements of its security policy, enabling it to balance participation in NATO's nuclear framework with a long-standing domestic commitment to restraint.
For Finland, the need to counter Russian nuclear signaling and the inherent asymmetry of a nonnuclear state facing a revisionist neighbor have motivated a rapid integration into NATO structures. Finland's recent contribution of F/A-18 Hornet aircraft and personnel to the Steadfast Noon 2025 nuclear deterrence exercise served as a powerful signal of both military interoperability and political resolve.
Denmark has followed a similar trajectory; despite its decades-old nonnuclear policy, its recent participation in Steadfast Noon and its Security and Defence towards 2035 strategy underscore a newfound urgency. Copenhagen's strategy explicitly highlights the need for advanced nuclear crisis management expertise at both military and civilian levels.
Ultimately, this first option represents a collective Nordic effort to reinforce U.S. commitment through deeper integration. By demonstrating significant burden-sharing and avoiding unilateral actions that could fragment the alliance, the Nordic states hope to anchor Washington to Northern Europe. While Sweden and Finland have considered adopting peacetime restrictions similar to the Norwegian and Danish models, the overarching trend is toward a "harder" form of alignment with NATO's deterrence requirements.
2. The European Insurance Policy
A second, newer path involves exploring European nuclear options as an additional backstop. The search for a European complementary security insurance gained decisive momentum with the 2025 Northwood Declaration, which committed London and Paris to enhanced nuclear coordination while maintaining national command.
Following the March 2, 2026, speech at Ile-Longue, Macron's assertion that France's "vital interests" possess a European dimension has gained renewed urgency, particularly through his proposal for a "forward deterrence" (dissuasion avancee) model unveiled at Ile-Longue. The address catalyzed a notable strategic shift in Stockholm and Copenhagen, which signaled their willingness to join French nuclear dialogues. While Stockholm remains firm that it has no intention of hosting nuclear weapons in peacetime, its historical nuclear research legacy and sophisticated defense industrial base make it a uniquely relevant partner. Some analysts suggest that Sweden's technological expertise could allow it to play a supporting role in a future Northern European deterrence framework integrated with French or British assets. Even Oslo, traditionally the most Atlanticist of the three, has begun signaling an openness to this framework, leaving Finland as the sole regional holdout focused exclusively on the NATO nuclear track.
Ultimately, for the Nordics, engaging with Paris and London provides a way to reclaim strategic agency. By fostering closer intra-European cooperation, they are not seeking a substitute for the transatlantic guarantee, but rather a more predictable, localized backstop in an era of deepening geopolitical uncertainty.
3. Indigenous Capabilities, or the "Nordic Nuke" Debate
A third option--the development of an indigenous Nordic nuclear capability--has recently gained traction in academic and expert debate. While it remains a conceptual hedge rather than active policy, its resurgence signals a profound reassessment of the region's security assumptions. Proponents, most notably former Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod, argue that a Nordic nuclear deterrent is becoming a "strategic necessity" to ensure regional survival in an era when the U.S. umbrella is perceived as functionally hollow. Today's proponents envision a cooperative regional framework where Nordic states share financial, technological, and operational responsibilities to maximize strategic autonomy.
The primary function of this Nordic nuke debate is not immediate weaponization, but strategic signaling. However, it is worth noting these debates dismiss the political, technical and financial cost that a nuclear program would impose on Nordic countries if they were to choose that perilous path. Legally, any move toward an indigenous arsenal would require a withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; a move that would shatter the Nordics' international standing and create deep fractures within alliances. While some, such as analyst Johannes Kibsgaard, suggest that a "cooperative nuclear hedge" could potentially be integrated into a NATO framework, this interpretation remains highly contested. Technically, while Sweden has a history of pursuing a nuclear weapons program in the 1960s, establishing an independent value chain to produce nuclear weapons would require decades of investment and a level of political consensus that does not yet exist in any Nordic country.
Ultimately, the indigenous option remains a theoretical fallback. The persistence of this debate confirms that the Nordic states are no longer content to be subjects of a shifting nuclear order but are instead laying the intellectual and political groundwork to become its active architects.
Strategic Maturity: Reimagining the Nordic Contribution to Allied Security
Nordic countries currently face a strategic paradox: They must embrace NATO's nuclear umbrella, the cornerstone of collective security, precisely when the credibility of the U.S. security guarantee is being questioned. This dilemma necessitates cautious and calibrated steps toward nuclear deterrence, avoiding both the radicalism of the abolitionist movement and the extreme risk of proliferation. Given their long-standing commitment to disarmament and their robust contributions to NATO's defense posture, Nordic states are uniquely positioned to offer constructive proposals to European nuclear debates.
First, Nordic countries could lead the defense of NATO's nuclear burden-sharing arrangements, which are increasingly under fire from China and Russia in international disarmament forums. While the United States has signaled no intent to retreat from NATO's nuclear mission, official U.S. strategic documents and statements have increasingly emphasized the conventional aspects of burden sharing, assuming the nuclear dimension remains a settled matter. In this context, the Nordic states are uniquely positioned to translate the same security imperatives that shifted their own domestic opinion toward a nuclear alliance into a broader NATO narrative: proving that robust burden sharing in the face of an aggressive neighbor is actually the most effective tool for preventing further regional proliferation. By doing so, they can engage in a form of intellectual burden sharing, and take up policy leadership in nonproliferation forums at a time when U.S. diplomatic capacity is overextended. The nuanced Nordic perspective is likely to resonate more effectively with the Non-Aligned Movement countries, which has been a primary target of Beijing's narratives against NATO.
Second, the Nordic countries should utilize their existing cooperation frameworks to cultivate a shared strategic culture on nuclear deterrence. Rather than treating nuclear policy as a remote NATO mandate, the region should leverage NORDEFCO to bridge the gap between operational military integration and high-level nuclear doctrine. The unique alignment in military planning in the region--with the consolidation of the Nordic region into a unified NATO theater under Joint Force Command Norfolk, supplemented by the recent suite of bilateral defence cooperation agreements with the United States--could contribute to forging a common perspective on how nuclear deterrence interacts with conventional dynamics in the region. Furthermore, in NATO, the perspectives of Finland and Sweden as new members is unencumbered by decades of Cold War path-dependency, allowing them to offer more innovative contributions to the alliance's nuclear posture than established allies might provide.
Finally, a unified Nordic strategic culture could play a pivotal role in shaping emerging European nuclear options, particularly those spearheaded by France and the United Kingdom. Practical signaling of this cooperation is already visible; for instance, the spring 2025 deployment of nuclear-capable French Rafales to Sweden's Lulea airbase during exercise Pegase Grand Nord demonstrated a newfound readiness to build a more autonomous and resilient European deterrence strategy. In the framework of their nuclear dialogues with France, Nordic countries could also leverage the "total defence" model, which entails a high level of societal resilience from peacetime to conflict, to contribute to European reflections on escalation management under the nuclear threshold.
Nordic governments have embraced deeper integration into NATO's nuclear architecture at a moment of profound systemic tension. This transition has carved out a unique role for the region: acting as a bridge between a foundational commitment to disarmament and a cold-eyed pragmatism toward nuclear deterrence. If they can successfully navigate their domestic political sensitivities, the Nordics will offer a vital new perspective to nascent European security initiatives, demonstrating that even the most reluctant nuclear allies can become the most effective architects of a multilayered deterrence framework.
* * *
Astrid Chevreuil is a visiting fellow in the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia (ERE) Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. Gine Lund Bolling is a former visiting fellow in the ERE Program. Sara von Bonsdorff is a former intern in the ERE Program.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/nordic-nukes-seeking-strategic-agency-uncertain-times
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Iran's Strait of Hormuz Gambit and the Limits of U.S. Military Power
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program:* * *
Iran's Strait of Hormuz Gambit and the Limits of U.S. Military Power
The current standoff between the United States and Iran is no longer a clash of capabilities but rather a struggle of political endurance and bargaining leverage. The United States began the conflict with broad, but often unclear, goals that included stopping Iran's nuclear program, weakening Iran's missile and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 20, 2026, by Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program: * * * Iran's Strait of Hormuz Gambit and the Limits of U.S. Military Power The current standoff between the United States and Iran is no longer a clash of capabilities but rather a struggle of political endurance and bargaining leverage. The United States began the conflict with broad, but often unclear, goals that included stopping Iran's nuclear program, weakening Iran's missile andconventional military capabilities, and regime change. It is now a contest involving maritime coercion, domestic political constraints, and even great power competition. The result is a war whose trajectory is less defined by battlefield outcomes than by each side's expectations about the other's willingness to bear costs.
At the operational level, the conflict has settled into a paradoxical equilibrium: Iran has sought to disrupt global energy flows through a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, while the United States has responded by "blockading the blockaders," blocking traffic to and from Iranian ports. Tehran's tool kit--drones, naval mines, and swarming small boats--imposes risk and uncertainty, even if it is no match for the U.S. Navy. The U.S. blockade is inflicting severe economic pain on a country that, even before the war, faced a disastrous economic situation.
Washington retains the capacity to clear mines, escort shipping, and suppress Iranian naval assets using Marines and special operations forces. Yet this is not a costless proposition. President Donald Trump is worried, rightly, that even limited Iranian successes in killing U.S. ground troops in such operations could prove a political disaster for him.
Iranian leaders--particularly within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)--appear to believe, with some justification, that they can endure economic and military pressure longer than the United States. The conflict demonstrated Iran's ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Prior to the war, this capability was often discussed but never tested; now it constitutes Iran's best lever to pressure the United States in negotiations. For the Iranian regime, the conflict is existential, while for most Americans, it is best over and forgotten, with the hope that prices at the pump will fall soon.
This divergence shapes expectations about escalation. If Iranian actors assume that Washington will ultimately seek an exit, they have incentives to prolong the confrontation, betting that incremental pressure will yield concessions. Conversely, U.S. policymakers face a credibility trap: Threats of further escalation must be balanced against the risk that carrying them out would deepen a conflict that domestic audiences may not support. Bluffing, which Trump is apt to do, only risks convincing the Iranians that U.S. red lines are not real.
The internal consequences for Iran are equally consequential, though harder to assess with confidence. The war has tilted the balance of power toward more hardline elements within the Iranian political system. Yet the system was never monolithic, and now it is even more chaotic: In the first round of talks, Pakistani mediators spent more time helping the Iranians negotiate among themselves than they did with the U.S.-Iran negotiations.
A plausible outcome is a return to an agreement resembling the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 U.S.-Iran agreement in which Iran accepted strict, verifiable limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief from the United States, the European Union, and other major powers, albeit with modifications. The United States is pushing for a 20-year enrichment freeze, while Iran is proposing single digits: a big difference, but also a bridgeable one. Such an arrangement would represent meaningful, if partial, progress. Still, it echoes the Obama deal that Trump vehemently criticized on the campaign trail and ultimately abrogated in his first term.
Iran's internal divisions complicate negotiations, which are already proceeding only in fits and starts and likely to continue that way. Iran in the past was a difficult negotiating partner, and allies, including Israel, fear that the United States may handle the negotiations poorly due to its inexperienced negotiating team and president who regularly changes his position.
Divergences between U.S. and Israeli priorities further complicate both the conduct of the war and its potential resolution. While both countries share a core objective of constraining Iran's nuclear program, their threat perceptions differ in important ways. For Israel, Iran's capabilities--particularly its medium-range ballistic missiles and its proxy network, especially Hezbollah--are existential concerns. The sustained Iranian missile strikes during the war reinforce this perception. By contrast, the United States has placed greater emphasis on Iran's regional military capabilities, including its naval forces, its ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, and its short-range missiles targeting Gulf partners.
An agreement that satisfies Washington by addressing maritime threats and nuclear constraints may fall short of Israel's requirements if it leaves intact Iran's missile arsenal and proxy networks. Conversely, efforts to fully dismantle those capabilities would likely require a level of escalation that Washington is unwilling to sustain or even support. The timing of domestic political calendars--both countries face elections in the fall--adds another layer of complexity. Leaders in both capitals will seek to present outcomes that can be framed as victories, but the political stakes are higher in Israel, where public sensitivity to Iranian threats is more acute.
The role of China introduces an additional strategic dimension. As a major purchaser of Iranian oil and a potential conduit for illicit trade, Beijing has the capacity to mitigate the economic pressure imposed by U.S. sanctions. China also allows the sale of commercial imagery to Iran and has provided chemicals that can be used for missile propellants. Beijing was also reported to be considering providing air defense systems to Iran, but Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claims Beijing assured him these reports were false.
The United States faces difficult choices in responding to Chinese involvement, even if it is only to purchase Iranian oil. Interdicting Chinese-flagged vessels would risk escalation with a peer competitor. Even the threat of such actions carries significant implications for global trade and alliance relationships.
The United States must now reconcile maximalist aspirations with limited means and political constraints. The likely outcome is neither decisive victory nor clear defeat, but rather a negotiated settlement shaped as much by perceptions of resilience and resolve as by the balance of forces on the ground.
Looking beyond the immediate conflict, Iran has demonstrated that it can impose costs on global energy markets through limited disruption. Whether this takes the form of outright blockades, intermittent harassment, or even quasi-institutionalized "tolls" on Gulf shipping, the precedent is now established. If the United States does not develop the capability and the credibility to manage this threat, what is now a short-term, if painful, disruption will harden into a durable feature of the global energy system--raising the long-term costs of both the war and the peace that follows.
* * *
Daniel Byman is the director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. He is also a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/irans-strait-hormuz-gambit-and-limits-us-military-power
[Category: ThinkTank]
CRC News: The Growing Influence of InfluenceWatch
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on April 20, 2026:* * *
CRC News: The growing influence of InfluenceWatch
InfluenceWatch has become a go-to research reference page for Just the News, the Daily Caller, the California Globe, the Federalist, the Tampa Bay Times and many more.
*
Washington Examiner - 'Local independent' outlet in Virginia pushing redistricting is owned by Democratic operatives
Political advocacy masquerading as unbiased, grassroots journalism is not a novel electioneering tactic, explained Michael Watson, the research director of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on April 20, 2026: * * * CRC News: The growing influence of InfluenceWatch InfluenceWatch has become a go-to research reference page for Just the News, the Daily Caller, the California Globe, the Federalist, the Tampa Bay Times and many more. * Washington Examiner - 'Local independent' outlet in Virginia pushing redistricting is owned by Democratic operatives Political advocacy masquerading as unbiased, grassroots journalism is not a novel electioneering tactic, explained Michael Watson, the research director ofCapital Research Center, a think tank tracking the mobilization strategies of special interest groups.
Websites serving as mouthpieces for political actors have infiltrated the local news space for several years now, successfully imitating neighborhood gazettes and regional dispatches.
Watson, however, told the Washington Examiner that the mass distribution of physical mailers posing as a traditional town newspaper, rather than relying merely on online articles, is a newer approach to reaching unsuspecting voters.
"If you don't know what you're looking at," Watson said, "and you're just a person and you see this mailer that pretends to be a newspaper, it can easily trick you into thinking that, 'Oh, this is independent and not actually aligned with a consultant network that's very close to the Democratic Party.'"
Watson said that such left-of-center projects created to platform Democratic arguments about certain state-specific policy issues can range from left-leaning political reporting to thinly veiled partisan propaganda.
"This goes not just for the American Independent network," Watson said, "but for all these sorts of progressive pink slime news. There's a sliding scale of outright talking points to ideological journalism."
[ . . .]
Watson said that similarly disguised influence campaigns tend to target battleground states, jurisdictions where politics are highly competitive at the local level, and areas whose voters are considering issues of great interest to the left-wing donor class.
The progressive philanthropy industry, Watson added, is deeply invested in the pink slime news sector, and Democratic donors see these dissemination sites as a vehicle for shaping public perception around contentious agenda items.
"In this case, George Soros has given a substantial amount of money to the Virginia redistricting campaign," Watson said. "It's of critical importance to the progressive donor class, even though Virginia is a relatively comfortable Democratic state."
The proliferation of pink slime sites mimicking legitimate localized news is owed in large part to deep-pocketed donors, who are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into these pseudo-news operations, realizing that readers still prefer local media over legacy outlets.
Studies have shown that consumers historically are more likely to trust local media than national news sources.
"They've learned by now that national outlets like the New York Times are going to be progressive and Democratic, Fox News is going to be conservative and Republican," Watson said. "But local outlets still have that ability to persuade, and so [philanthropists] are responding by throwing money, whether at ideological journalism or talking point mills essentially skin-suited as supposedly local journalism."
[. . .]
Regarding the legality of American Independent Media's direct-mail redistricting campaign, Watson said that since it is structured as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, the nonprofit entity is allowed under tax law to engage in unlimited lobbying on any number of ballot initiatives.
"501(c)(4)s are designed for public advocacy, and [supporting or opposing] a ballot measure is considered lobbying the electorate," Watson said. "As a 501(c)(4), you can make, as far as I'm aware, as many statements on ballot measures as you want."
* * *
Washington Examiner - Teamsters still bankrolling Democrats, including Jay Jones, despite openly flirting with Trump and GOP
Some conservatives view the Teamsters' outreach to the GOP with skepticism, arguing that the policies pushed by unions are inherently out of step with conservatism and that union organizers themselves are still generally liberal.
"As for whether the Teamsters is compatible with the GOP, the union officialdom isn't," Mike Watson, an organized labor expert and director of research at the Capital Research Center, told the Washington Examiner. "The members are more open to the GOP for social-issues reasons, but the staffer class and officers are largely committed Everything Leftists."
"Everything Leftism" is a turn of phrase used to describe the tendency of some liberal staffers and activists to adopt causes seemingly unrelated to their primary area of focus; environmental groups issuing statements about the war in Gaza is one such example. In a similar vein, many leaders in the labor movement place emphasis on issues such as LGBT rights, abortion policy, and climate change, despite those topics being tangential to the goals of unions themselves.
Of the hundreds of thousands of dollars the Teamsters spent on "political activities and lobbying" between 2024 and 2025, and among myriad groups it supported, the only GOP organization it funded was the Republican Main Street Partnership, which received a $50,000 contribution in 2025.
"'Good faith' or 'bad faith' isn't the right way to think about O'Brien's outreach game," Watson told the Washington Examiner. "I think he's a shrewd special-interest operator, just like the National Association of Realtors or other play-both-sides lobby groups. He wants to make sure his interests as union boss and organizer aren't 'on the menu' when his team isn't in power -- the Democrats will protect his boss-organizer interests anyway because it's in their ideological and coalitional interests.
"So playing open to the GOP is tactically shrewd, and not something we've seen from a major union since the feds got the Mafia out of the Teamsters national leadership in the early 1990s," Watson said.
Indeed, the Teamsters have been able to win real concessions from the Trump administration following their ingratiation campaign. The union, for example, saw Lori Chavez-DeRemer, their preferred candidate for head of the Department of Labor, be nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate during the early months of 2025.
* * *
The National News Desk - ActBlue potentially misled Congress about vetting foreign donations: NYT report
In a bombshell new report, the New York Times revealed that ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones may have provided inaccurate information to the House Administration Committee in a letter from 2023. In it, Wallace-Jones claimed that the Democratic fundraising platform used multi-layered screenings to root out all foreign donations. But internal memos from the law firm Covington & Burling, which was outside legal counsel for ActBlue, reportedly warned that these claims were not fully accurate.
"They told them you know, it is very possible, that you could be legally liable for misleading Congress about what ActBlue was doing," said Scott Walter, President of the Capital Research Center.
According to the New York Times, the internal legal memos stated that ActBlue didn't consistently verify U.S. passport information for donors, using third-party apps. Allowing overseas transactions to be processed using prepaid cards. Walter told The National News Desk that it's against the law for foreign citizens, or those who aren't permanent residents, to donate directly to federal candidates or political action committees.
"If you are processing billions of dollars for political party, you have the serious responsibility of vetting money that comes in. Especially money that appears to be foreign donations," Walter said.
* * *
The Grio--US treasury department launches whistleblower program offering up to 30% rewards for fraud tips: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the initiative is designed to encourage individuals to report financial misconduct.
The whistleblower program is part of a broader push by the administration to combat financial crime, including the creation of a federal task force focused on eliminating fraud. That effort has been associated with Vice President JD Vance, who has backed initiatives to strengthen oversight of federal spending.
Supporters say the financial incentives could motivate insiders to come forward with information that would otherwise remain hidden. Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, noted that offering a percentage of recovered funds creates a strong incentive structure, particularly in complex fraud schemes where insiders may have critical knowledge.
* * *
Daily Wire-No One Is Safe: Homecare Fraud Schemes Are Ripping Off Americans In Every State: A low-trust society is a breeding ground for abuse -- and it's everywhere.
Essay by Parker Thayer of the Capital Research Center:
The Gavin-Newsom-fraud-fest spectacular continued last week as reporting from the City Journal revealed the massive scope of potential fraud within the In-Home Supportive Services Program, a California state program funded by Medicaid that allows people with no meaningful medical training to bill taxpayers for performing basic household tasks, or "homecare" for the elderly or disabled. It's important for people to realize, though, that California is far from the only state with a homecare fraud problem. It's almost certainly happening in your state too, and at a scale that will boggle your mind. The problem is so widespread, in fact, that I find myself compelled to do the unthinkable: defend Gavin Newsom.
* * *
Just the News--Singham uses extensive CCP-aligned network in China as he finances global Marxist influence efforts: Some Republicans in Congress call for Roy Singham to be forced to register as a foreign agent of China. Just the News investigations have detailed the Marxist businessman's Shanghai political ecosystem.
The Doublethink Lab - a Taiwan-based group aimed at countering Chinese malign influence -- assessed that the CCP "in the form of both the central government via the State Council and the Shanghai municipal government, has influenced the organization since its inception." InfluenceWatch describes Doublethink Lab as advocating that "web platforms and media strategies identify and censor purported CCP propaganda distributed and released online."
* * *
The Federalist-Unraveling The Far-Left Group Seeking To Derail Future Republican SCOTUS Nominees
According to the Capital Research Center's InfluenceWatch database, Demand Justice was born in early 2018 as a project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund to advocate on behalf of left-wing judicial nominees and oppose conservative ones. The Sixteen Thirty Fund -- which regularly injects its money into U.S. elections -- is a left-wing advocacy group that operates within the recently re-acquisitioned Arabella Advisors dark-money network. The group has come under fire in recent years for accepting millions of dollars from Swiss national Hansjorg Wyss via his Berger Action Fund.
[. . .]
According to InfluenceWatch, Demand Justice became its own nonprofit in mid-2021, but nonetheless "received $1,982,613 from its former fiscal sponsor, Sixteen Thirty Fund" that year. The group also reportedly "received more than $2.5 million from the Open Society Policy Center, a 501(c)(4) lobbying group founded by George Soros, for general support" from April-June 2018.
[. . .]
Demand Justice has since re-focused much of its efforts to opposing Trump's judicial picks since his return to the White House, according to InfluenceWatch. The organization also spawned an initiative to track what it claims to be are attempts by Trump and his allies to take "a sledgehammer to the rule of law and the balance of powers in our government."
"The tracker's release was accompanied by a targeted print and digital advertising campaign in the Washington Post, highlighting polling data from 2026 Senate battleground states," the InfluenceWatch report reads. "The polling indicated cross-partisan concern regarding judicial integrity and political influence over the courts. [Demand Justice] stated that it intends to use both the tracker and polling data to apply pressure on lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation, during upcoming Senate confirmation votes."
* * *
Tampa Bay Times-After Florida special election wins, this Democrat raked in cash
Jolly's political committee earned its biggest donation to date after the Florida special elections: $500,000 from Donald Sussman, a hedge fund executive who funds Democratic campaigns, according to InfluenceWatch, which tracks political donors.
* * *
The Federalist-Analysis: More Than 90 Percent Of Funds Backing Dems' Gerrymandering Scheme Come From Outside Virginia
A Federalist analysis of the latest donation figures assembled by the Virginia Public Access Project shows that more than 90 percent of Virginians for Fair Elections' large contributions come from Democrat-aligned out-of-state groups.
The organization's largest contributor is none other than the D.C.-based House Majority Forward (HMF), a 501(c)(4) that boasts ties to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and House Democrat leadership. According to InfluenceWatch, HMF -- which has given $29.3 million to Virginians for Fair Elections -- "focuses on climate change, social justice, economics, and democracy, and produces ads in favor of Democratic candidates and opposed to Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives."
The second largest donor ($11.02 million) to Virginians for Fair Elections is The Fairness Project. InfluenceWatch describes the D.C.-based 501(c)(4) as a "labor union-backed advocacy organization that finances and supports state ballot initiative campaigns to promote left-of-center policies such as government-mandated comprehensive paid family and medical leave, Medicaid expansion, and minimum wage increases."
* * *
Cardinal News (Virginia)-'Dark money' is fueling both sides of Virginia's redistricting campaign: More than $79 million has been spent on Virginia's "yes" and "no" redistricting referendum campaigns since February; roughly $76 million of that is from "dark money" groups that don't have to disclose their donors.
House Majority Forward is a major financial supporter of U.S. congressional Democrats, according to InfluenceWatch. InfluenceWatch is a project of the Capital Research Center that examines nonprofit organizations involved in politics and policymaking. House Majority Forward ended 2024 with $16.1 million in net assets, according to the organization's 990 tax form. Efforts to reach representatives of House Majority Forward for this story were unsuccessful.
Another $11 million was contributed to Virginians for Fair Elections by The Fairness Project over four contributions between February and March. The Fairness Project is a Washington-based, labor union-backed 501(c)(4) that finances and supports state ballot initiative campaigns to promote left-of-center policies, according to InfluenceWatch. The Fairness Project ended 2024 with $4.1 million in net assets, according to the organization's 990 form. Efforts to reach The Fairness Project were also unsuccessful.
* * *
Daily Caller-Soviet-Era Groups Work To Win American Hearts For Another Communist Regime
The 89-year-old National Lawyers Guild frequently took pro-Russia stances while denying that it was a Soviet front, a profile by Capital Research Center notes. However, the NLG helped create the IADL, an entity that the CIA and International Commission of Jurists exposed as a front group hiring Soviets.
* * *
American Thinker-Paid to Rage: How Astroturf Protesters Hijack the First Amendment: The First Amendment was written for citizens, not contractors.
The fingerprints of George Soros's Open Society Foundations (OSF) are not subtle. A September 2025 report by the Capital Research Center documented that since 2016, OSF has directed more than $80 million to organizations tied to terrorism or extremist violence. More than $23 million went to seven U.S.-based groups the FBI classifies as engaged in domestic terrorism, including the Ruckus Society, which trained activists in property destruction during the 2020 riots. Another $18 million flowed to the Movement for Black Lives, which co-authored a guide glorifying Hamas's October 7 massacre and instructing activists in infrastructure blockades and false identification. OSF denied the characterizations.
* * *
Daily Caller-Army Of Radical Prosecutors All Have One Thing In Common
According to Influence Watch, SEE [Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs] was originally founded in 1987 as the "American-Soviet Film Initiative" to "promote educational and cultural exchanges among citizens of the U.S. and citizens of the then-Soviet Union through films and television programs." [name and hyperlink added for clarity]
* * *
California Globe-Arizona Lawmakers Reject Latest Push for Assisted Suicide: Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) proposal backed by group with ties to Soros-backed network failed to advance in the legislature
Compassion & Choices, which supports MAID legislation nationwide, has received funding from organizations associated with philanthropist George Soros, according to a 2016 report by Capital Research Center. The report states that Soros-affiliated entities, including the Open Society Institute and the Foundation to Promote Open Society, provided more than $7 million to the group beginning in 2008.
* * *
Just the News--Taxpayer-funded science academy will keep controversial climate chapter in judicial training manual: The National Academies of Science, which received $200 million from federal agencies in 2024, refuses to remove a chapter about climate from a science manual provided to thousands of judges. Critics argue it is one-sided and biasing judges in climate lawsuits. A new study details the left-wing funding, and possible self-interest that the academies are promoting.
The $200 million that NASEM received in 2024 was 70% of its budget, and the rest includes millions from anti-fossil fuel groups. Among those funders is Sunflower Services (formerly Arabella Advisors), which has been described by critics as the "godfather of the left's dark money. InfluenceWatch describes them as "a left-leaning philanthropic consulting company that provides strategy, advocacy, impact investing, and management services to high-dollar foundations, nonprofits, corporations, and individuals."
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/crc-news-the-growing-influence-of-influencewatch/
[Category: ThinkTank]