Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: School Isn't a Psychiatric Clinic
NEW YORK, Jan. 29 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 28, 2026, to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
A School Isn't a Psychiatric Clinic
By Carolyn D. Gorman
Kids are more likely to get mental-health care at school than anywhere else, and parents are out of the loop.
American schools have quietly transformed into pseudo-psychiatric clinics.
Schools are now the most common provider of youth mental-health services in the U.S. More kids get mental-health care at school than in any other clinical setting. The ubiquity might have parents assuming school
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Jan. 29 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 28, 2026, to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
A School Isn't a Psychiatric Clinic
By Carolyn D. Gorman
Kids are more likely to get mental-health care at school than anywhere else, and parents are out of the loop.
American schools have quietly transformed into pseudo-psychiatric clinics.
Schools are now the most common provider of youth mental-health services in the U.S. More kids get mental-health care at school than in any other clinical setting. The ubiquity might have parents assuming schoolservices are high-quality, well-regulated and effective. They'd be wrong on all counts.
What passes for mental-health care in schools is mostly superficial, like screening kids if they worry but don't know why--or, more ominously, if they've considered how they'd kill themselves. What's not formal screening is typically pseudo-screening--mental-health awareness campaigns, educating all students and teachers how to screen themselves and each other for signs of distress.
A healthy student needs only to check a survey box to be funneled by teachers and school staff toward a clinician for a diagnosis and a pill. Parents are meant to be engaged, but minor age consent laws are often lower for mental health--12 in some states, and younger in others if a counselor thinks a student is mature.
* * *
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/a-school-isnt-a-psychiatric-clinic-e25ead42?mod=free-expression_lead_pos1)
* * *
Carolyn D. Gorman is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute. This piece is based on a recent issue brief.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/a-school-isnt-a-psychiatric-clinic
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Azerbaijan and Turkiye Sign Energy Contract
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 28, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Azerbaijan and Turkiye Sign Energy Contract
By Fuad Shahbazov
Executive Summary:
* Azerbaijan and Turkiye signed a 15-year gas agreement on January 4 for the Absheron field starting in 2029, reinforcing Turkiye's energy diversification strategy and accelerating its ambition to become a regional energy hub.
* The deal reflects deeper Azerbaijan-Turkiye alignment, linking energy cooperation with broader geopolitical goals, including the creation of a Turkic trade
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 28, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Azerbaijan and Turkiye Sign Energy Contract
By Fuad Shahbazov
Executive Summary:
* Azerbaijan and Turkiye signed a 15-year gas agreement on January 4 for the Absheron field starting in 2029, reinforcing Turkiye's energy diversification strategy and accelerating its ambition to become a regional energy hub.
* The deal reflects deeper Azerbaijan-Turkiye alignment, linking energy cooperation with broader geopolitical goals, including the creation of a Turkic tradecorridor positioning Turkiye as the primary gateway between Central Asia and Europe.
* The agreement advances Absheron's full-scale development while strengthening Azerbaijan's export diversification and Turkiye's position in Eurasia's shifting energy and security architecture.
On January 4, Azerbaijan and Turkiye signed a new 15-year-long energy contract. Thirty-three billion cubic meters (bcm) of Azeri gas will be exported to Turkiye over the 15-year period from the Absheron field in the Caspian Sea, operated by TotalEnergies, with the Azerbaijani State Oil Company (SOCAR) and the United Arab Emirates' Adnoc as partners in the project. The supply is slated to commence in 2029. Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Alparslan Bayraktar said that Ankara has secured "affordable gas and a long-term supply from Azerbaijan, delivered via pipeline from the Caspian Sea" (Haber 7, January 4; Hurriyet Daily News, January 5). The new contract is just one of numerous projects Turkiye is undertaking as the country continues to advance its energy diversification goals. For example, Ankara is preparing for a deep-sea drilling operation in Somalia for potential new gas fields (Turkiye Today, January 1). In line with this approach, on January 8, the Turkish state energy company, Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO), signed a deal with a unit of U.S. oil and gas giant ExxonMobil, covering new exploration areas in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea (X/@aBayraktar1, January 8). These new contracts aim to strengthen Ankara's institutional capacity through international collaborations and advance its efforts to become an energy hub for the region.
Turkiye's oil and natural gas production surged in 2025, with oil output rising by 26 percent to 47.9 million barrels and natural gas production increasing by 39 percent to 3.2 billion cubic meters (Turkiye Today, January 7). Bayraktar stated that the country currently imports approximately two-thirds of its energy needs (Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, January 7).
Amid the evolving geopolitical realignments across Eurasia, Azerbaijan has consolidated its role as one of Turkiye's most dependable energy partners. This partnership extends beyond hydrocarbons, as Baku increasingly frames Ankara as a pivotal ally in security, economic integration, and transit connectivity (Eurasianet, January 7). Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's January 5 interview with local Azerbaijani news outlets emphasized this strategic recalibration. Azerbaijan is now actively advocating for the institutionalization of a Turkic trade corridor (President of Azerbaijan, January 5). Such a corridor would not only channel Central Asia's resource wealth toward Turkiye but also embed Ankara as the indispensable gateway linking Turkic states to Western markets. This initiative reflects Azerbaijan's broader vision of leveraging Turkic solidarity to mitigate regional uncertainties, diversify export routes, and reinforce Turkiye's geoeconomic centrality in Eurasia (see EDM, January 21).
First steps toward establishing this corridor were taken in December 2025, when the five leaders of Central Asian states formally anointed Azerbaijan as a member of the C5 format, turning it into C6 (Eurasianet, January 7; see EDM, January 21). Azerbaijan views Turkiye as a safe gateway for fossil fuel transfers to Europe and as a guarantor of regional energy infrastructure. In 2025, both states inaugurated operations of a new Ighdir-Nakhchivan gas pipeline in March, connecting Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan exclave to Turkiye's gas network, and began construction for a new rail link from Turkiye's city of Kars to the border of Nakhchivan in August (President of Azerbaijan, March 5, 2025; Caspian News, March 6, 2025; see EDM, January 22). The idea of such a corridor is important at this stage, given Russia's war against Ukraine and the changes it has brought to Eurasia's security and economic architecture. Azerbaijan is pushing the narrative that Turkic states need to be ready to defend their economic and political interests.
The recently signed gas supply agreement with Turkiye is expected to be a key driver of the rapid advancement of the Absheron project toward full-scale development. As a result, the presence of this long-term agreement paves the way for a final investment decision on Absheron to be taken as early as the first half of 2026. The Absheron field has the capacity to produce approximately 5-6 bcm of natural gas annually, of which 2.25 bcm will be exported to Turkiye via the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, while the remaining volumes could potentially be delivered to Europe through the Southern Gas Corridor (Haqqin.az, January 5).
The new gas supply agreement between Turkiye and Azerbaijan secures Ankara with a long-term, affordable energy supply from the Absheron field and symbolizes a deeper strategic alignment between the two states. This partnership intertwines energy cooperation with broader geopolitical ambitions. For Turkiye, the agreement provides additional leverage for energy diversification efforts, while for Azerbaijan, it boosts soft-power diplomacy and gives direct access to the European gas market, consolidating Ankara's role as a reliable energy partner and advancing the vision of a Turkic trade corridor that channels Central Asia's resources westward.
* * *
Fuad Shahbazov is an independent foreign affairs analyst. He is mainly focused on Russian foreign and military policy, and the South Caucasus.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/azerbaijan-and-turkiye-sign-energy-contract/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Anniversary - Two Years Since Climate Vandals Attacked Mona Lisa
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
Anniversary: Two years since climate vandals attacked Mona Lisa
Climate vandals began coordinated attacks against famous artwork in 2022 and last assaulted the Mona Lisa on this day in January 2024. But more concerning than assaults on artwork are their attacks on critical energy infrastructure.
By Ken Braun
Two years ago today, French vandals from the climate alarmist group Riposte Alimentaire threw pumpkin soup at the "Mona Lisa" hanging in the Louvre museum in Paris. Leonardo da Vinci's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
Anniversary: Two years since climate vandals attacked Mona Lisa
Climate vandals began coordinated attacks against famous artwork in 2022 and last assaulted the Mona Lisa on this day in January 2024. But more concerning than assaults on artwork are their attacks on critical energy infrastructure.
By Ken Braun
Two years ago today, French vandals from the climate alarmist group Riposte Alimentaire threw pumpkin soup at the "Mona Lisa" hanging in the Louvre museum in Paris. Leonardo da Vinci'sfamous painting was undamaged because of armored glass protecting it.
This was the second attack on the artwork within two years. In May 2022 a man feigning a disability approached the painting in a wheelchair, smeared a pastry on it, and yelled: "Think of planet Earth, there are people destroying it." The glass partition protected the work from damage in this instance as well. The vandal was taken to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation.
But (coincidentally or not) his attack immediately preceded numerous coordinated attacks against famous artwork in 2022 by climate vandals. Demonstrators from Just Stop Oil were behind multiple attacks on paintings in the United Kingdom, including one against DaVinci's "The Last Supper" in July 2022 and another on Vincent Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" in October 2022.
Recently and more concerning, the climate radicals have been attacking energy infrastructure.
Earlier this month, members of Vulkangruppe (German for "Volcano Group") launched an arson attack on a power station near an affluent suburb of Berlin, Germany. CNN reported 100,000 people were left without power for several very cold days in a blackout "believed to be the longest in Berlin's postwar history." The Berlin mayor appropriately called this an act of terrorism.
Less than six months ago in September 2025 a smaller multi-day outage in the Berlin area was inflicted by an earlier Vulkangruppe attack on a power station. And in March 2024 the climate terrorists knocked out the power supply to a Tesla gigafactory in the same region. German intelligence and law enforcement credit Vulkangruppe with similar assaults against transportation, energy and communications infrastructure dating back to at least 2011.
Anti-energy vandals have been active in the United States as well and tracked by InfluenceWatch and the Capital Research Center. Recent reports include the following:
* Greenpeace, nonprofits, and illegal protests: Greenpeace is facing a $667 million civil damage award for torts committed during a violent pipeline protest. So, what are we to make of the scores of other nonprofits that signed on to support Greenpeace's behavior?
* Bailing Out Greenpeace: Lefty Donors Who Could Pay Up for Dakota Access Damages: An analysis of Greenpeace's big funders before, during and even after the violent attacks on the Dakota Access pipeline.
* VIDEO: From activism to illegality: nonprofits and illegal protests
* On its anniversary, is Greenpeace sailing on its final voyage?: Sunday is the anniversary of Greenpeace's founding. But the anti-energy NGO has lately been sailing on some rough waters.
* InfluenceWatch Podcast #361: Justice for Greenpeace: It can seem infuriating: Leftist demonstrators wantonly violate the law, only to face no or negligible consequences because the powers that be either support or refuse to oppose their disruptive tactics. But as a famous progressive politician was fond of saying, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." Last month, a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfer, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, $667 million in justice, holding that Greenpeace USA had defamed the company during demonstrations against the pipeline. Joining us to discuss the protests, the verdict, and what it might mean for leftist activism going forward is James Meigs, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
* Unabombers without bombs: Another environmentalist group is hard at work, disturbing the peace and proselytizing a new world order destined to save the environment. All that's needed to solve the problem is to abandon economic systems that lift nations out of poverty and to accept a dramatic decrease in the global standard of living. Meet Extinction Rebellion.
* Thirty years of the Unabomber and his influence: The Unabomber manifesto was published 30 years ago this week. But Ted Kaczynski's hostility to industrial civilization has outlived his capture and his death.
* Extinction Rebellion Member and Initiator of ESG Wars Wants a Truce
* InfluenceWatch profiles:
- Extinction Rebellion
- Just Stop Oil
- Greenpeace
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/anniversary-two-years-since-climate-vandals-attacked-mona-lisa/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Can the 2025 Clean Competition Act Cut Global Emissions and Maintain U.S. Competitiveness?
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
Can the 2025 Clean Competition Act Cut Global Emissions and Maintain U.S. Competitiveness?
By Kyle Meng
Introduction
In late 2025, Congress introduced the U.S. Clean-Competition Act (CCA), a proposal meant to pursue two objectives: maintaining U.S. industrial competitiveness and accelerating industrial decarbonization. The bill combines a domestic performance fee with carbon import tariffs applied to carbon-intensive, trade-exposed (CITE) sectors. The CCA also includes
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
Can the 2025 Clean Competition Act Cut Global Emissions and Maintain U.S. Competitiveness?
By Kyle Meng
Introduction
In late 2025, Congress introduced the U.S. Clean-Competition Act (CCA), a proposal meant to pursue two objectives: maintaining U.S. industrial competitiveness and accelerating industrial decarbonization. The bill combines a domestic performance fee with carbon import tariffs applied to carbon-intensive, trade-exposed (CITE) sectors. The CCA also includesprovisions for building international climate clubs.
This commentary analyzes the U.S. and global economic and climate impacts of the CCA using a general-equilibrium global trade model. There are three main takeaways from the modeled results:
* CCA meaningfully lowers both U.S. and foreign greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, raises $10.6 billion annually in U.S. revenue, and slightly boosts U.S. GDP and welfare.
* A domestic performance fee is critical to CCA benefits. Without the domestic fee, U.S. emissions rise, and global GHG reductions are two-thirds of the full CCA. U.S. government revenue from just a carbon tariff is one-third that of the full CCA. U.S. GDP and welfare gains are also smaller.
* CCA's climate club provisions amplify global emissions reductions, but only when enacting domestic climate policy is a condition for joining a club.
Background
Industrial activity lies at the junction of competitiveness, security, and climate policy. Many traded industrial goods--especially iron-and-steel and aluminum--carry strategic weight. At the same time, industry accounts for more than one-fifth of U.S. and worldwide fossil-fuel GHG emissions, while many low-carbon process technologies remain early in deployment.
The U.S. CCA, introduced in December 2025 by both chambers of Congress, aims to address these challenges by accelerating industrial decarbonization while maintaining U.S. industrial competitiveness. It does so through two key components: a domestic carbon performance fee and a carbon import tariff applied to carbon-intensive, trade-exposed (CITE) sectors. The CCA also contains climate club provisions that waive carbon tariffs for trade partners implementing comparable domestic climate policies.
To understand whether the CCA can achieve these goals, my team at the University of California, Santa Barbara's Environmental Markets lab just released a policy brief that models the CCA's economic and climate impacts for the United States and around the world. This analysis uses a general-equilibrium global trade model specifically designed for analyzing climate and trade policies (modeling details can be found in the policy brief).
The modeling shows that CCA's two-instrument architecture is critical. A carbon tariff alone behaves like a tariff with limited benefits to the U.S. economy, U.S. government revenue, and the global climate. The full CCA with both a domestic performance fee and tariff yields greater benefits to the U.S. economy, raises more U.S. government revenue, and can lead to significant global GHG reductions through CCA's climate club provisions.
What the CCA Does--and Why the Details Matter
The CCA is built on two core policy instruments applied to CITE sectors. Covered CITE sectors under the CCA are aluminum, iron and steel, cement, chemicals, glass, nitrogen-based fertilizers, paper and pulp, and fossil fuel extraction (though the model does not include fossil extraction). First, a U.S. carbon-based performance fee starts at $60/ton CO2e and applies to firms whose emissions intensity exceeds a benchmark set to today's U.S. average for that sector. Cleaner U.S. firms face no fee. The second instrument is a carbon import tariff levied on imports arriving from jurisdictions whose sector-average intensity exceeds the same benchmark, also valued at $60/ton. Both the benchmark declines and the carbon price increase over time.
Conceptually, the domestic performance fee creates an incentive for dirtier U.S. firms to clean up and cleaner U.S. firms to stay ahead, driving domestic decarbonization. To address competitiveness concerns, the carbon import tariff levels the playing fieldby raising costs on foreign producers similar to those faced by U.S. firms. When operating together, these two instruments help to maintain U.S. competitiveness while inducing emissions cuts domestically and abroad.
The CCA's climate club provisions are particularly consequential geopolitically. CCA waives the carbon import tariff on a U.S. trade partner if it adopts a domestic policy comparable to CCA's domestic performance fee. This simple provision provides the foundation for a trade agreement that rewards meaningful domestic climate policy with market access, amplifying similar climate and trade policies being put in place elsewhere, such as the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
Impacts of a Unilateral U.S. CCA
Figure 1 shows results from modeling the initial year of CCA's domestic performance fee and carbon import tariff. It assumes CCA is implemented unilaterally without international climate club cooperation. CCA lowers U.S. CITE emissions by 8 percent. Globally, it lowers global CITE emissions by 44.9 million tons (mtons) of GHG, split between 16.3 mtons of U.S. reductions and 28.6 mtons of foreign reductions (Figure 1).
* * *
Figure 1: Unilateral Carbon Tariff Raises U.S. Emissions and Lowers Foreign Emissions
Figure 2: Full CCA with Domestic Fees Triples Tariff-Only Revenue
* * *
The model projects that CCA will raise $10.6 billion (in 2025 USD) in U.S. government revenue on an annual basis, $7.1 billion from the domestic performance fee, and $3.5 billion from the carbon import tariff Figure 2A). The tariff contributes less because CITE imports are a relatively small fraction of domestic consumption (about 23 percent in the underlying data), so the domestic base of emissions is larger than the imported base.
* * *
Figure 3: U.S. GDP and Welfare Gains Are Smaller than the Full CCA
* * *
On macroeconomic effects, the model predicts virtually no effect on U.S. GDP. Indeed, the model predicts a slight increase in GDP (Figure 2B). All else equal, an increase in production costs from the domestic fee pushes GDP down. But this is offset by the fact that both the tariff and domestic policy improve U.S. terms of trade, lowering the price of imports relative to U.S. export prices, as has been documented elsewhere for tariffs and unilateral carbon prices. This latter improvement of U.S. terms of trade from CCA's performance fee occurs because in an open economy, a domestic performance fee can raise GDP, provided that the taxed good is sufficiently exported and tax revenue is recycled back into the economy. Indeed, CITE sectors represent 13 percent of total U.S. exports. U.S. welfare, which further accounts for avoided climate damages from lower global emissions, also increases slightly (Figure 2B).
The Importance of the Domestic Fee
The analysis shows that CCA's domestic performance fee is critical to the magnitude of its impacts. If the CCA were implemented as a carbon tariff without a domestic performance fee, global emissions reductions would fall entirely on foreign countries. Under a tariff-only policy, U.S. emissions rise 1.5 mtons even as other countries' emissions decline by about 30.4 mtons, for a net global reduction of 28.9 mtons--about two-thirds of the full CCA impact (Figure 1).
Increased U.S. emissions and decreased foreign emissions occur because a carbon import tariff, like any tariff, protects domestic producers. It raises domestic output while lowering the output of foreign producers, and likewise for emissions. In that sense, a carbon tariff-only approach runs counter to how climate policies (e.g., carbon pricing and clean energy subsidies) typically operate: Those policies aim to lower domestic GHG emissions, while a carbon tariff raises domestic emissions.
A carbon tariff-only approach also raises much less revenue: Without the domestic performance fee, U.S. revenue comes only from the import tariff (about $3.4 billion annually), roughly one-third of the full CCA's total revenue (Figure 2A). U.S. GDP and welfare gains are also smaller than the full CCA (Figure 2B) because less revenue is recycled, and avoided climate damages are smaller.
* * *
Figure 4: Small Climate Clubs Reduce Global GHGs Only Modestly
* * *
Climate Clubs Can Be a Global Climate Multiplier--but Only with Domestic Policy Requirements
The CCA's climate club provisions reward comparable domestic climate policy with U.S. market access. Modeling different club configurations makes the strategic logic clear: Climate clubs based on both the domestic performance fee and carbon tariffs can lead to substantial global GHG reductions, and the global effect scales with membership.
In the modeled $60 per ton GHG climate club scenarios with membership requiring comparable domestic policies, global CITE emissions decrease by 1.5 percent in a U.S., EU, and UK club, 3.2 percent in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) club, and 24.2 percent in an OECD, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and India club. In a global club with all countries joining, global CITE emissions fall by 31.6 percent. Across these climate club scenarios, U.S. CITE emissions reductions are largely unchanged at 8 percent.
By contrast, climate clubs without domestic policy requirements do not have global emissions reductions scaling with membership. For example, the OECD, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and India club achieves only a 1.2 percent reduction in global emissions. This is because, without requiring domestic policies, a tariff-only club primarily shifts emissions around globally from club members to non-club members. Indeed, the model shows that a tariff-only club that involves all countries achieves zero global emissions reductions. With no countries to shift emissions to, a global climate club based only on carbon tariffs brings the world back to where it is today: no carbon tariffs and no new domestic climate policy.
For the geopolitics of climate, this is significant: CCA's climate club provision can magnify global climate impact without necessarily imposing more reductions on the United States, but only if club membership is conditioned on domestic action.
What If Carbon Tariffs Were Implemented First Before Domestic Policy?
The modeling also suggests that sequencing a carbon tariff first before the domestic performance fee may be ineffective compared with simultaneously implementing both, as done under the full CCA. A carbon tariff by itself increases CITE output more than a combined policy. Once a carbon tariff is adopted, later adoption of a domestic fee would lower output relative to the tariff-only policy, making CITE firms less inclined to politically support the domestic fee. In short, having a carbon tariff first amounts to granting the carrot before the stick. If the goal is both U.S. emissions reductions and U.S. competitiveness, the performance fee and the carbon tariff should be enacted at the same time.
Geopolitical competition and climate concerns intersect when it comes to industrial activity. General equilibrium trade modeling shows that the CCA can address these concerns jointly. CCA can lower U.S. and global GHG emissions and raise U.S. government revenue while having negligible effects on U.S. GDP. CCA also lays the groundwork for a global climate-and-trade regime, with the potential for substantial worldwide GHG reductions through its climate club provisions. For both unilateral and multilateral effects, CCA's domestic performance fee is essential. Without that fee, many of CCA's economic and climate gains are substantially weakened.
* * *
Kyle Meng is a senior associate (non-resident) with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-economic-coercion-over-greenland-would-backfire
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Defending Educational Freedom & Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
Defending Educational Freedom & Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts
Phoenix, AZ -- As the first state to implement Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), Arizona created a model that puts the power to make educational decisions back in the hands of parents and families. Today, nearly 100,000 Arizona students participate in the ESA program. Arizona has been used by many states as a model for their own educational freedom initiatives.
Recent proposals intend to scale back
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
Defending Educational Freedom & Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts
Phoenix, AZ -- As the first state to implement Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), Arizona created a model that puts the power to make educational decisions back in the hands of parents and families. Today, nearly 100,000 Arizona students participate in the ESA program. Arizona has been used by many states as a model for their own educational freedom initiatives.
Recent proposals intend to scale backthe ESA program in Arizona display a counterintuitive shift away from this effective model. Instead of continuing to empower parents, families and students, these policies would give authority back to an unaccountable system that has failed Arizona students.
Erika Donalds, chair for Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute, spoke about the importance of ESAs:
"Education scholarship accounts empower parents to decide how, where and by whom their children are educated. Families deserve this responsibility, because they know their children best and love them the most. Eliminating or downsizing these programs would prove to be detrimental to students' academic success."
Instead of limiting education freedom and parental autonomy, Arizona lawmakers should focus on expanding educational freedom programs like ESAs, inviting innovative options into the state to serve the diverse needs of its residents. Arizona families deserve more choices, and expanded opportunities.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/defending-educational-freedom-arizonas-empowerment-scholarship-accounts
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Sues Cornell University Over Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practices
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Sues Cornell University Over Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practices
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) announced today that it has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Cornell University on behalf of Dr. Colin Wright, a qualified evolutionary biologist who was excluded from consideration for a faculty position solely because he is white.
Internal documents obtained by AFPI reveal that Cornell secretly reserved the position in its Department of Ecology and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Jan. 28, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Sues Cornell University Over Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practices
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) announced today that it has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Cornell University on behalf of Dr. Colin Wright, a qualified evolutionary biologist who was excluded from consideration for a faculty position solely because he is white.
Internal documents obtained by AFPI reveal that Cornell secretly reserved the position in its Department of Ecology andEvolutionary Biology for candidates who satisfied a "diversity axis"--a term used in faculty emails to classify applicants by race, sexual orientation, and disability status. Notably, Cornell never publicly posted the job opening, as required by its own policies, and kept the hiring process hidden from potentially qualified applicants.
"This was a racial litmus test administered in secret," said Leigh Ann O'Neill, AFPI's Chief Legal Officer. "Cornell's own emails reveal they intentionally excluded white candidates, classified applicants by race, and ignored institutional hiring rules in pursuit of a so-called 'diversity hire.' That's illegal, and this lawsuit will make that clear."
The complaint includes direct quotes from senior Cornell administrators and faculty acknowledging their intention to avoid a "search dynamic" and to offer the job only to preselected minority candidates--without competition. An internal spreadsheet ranked candidates based on how well they met "diversity" qualifications, listing race and identity markers alongside academic credentials.
Of all candidates given consideration, none were white.
Dr. Michael Shires, Vice Chair for Education Opportunity at AFPI and an academic leader with decades of experience in faculty hiring, emphasized the broader implications of the case:
"I've been on both sides of the hiring table. There are lawful ways to pursue inclusion and representation. But what Cornell did here was illegal. When a university decides that some candidates don't even deserve to know a position exists because of their skin color, that's discrimination."
This is not Cornell's first encounter with federal scrutiny. In November 2025, the university agreed to pay $60 million in penalties to the U.S. Department of Education over unrelated Title VI and Title IX compliance issues. That agreement did not cover the violations alleged in this case.
"Cornell wants all of this behind them -- because the more you look, the more wrongdoing you find," O'Neill added.
Dr. Wright, who earned his Ph.D. from UC Santa Barbara and had published more academic research than the candidate ultimately hired, was actively seeking a faculty position at the time but was never informed of the Cornell opening. He learned about the race-based hiring process only in 2025, after an internal Cornell email was made public.
The case, Wright v. Cornell University, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-sues-cornell-university-over-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practices
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Applauds Arrest of Minnesota Rioters
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement:
* * *
AFPI Applauds Arrest of Minnesota Rioters
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement:
"Federal law enforcement officers in Minnesota are bravely enforcing immigration law and keeping Americans safe. In return, they have faced riots, obstruction and interference, brutal attacks, doxing, and violent resistance at every turn. These rioters have been emboldened by reckless statements by state and local officials in Minnesota.
We commend Attorney General Pam Bondi for
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement:
* * *
AFPI Applauds Arrest of Minnesota Rioters
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement:
"Federal law enforcement officers in Minnesota are bravely enforcing immigration law and keeping Americans safe. In return, they have faced riots, obstruction and interference, brutal attacks, doxing, and violent resistance at every turn. These rioters have been emboldened by reckless statements by state and local officials in Minnesota.
We commend Attorney General Pam Bondi forstepping up where Minnesota leaders have repeatedly failed to maintain order and protect the rule of law. The arrest of 16 rioters who allegedly assaulted federal law enforcement officers and impeded officers carrying out their duties underscore the need for firm accountability and real justice. The message is clear: No one is above the law, and those who obstruct it will be held accountable."
* * *
Additional Resources:
Read our latest op-ed on Minnesota here: Mayor Frey, ICE is not 'sowing chaos.' You are. Please resign.
Read our latest legal commentary on Minnesota here: Minnesota's Unconstitutional Lawsuit Against DHS Has No Legal Basis and Must Be Dismissed
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-arrest-of-minnesota-rioters
[Category: ThinkTank]
