Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
TechFreedom: FCC Should Grant ABC's Petition and Stop Chilling Political Speech
WASHINGTON, June 24 -- TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank, issued the following news release on June 23, 2026:
* * *
FCC Should Grant ABC's Petition and Stop Chilling Political Speech
Yesterday, TechFreedom filed comments in response to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) request for comment regarding the petition by Disney's ABC asking the Commission to declare that The View qualifies as a bona fide news interview program and thus is exempt from the requirement to provide "equal opportunities" to the rivals of political candidates interviewed on The View.
"If any rival candidate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank, issued the following news release on June 23, 2026: * * * FCC Should Grant ABC's Petition and Stop Chilling Political Speech Yesterday, TechFreedom filed comments in response to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) request for comment regarding the petition by Disney's ABC asking the Commission to declare that The View qualifies as a bona fide news interview program and thus is exempt from the requirement to provide "equal opportunities" to the rivals of political candidates interviewed on The View. "If any rival candidatecan demand equal time, talk shows would interview fewer political candidates--or none at all," said Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom. "That's why Congress created the exemptions in 1959, and why the Commission has deferred to the good-faith editorial judgments of broadcast shows for half a century. Initially, only shows like Meet the Press qualified, but in 1984, the Commission began allowing innovative formats, which ultimately made possible shows like Politically Incorrect. What mattered was that the show was regularly scheduled, not a gift of airtime to a candidate, and that the hosts controlled the interview, not an open-mic for a candidate's supporters. It was up to candidates to prove that the show was trying to advance a particular candidate. In 2003, the Media Bureau wisely told broadcasters and shows not to bother seeking prior determination of their bona fides."
"Now, the Bureau has gutted all of this precedent, leaving television broadcasters in fear of fines or even losing their licenses," continued Szoka. "It demands that shows seek prior clearance that they are not, as Chair Carr put it, 'fake news.' Their freedom to decide whom to interview will depend on his whim. This is obviously unconstitutional. It is a system of prior restraint, the most odious kind of censorship. It applies only to television shows, not radio shows, which reveals its obviously partisan purpose: to punish television shows for not interviewing Trump's political allies, while conservative talk radio, cable shows, YouTubers and podcasters remain free to entirely exclude political candidates opposed to Trump. This is the worst example of jawboning in American history--except for Trump and Carr's threats to take away ABC's broadcast licenses, which clearly have the same aim: suppressing dissent and ensuring complacent media."
"Section 315(a) was already constitutionally suspect," concluded Szoka. "The law imposes special burdens on some speakers but not others: Its must-carry mandate applies to The View and other talk shows hosted by ABC, NBC and CBS, but not to the many Fox News talk shows that appear only on cable. Nor does it apply to YouTube channels or podcasts such as the Joe Rogan Experience, or The New York Times' The Daily. The constitutional rationale for denying full First Amendment protection to broadcast media in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) rests on the media scarcity of the 1960s; it long ago became obsolete. The FCC's overreach may finally lead a court to strike down this statute--and perhaps the entire system by which the agency manipulates broadcast content."
###
Read these comments and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:
* Comments in response to the FCC's NOI on whether any changes can or should be made to the current TV ratings system (May 22, 2026)
* Letter to the FCC expressing concerns over the abuse of the "public interest" standard (Mar. 20, 2026)
* Petition filed with Protect Democracy asking the FCC to repeal its news distortion policy, (Nov. 13, 2025)
* The Future of Speech Online 2025: The Age of Constitutional Evasion, Day 2 (Oct. 29, 2025)
* Brendan Carr-leone's war on the First Amendment, The Hill (Oct 2, 2025)
* Coalition letter expressing concerns about threats by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr (Sep. 30, 2025)
* Comments to the FTC regarding technology platform censorship (May 21, 2025)
* TechFreedom Policy Summit Day 1: Constitutional Limits of the FTC and DOJ (May 15, 2025)
* Comments to the FCC regarding the news distortion complaint involving CBS Broadcasting Inc., (Mar. 7, 2025)
* * *
About TechFreedom:
TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.
* * *
Original text here: https://techfreedom.org/fcc-should-grant-abcs-petition-and-stop-chilling-political-speech/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
FCC Should Grant ABC's Petition and Stop Chilling Political Speech
Yesterday, TechFreedom filed comments in response to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) request for comment regarding the petition by Disney's ABC asking the Commission to declare that The View qualifies as a bona fide news interview program and thus is exempt from the requirement to provide "equal opportunities" to the rivals of political candidates interviewed on The View.
"If any rival candidate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank, issued the following news release on June 23, 2026: * * * FCC Should Grant ABC's Petition and Stop Chilling Political Speech Yesterday, TechFreedom filed comments in response to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) request for comment regarding the petition by Disney's ABC asking the Commission to declare that The View qualifies as a bona fide news interview program and thus is exempt from the requirement to provide "equal opportunities" to the rivals of political candidates interviewed on The View. "If any rival candidatecan demand equal time, talk shows would interview fewer political candidates--or none at all," said Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom. "That's why Congress created the exemptions in 1959, and why the Commission has deferred to the good-faith editorial judgments of broadcast shows for half a century. Initially, only shows like Meet the Press qualified, but in 1984, the Commission began allowing innovative formats, which ultimately made possible shows like Politically Incorrect. What mattered was that the show was regularly scheduled, not a gift of airtime to a candidate, and that the hosts controlled the interview, not an open-mic for a candidate's supporters. It was up to candidates to prove that the show was trying to advance a particular candidate. In 2003, the Media Bureau wisely told broadcasters and shows not to bother seeking prior determination of their bona fides."
"Now, the Bureau has gutted all of this precedent, leaving television broadcasters in fear of fines or even losing their licenses," continued Szoka. "It demands that shows seek prior clearance that they are not, as Chair Carr put it, 'fake news.' Their freedom to decide whom to interview will depend on his whim. This is obviously unconstitutional. It is a system of prior restraint, the most odious kind of censorship. It applies only to television shows, not radio shows, which reveals its obviously partisan purpose: to punish television shows for not interviewing Trump's political allies, while conservative talk radio, cable shows, YouTubers and podcasters remain free to entirely exclude political candidates opposed to Trump. This is the worst example of jawboning in American history--except for Trump and Carr's threats to take away ABC's broadcast licenses, which clearly have the same aim: suppressing dissent and ensuring complacent media."
"Section 315(a) was already constitutionally suspect," concluded Szoka. "The law imposes special burdens on some speakers but not others: Its must-carry mandate applies to The View and other talk shows hosted by ABC, NBC and CBS, but not to the many Fox News talk shows that appear only on cable. Nor does it apply to YouTube channels or podcasts such as the Joe Rogan Experience, or The New York Times' The Daily. The constitutional rationale for denying full First Amendment protection to broadcast media in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) rests on the media scarcity of the 1960s; it long ago became obsolete. The FCC's overreach may finally lead a court to strike down this statute--and perhaps the entire system by which the agency manipulates broadcast content."
###
Read these comments and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:
* Comments in response to the FCC's NOI on whether any changes can or should be made to the current TV ratings system (May 22, 2026)
* Letter to the FCC expressing concerns over the abuse of the "public interest" standard (Mar. 20, 2026)
* Petition filed with Protect Democracy asking the FCC to repeal its news distortion policy, (Nov. 13, 2025)
* The Future of Speech Online 2025: The Age of Constitutional Evasion, Day 2 (Oct. 29, 2025)
* Brendan Carr-leone's war on the First Amendment, The Hill (Oct 2, 2025)
* Coalition letter expressing concerns about threats by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr (Sep. 30, 2025)
* Comments to the FTC regarding technology platform censorship (May 21, 2025)
* TechFreedom Policy Summit Day 1: Constitutional Limits of the FTC and DOJ (May 15, 2025)
* Comments to the FCC regarding the news distortion complaint involving CBS Broadcasting Inc., (Mar. 7, 2025)
* * *
About TechFreedom:
TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.
* * *
Original text here: https://techfreedom.org/fcc-should-grant-abcs-petition-and-stop-chilling-political-speech/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Rand: Nearly 5 Million U.S. Veterans Have Used Psilocybin Mushrooms, LSD or MDMA; Veterans' Policy Preferences Differ by Psychedelic Substance
SANTA MONICA, California, June 24 -- Rand issued the following news release on June 23, 2026:
* * *
Nearly 5 Million U.S. Veterans Have Used Psilocybin Mushrooms, LSD or MDMA; Veterans' Policy Preferences Differ by Psychedelic Substance
Nationally representative survey explores veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes as the federal government accelerates research into psychedelic-assisted therapies
-
An estimated 4.8 million U.S. veterans have used psilocybin mushrooms, LSD or MDMA in their lifetime, according to new RAND research examining veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes.
The report, ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, June 24 -- Rand issued the following news release on June 23, 2026: * * * Nearly 5 Million U.S. Veterans Have Used Psilocybin Mushrooms, LSD or MDMA; Veterans' Policy Preferences Differ by Psychedelic Substance Nationally representative survey explores veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes as the federal government accelerates research into psychedelic-assisted therapies - An estimated 4.8 million U.S. veterans have used psilocybin mushrooms, LSD or MDMA in their lifetime, according to new RAND research examining veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes. The report,the third in a series from the 2025 RAND Psychedelics Survey, also found that U.S. veterans drew clear distinctions between substances when it comes to policy. Although nearly a quarter of U.S. veterans supported the legal use of psilocybin mushrooms, support dropped substantially for the legal use of both LSD (11%) and MDMA (9%).
"Despite recent federal government investments in psychedelics research, VA policy around psychedelics remains unclear and we found that about half of veterans were unsure about discussing them with a VA doctor," said Michelle Priest, lead author of the report and research project specialist at RAND. "That uncertainty matters, especially as veteran issues are prominently featured in policy conversations surrounding psychedelics, both at the federal and state levels."
Unlike its approach to cannabis, VA has not published a directive encouraging veterans to discuss their use of psychedelics with providers or clarifying that disclosure would not affect benefits. About 48% of veterans were unsure whether discussing psilocybin mushroom use with a VA provider could jeopardize their benefits, and 46% were unsure about discussing MDMA use, according to the survey.
The study also found that about half of veterans supported the VA providing or paying for psilocybin-assisted therapy (54%) or MDMA-assisted therapy (45%) if those therapies are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Although veterans' support for the legal use of psilocybin mushrooms, LSD and MDMA was generally similar to nonveterans' support, veterans were slightly more likely than demographically similar nonveterans to support the legal use of both psilocybin mushrooms and LSD.
In terms of psychedelics use, veterans were slightly more likely to have used LSD in their lifetime. Use of psychedelic substances was rare among veterans in the past year, with prevalence below 3% for every substance examined.
Fewer than 1% of veterans had ever used ibogaine, a substance highlighted in the recent White House executive order on psychedelic therapies, although about 5% of veterans who had never tried it were willing to do so.
"Despite the increasing interest in the role of psychedelics in the treatment of veterans' health, representative data on the prevalence of use of psychedelics and policy preferences among the U.S. veteran population are limited," said Beau Kilmer, co-author of the report and co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. "This report helps fill this gap and offers ideas for future research on this topic."
The 2025 RAND Psychedelics Survey is a probability-based, nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults conducted in September 2025. Findings in this report are based on responses from 1,339 veterans. The research was conducted through the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. Other authors of the report, "U.S. Veterans and Psychedelics: Prevalence of Use and Policy Preferences," are Terry L. Schell and Ben Senator.
Other reports in the series include "U.S. Psychedelic Use and Microdosing in 2025" and "Public Opinion on Legalizing Psychedelics."
The RAND Drug Policy Research Center addresses pressing substance-use issues and helps decisionmakers develop more effective approaches to drug policy through objective analysis.
* * *
About RAND
RAND is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2026/06/nearly-5-million-us-veterans-have-used-psilocybin-mushrooms.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Nearly 5 Million U.S. Veterans Have Used Psilocybin Mushrooms, LSD or MDMA; Veterans' Policy Preferences Differ by Psychedelic Substance
Nationally representative survey explores veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes as the federal government accelerates research into psychedelic-assisted therapies
-
An estimated 4.8 million U.S. veterans have used psilocybin mushrooms, LSD or MDMA in their lifetime, according to new RAND research examining veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes.
The report, ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, June 24 -- Rand issued the following news release on June 23, 2026: * * * Nearly 5 Million U.S. Veterans Have Used Psilocybin Mushrooms, LSD or MDMA; Veterans' Policy Preferences Differ by Psychedelic Substance Nationally representative survey explores veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes as the federal government accelerates research into psychedelic-assisted therapies - An estimated 4.8 million U.S. veterans have used psilocybin mushrooms, LSD or MDMA in their lifetime, according to new RAND research examining veterans' psychedelic use and attitudes. The report,the third in a series from the 2025 RAND Psychedelics Survey, also found that U.S. veterans drew clear distinctions between substances when it comes to policy. Although nearly a quarter of U.S. veterans supported the legal use of psilocybin mushrooms, support dropped substantially for the legal use of both LSD (11%) and MDMA (9%).
"Despite recent federal government investments in psychedelics research, VA policy around psychedelics remains unclear and we found that about half of veterans were unsure about discussing them with a VA doctor," said Michelle Priest, lead author of the report and research project specialist at RAND. "That uncertainty matters, especially as veteran issues are prominently featured in policy conversations surrounding psychedelics, both at the federal and state levels."
Unlike its approach to cannabis, VA has not published a directive encouraging veterans to discuss their use of psychedelics with providers or clarifying that disclosure would not affect benefits. About 48% of veterans were unsure whether discussing psilocybin mushroom use with a VA provider could jeopardize their benefits, and 46% were unsure about discussing MDMA use, according to the survey.
The study also found that about half of veterans supported the VA providing or paying for psilocybin-assisted therapy (54%) or MDMA-assisted therapy (45%) if those therapies are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Although veterans' support for the legal use of psilocybin mushrooms, LSD and MDMA was generally similar to nonveterans' support, veterans were slightly more likely than demographically similar nonveterans to support the legal use of both psilocybin mushrooms and LSD.
In terms of psychedelics use, veterans were slightly more likely to have used LSD in their lifetime. Use of psychedelic substances was rare among veterans in the past year, with prevalence below 3% for every substance examined.
Fewer than 1% of veterans had ever used ibogaine, a substance highlighted in the recent White House executive order on psychedelic therapies, although about 5% of veterans who had never tried it were willing to do so.
"Despite the increasing interest in the role of psychedelics in the treatment of veterans' health, representative data on the prevalence of use of psychedelics and policy preferences among the U.S. veteran population are limited," said Beau Kilmer, co-author of the report and co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. "This report helps fill this gap and offers ideas for future research on this topic."
The 2025 RAND Psychedelics Survey is a probability-based, nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults conducted in September 2025. Findings in this report are based on responses from 1,339 veterans. The research was conducted through the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. Other authors of the report, "U.S. Veterans and Psychedelics: Prevalence of Use and Policy Preferences," are Terry L. Schell and Ben Senator.
Other reports in the series include "U.S. Psychedelic Use and Microdosing in 2025" and "Public Opinion on Legalizing Psychedelics."
The RAND Drug Policy Research Center addresses pressing substance-use issues and helps decisionmakers develop more effective approaches to drug policy through objective analysis.
* * *
About RAND
RAND is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2026/06/nearly-5-million-us-veterans-have-used-psilocybin-mushrooms.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Dresden: Demographic Change Causing Staff Shortages in Critical Occupations in Germany
MUNICH, Germany, June 24 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on June 23, 2026:
* * *
ifo Dresden: Demographic Change Causing Staff Shortages in Critical Occupations in Germany
Over the next ten years, the retirement of workers in systemically important occupations will lead to staffing shortages, according to a new analysis by ifo Dresden. "Demographic change will be particularly noticeable over the next decade in occupations on which we as a society rely every day -in the public transport, care, or nursing sectors," says ifo researcher Ernst Glockner.
In the 21 occupational ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, June 24 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on June 23, 2026: * * * ifo Dresden: Demographic Change Causing Staff Shortages in Critical Occupations in Germany Over the next ten years, the retirement of workers in systemically important occupations will lead to staffing shortages, according to a new analysis by ifo Dresden. "Demographic change will be particularly noticeable over the next decade in occupations on which we as a society rely every day -in the public transport, care, or nursing sectors," says ifo researcher Ernst Glockner. In the 21 occupationalgroups classified as system relevant during the coronavirus pandemic, 27% of workers are over 55.
In particular, drivers in the public transport sector and certain groups of health professionals have an especially high average age. There is an increasing shortage of staff here. The analysis also shows that both old and young employees work particularly often in mini jobs.
The study on age structure in various occupational groups and German states is based on employment statistics from Germany's Federal Employment Agency. Across all 37 major occupational groups, the share of people over 55 varies considerably, ranging from around 15 to 40%. About a third of all workers are employed in systemically important occupational groups.
Although people in East Germany are, on average, older than those in the West, there is no difference in the age structure of the workforce: The age distribution within individual occupational groups and in systemically important jobs is largely uniform across the country. It is only in the city states that employees are slightly younger.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Die Demografie der Berufsgruppen
Gloria Lange, Ernst Glockner
ifo Dresden berichtet, 2026, 33, Nr. 03 04-10
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/die-demografie-der-berufsgruppen)
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Dresden berichtet 03/2026
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/journal-complete-issue/ifo-dresden-berichtet-032026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-06-23/ifo-dresden-demographic-change-causing-staff-shortages-critical
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
ifo Dresden: Demographic Change Causing Staff Shortages in Critical Occupations in Germany
Over the next ten years, the retirement of workers in systemically important occupations will lead to staffing shortages, according to a new analysis by ifo Dresden. "Demographic change will be particularly noticeable over the next decade in occupations on which we as a society rely every day -in the public transport, care, or nursing sectors," says ifo researcher Ernst Glockner.
In the 21 occupational ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, June 24 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on June 23, 2026: * * * ifo Dresden: Demographic Change Causing Staff Shortages in Critical Occupations in Germany Over the next ten years, the retirement of workers in systemically important occupations will lead to staffing shortages, according to a new analysis by ifo Dresden. "Demographic change will be particularly noticeable over the next decade in occupations on which we as a society rely every day -in the public transport, care, or nursing sectors," says ifo researcher Ernst Glockner. In the 21 occupationalgroups classified as system relevant during the coronavirus pandemic, 27% of workers are over 55.
In particular, drivers in the public transport sector and certain groups of health professionals have an especially high average age. There is an increasing shortage of staff here. The analysis also shows that both old and young employees work particularly often in mini jobs.
The study on age structure in various occupational groups and German states is based on employment statistics from Germany's Federal Employment Agency. Across all 37 major occupational groups, the share of people over 55 varies considerably, ranging from around 15 to 40%. About a third of all workers are employed in systemically important occupational groups.
Although people in East Germany are, on average, older than those in the West, there is no difference in the age structure of the workforce: The age distribution within individual occupational groups and in systemically important jobs is largely uniform across the country. It is only in the city states that employees are slightly younger.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Die Demografie der Berufsgruppen
Gloria Lange, Ernst Glockner
ifo Dresden berichtet, 2026, 33, Nr. 03 04-10
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/die-demografie-der-berufsgruppen)
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Dresden berichtet 03/2026
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/journal-complete-issue/ifo-dresden-berichtet-032026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-06-23/ifo-dresden-demographic-change-causing-staff-shortages-critical
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: As Millions Lose SNAP, Senate Farm Bill Proposal Ignores Urgent Need to Protect Food Assistance for Low-Income Families
WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following statement on June 23, 2026, by Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance, on the Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman's Farm Bill proposal:
* * *
As Millions Lose SNAP, Senate Farm Bill Proposal Ignores Urgent Need to Protect Food Assistance for Low-Income Families
The farm bill proposal released today by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman ignores the rapidly worsening hunger crisis in the wake of the 2025 Republican reconciliation law (H.R. 1). This law made the deepest cuts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following statement on June 23, 2026, by Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance, on the Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman's Farm Bill proposal: * * * As Millions Lose SNAP, Senate Farm Bill Proposal Ignores Urgent Need to Protect Food Assistance for Low-Income Families The farm bill proposal released today by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman ignores the rapidly worsening hunger crisis in the wake of the 2025 Republican reconciliation law (H.R. 1). This law made the deepest cutsto SNAP in history, but the harm unfolding across the country is already far greater than many anticipated, with more than 4 million people losing SNAP through March. Even more people will lose the vital food assistance they need to afford groceries unless Congress immediately delays H.R. 1's unprecedented shift of significant new SNAP costs to states. Policymakers failing to act in the face of this emergency is unconscionable. This proposal -- or any legislation with farm relief that ignores the urgent need to mitigate this harm -- should be rejected.
Starting in October 2027, H.R. 1 will slash federal funding for SNAP benefits and impose these costs on most states. The amount each state will have to pay is based on its payment error rate -- a measure of over and underpayments that largely reflects unintentional mistakes. As states have raced to reduce their measured error rate, some have taken drastic actions that are making it far harder for eligible people to access the help they need to afford groceries. Ironically, when eligible families lose out on SNAP altogether because of these actions, this "error" doesn't count in the state's error rate.
We're already seeing the impact: the number of low-income people receiving SNAP fell by more than 4 million between H.R. 1's enactment in July 2025 and March 2026. That's a 10 percent drop in only eight months and the steepest drop in decades. In just 13 states with available data, the number of children receiving SNAP has fallen by more than 800,000 since H.R. 1's enactment.
And more people will lose SNAP as this ticking time bomb begins to hit state budgets. In the face of this massive cost shift, some states could withdraw from the program entirely, eliminating food assistance for children, seniors, people with disabilities, workers paid low wages, and others who need SNAP to meet their basic needs. Some 11 percent of states responding to a survey from the American Public Human Services Association identified the potential risk that they'll withdraw from SNAP as a result of the cost shift, and 5 percent said there's a risk that they'll pause SNAP operations.
Many people who have lost SNAP are in groups that weren't intended to be the target of H.R. 1's eligibility restrictions, like children. That means many struggling families are losing SNAP because they can't navigate new bureaucratic obstacles or they are going without the help they need as additional red tape pushes understaffed state agencies to their breaking point. Seniors have empty fridges. Parents have hungry children and nowhere left to turn but already overburdened food banks, who have made clear that they cannot fill the gap.
State and local officials are calling on Congress to act. Without action, they're warning of dire consequences for low-income families and the broader economy.
Congress must heed this call and give all states -- not just a favored few who will benefit from a special carveout under H.R. 1 -- more time to improve their payment accuracy, which will determine their required share of SNAP costs, while ensuring eligible low-income families can still access the food assistance they need to afford groceries.
For more than 50 years, SNAP has reflected a nationwide commitment to addressing hunger, ensuring eligible low-income people can get the help they need regardless of where they live. Unless Congress acts in the face of this emergency, these federal cuts could drive some states to walk away from that commitment. Struggling families who can least afford it will bear the cost.
* * *
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/as-millions-lose-snap-senate-farm-bill-proposal-ignores-urgent-need-to-protect
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
As Millions Lose SNAP, Senate Farm Bill Proposal Ignores Urgent Need to Protect Food Assistance for Low-Income Families
The farm bill proposal released today by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman ignores the rapidly worsening hunger crisis in the wake of the 2025 Republican reconciliation law (H.R. 1). This law made the deepest cuts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following statement on June 23, 2026, by Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance, on the Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman's Farm Bill proposal: * * * As Millions Lose SNAP, Senate Farm Bill Proposal Ignores Urgent Need to Protect Food Assistance for Low-Income Families The farm bill proposal released today by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman ignores the rapidly worsening hunger crisis in the wake of the 2025 Republican reconciliation law (H.R. 1). This law made the deepest cutsto SNAP in history, but the harm unfolding across the country is already far greater than many anticipated, with more than 4 million people losing SNAP through March. Even more people will lose the vital food assistance they need to afford groceries unless Congress immediately delays H.R. 1's unprecedented shift of significant new SNAP costs to states. Policymakers failing to act in the face of this emergency is unconscionable. This proposal -- or any legislation with farm relief that ignores the urgent need to mitigate this harm -- should be rejected.
Starting in October 2027, H.R. 1 will slash federal funding for SNAP benefits and impose these costs on most states. The amount each state will have to pay is based on its payment error rate -- a measure of over and underpayments that largely reflects unintentional mistakes. As states have raced to reduce their measured error rate, some have taken drastic actions that are making it far harder for eligible people to access the help they need to afford groceries. Ironically, when eligible families lose out on SNAP altogether because of these actions, this "error" doesn't count in the state's error rate.
We're already seeing the impact: the number of low-income people receiving SNAP fell by more than 4 million between H.R. 1's enactment in July 2025 and March 2026. That's a 10 percent drop in only eight months and the steepest drop in decades. In just 13 states with available data, the number of children receiving SNAP has fallen by more than 800,000 since H.R. 1's enactment.
And more people will lose SNAP as this ticking time bomb begins to hit state budgets. In the face of this massive cost shift, some states could withdraw from the program entirely, eliminating food assistance for children, seniors, people with disabilities, workers paid low wages, and others who need SNAP to meet their basic needs. Some 11 percent of states responding to a survey from the American Public Human Services Association identified the potential risk that they'll withdraw from SNAP as a result of the cost shift, and 5 percent said there's a risk that they'll pause SNAP operations.
Many people who have lost SNAP are in groups that weren't intended to be the target of H.R. 1's eligibility restrictions, like children. That means many struggling families are losing SNAP because they can't navigate new bureaucratic obstacles or they are going without the help they need as additional red tape pushes understaffed state agencies to their breaking point. Seniors have empty fridges. Parents have hungry children and nowhere left to turn but already overburdened food banks, who have made clear that they cannot fill the gap.
State and local officials are calling on Congress to act. Without action, they're warning of dire consequences for low-income families and the broader economy.
Congress must heed this call and give all states -- not just a favored few who will benefit from a special carveout under H.R. 1 -- more time to improve their payment accuracy, which will determine their required share of SNAP costs, while ensuring eligible low-income families can still access the food assistance they need to afford groceries.
For more than 50 years, SNAP has reflected a nationwide commitment to addressing hunger, ensuring eligible low-income people can get the help they need regardless of where they live. Unless Congress acts in the face of this emergency, these federal cuts could drive some states to walk away from that commitment. Struggling families who can least afford it will bear the cost.
* * *
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/as-millions-lose-snap-senate-farm-bill-proposal-ignores-urgent-need-to-protect
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: What Voters Should Know About Minnesota's School Funding Amendment
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 24 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
What voters should know about Minnesota's school funding amendment
This November, Minnesota voters will weigh in on a constitutional amendment that would change how the state's Permanent School Fund gets distributed to schools.
Because the fund is not widely discussed, here is how it works and what the proposed amendment would change.
Permanent School ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 24 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall: * * * What voters should know about Minnesota's school funding amendment This November, Minnesota voters will weigh in on a constitutional amendment that would change how the state's Permanent School Fund gets distributed to schools. Because the fund is not widely discussed, here is how it works and what the proposed amendment would change. Permanent SchoolFund
When Minnesota became a state in 1858, the federal government granted land to the state "for the use of schools." Today, Minnesota still owns roughly 2.5 million acres of this school trust land, which generates revenue from mining and timber production. Under the Minnesota Constitution, the revenue is deposited into the Permanent School Fund (PSF), a constitutional trust that provides annual support for K-12 public education. As of March 2025, the fund is valued at $2.3 billion.
Schools receive distributions from the fund's investment income (mainly interest and dividends). Annual distributions have generally been around 2 to 2.5 percent of the fund's value. The principal itself can't be spent, as the Minnesota Constitution requires it remain "perpetual and inviolate forever." If the fund experiences realized investment losses, those losses are recovered over time through a statutory smoothing process that can affect future income available for distribution. This is one reason payments can fluctuate from year to year.
The money distributed among school districts is based largely on student enrollment and shows up twice a year, in September and March. In the 2024-25 school year, the interest and dividends produced a record $58 million for the state's 329 public school districts and 181 charter schools, or about 0.4 percent of E-12 education's biennial budget. Statewide, that averaged out to about $68 per student. Anoka-Hennepin, the largest district, collected $2.6 million. Minneapolis got $2 million.
Schools can use these distributions for educational supplies, designing and modeling school curricula, teacher salaries, extracurricular activities, and establishing and maintaining quality facilities, according to the Minnesota Office of School Trust Lands.
Minnesota Permanent School Fund, 10-year distributions (2016-2025)
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
What would a constitutional amendment change?
The November amendment would change both how much the PSF pays out and how that amount is calculated. Instead of distributing only interest and dividends, around 2 to 2.5 percent of the fund's value, the fund would distribute 4.5 percent of its three-year rolling average market value.
A legislative task force recommended that rate and the three-year averaging method, arguing it would preserve the fund's long-term purchasing power and allow more of its investment growth to be distributed. The task force's projections suggest this could raise per pupil funding by roughly 40 percent, though that number depends on the fund's market performance going forward and isn't a guarantee.
Rep. Spencer Igo (R) and Sen. Mary Kunesh (DFL) carried the bill. It passed the House 133-0 and the Senate 43-24. A point of disagreement during the legislative debate was how easily the distribution rate could be changed in the future. Senate lawmakers fought over a tweak that would require any future change to need a supermajority rather than a simple majority. Sen. Robert Farnsworth (R) pushed for that guardrail, warning that without it, a future single-party trifecta could turn the fund into a "political bargaining chip." Conference committee stripped the provision out, and the bill went back to a simple majority, which is the same threshold being used to raise the rate now. Future legislatures could change the 4.5 percent distribution rate through the normal legislative process.
The ballot language states that the amendment would increase funding without raising individual income or property taxes, as the additional distributions would come from the existing trust.
Supporters argue the change is needed because the current formula limits how much of the fund's investment growth can be distributed to schools, even when the fund performs well.
Opponents argue that tying the annual payout to 4.5 percent of market value could leave the fund handing out more than it actually earned in a bad market stretch, which starts to eat into principal. While the three-year average is meant to smooth out short-term market swings, it wouldn't fully protect the fund through a multi-year downturn. How serious a risk that is depends on assumptions about future market returns that nobody can know in advance.
The amendment only changes the way money from the fund is distributed and how much. It does not create new accountability requirements or establish a process for measuring the effectiveness of the additional dollars.
The ballot question
On the ballot, the question reads:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to increase the funding going to all school districts from the permanent school fund, which is a fund that supports school districts without raising individual income or property taxes, effective July 1, 2027?"
A "yes" vote would allow the fund to distribute 4.5 percent of its average market value each year. A "no" vote, or leaving the ballot question blank, would keep the current constitutional formula in place. The amendment would be ratified only if a majority of all electors voting in the election vote "yes."
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/what-voters-should-know-about-minnesotas-school-funding-amendment/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
What voters should know about Minnesota's school funding amendment
This November, Minnesota voters will weigh in on a constitutional amendment that would change how the state's Permanent School Fund gets distributed to schools.
Because the fund is not widely discussed, here is how it works and what the proposed amendment would change.
Permanent School ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 24 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall: * * * What voters should know about Minnesota's school funding amendment This November, Minnesota voters will weigh in on a constitutional amendment that would change how the state's Permanent School Fund gets distributed to schools. Because the fund is not widely discussed, here is how it works and what the proposed amendment would change. Permanent SchoolFund
When Minnesota became a state in 1858, the federal government granted land to the state "for the use of schools." Today, Minnesota still owns roughly 2.5 million acres of this school trust land, which generates revenue from mining and timber production. Under the Minnesota Constitution, the revenue is deposited into the Permanent School Fund (PSF), a constitutional trust that provides annual support for K-12 public education. As of March 2025, the fund is valued at $2.3 billion.
Schools receive distributions from the fund's investment income (mainly interest and dividends). Annual distributions have generally been around 2 to 2.5 percent of the fund's value. The principal itself can't be spent, as the Minnesota Constitution requires it remain "perpetual and inviolate forever." If the fund experiences realized investment losses, those losses are recovered over time through a statutory smoothing process that can affect future income available for distribution. This is one reason payments can fluctuate from year to year.
The money distributed among school districts is based largely on student enrollment and shows up twice a year, in September and March. In the 2024-25 school year, the interest and dividends produced a record $58 million for the state's 329 public school districts and 181 charter schools, or about 0.4 percent of E-12 education's biennial budget. Statewide, that averaged out to about $68 per student. Anoka-Hennepin, the largest district, collected $2.6 million. Minneapolis got $2 million.
Schools can use these distributions for educational supplies, designing and modeling school curricula, teacher salaries, extracurricular activities, and establishing and maintaining quality facilities, according to the Minnesota Office of School Trust Lands.
Minnesota Permanent School Fund, 10-year distributions (2016-2025)
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
What would a constitutional amendment change?
The November amendment would change both how much the PSF pays out and how that amount is calculated. Instead of distributing only interest and dividends, around 2 to 2.5 percent of the fund's value, the fund would distribute 4.5 percent of its three-year rolling average market value.
A legislative task force recommended that rate and the three-year averaging method, arguing it would preserve the fund's long-term purchasing power and allow more of its investment growth to be distributed. The task force's projections suggest this could raise per pupil funding by roughly 40 percent, though that number depends on the fund's market performance going forward and isn't a guarantee.
Rep. Spencer Igo (R) and Sen. Mary Kunesh (DFL) carried the bill. It passed the House 133-0 and the Senate 43-24. A point of disagreement during the legislative debate was how easily the distribution rate could be changed in the future. Senate lawmakers fought over a tweak that would require any future change to need a supermajority rather than a simple majority. Sen. Robert Farnsworth (R) pushed for that guardrail, warning that without it, a future single-party trifecta could turn the fund into a "political bargaining chip." Conference committee stripped the provision out, and the bill went back to a simple majority, which is the same threshold being used to raise the rate now. Future legislatures could change the 4.5 percent distribution rate through the normal legislative process.
The ballot language states that the amendment would increase funding without raising individual income or property taxes, as the additional distributions would come from the existing trust.
Supporters argue the change is needed because the current formula limits how much of the fund's investment growth can be distributed to schools, even when the fund performs well.
Opponents argue that tying the annual payout to 4.5 percent of market value could leave the fund handing out more than it actually earned in a bad market stretch, which starts to eat into principal. While the three-year average is meant to smooth out short-term market swings, it wouldn't fully protect the fund through a multi-year downturn. How serious a risk that is depends on assumptions about future market returns that nobody can know in advance.
The amendment only changes the way money from the fund is distributed and how much. It does not create new accountability requirements or establish a process for measuring the effectiveness of the additional dollars.
The ballot question
On the ballot, the question reads:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to increase the funding going to all school districts from the permanent school fund, which is a fund that supports school districts without raising individual income or property taxes, effective July 1, 2027?"
A "yes" vote would allow the fund to distribute 4.5 percent of its average market value each year. A "no" vote, or leaving the ballot question blank, would keep the current constitutional formula in place. The amendment would be ratified only if a majority of all electors voting in the election vote "yes."
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/what-voters-should-know-about-minnesotas-school-funding-amendment/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: After Maduro - Human Trafficking and the Vulnerability of Venezuelan Migrants in Colombia
WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by Associate Director Juliana Rubio and Interim Program Coordinator Kaela Werchniak, both of the Americas Program:
* * *
After Maduro: Human Trafficking and the Vulnerability of Venezuelan Migrants in Colombia
Trafficking in persons (TIP) remains a critical threat to the personal security of migrant populations while also undermining governance, economic stability, migration management, and the broader security of both countries of origin and destination. The fragile security ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by Associate Director Juliana Rubio and Interim Program Coordinator Kaela Werchniak, both of the Americas Program: * * * After Maduro: Human Trafficking and the Vulnerability of Venezuelan Migrants in Colombia Trafficking in persons (TIP) remains a critical threat to the personal security of migrant populations while also undermining governance, economic stability, migration management, and the broader security of both countries of origin and destination. The fragile securitysituations in both Colombia and Venezuela further exacerbate these risks and create conditions that allow criminal and nonstate armed groups to expand their influence.
Following the U.S. capture of Nicolas Maduro on January 3, 2026, the risk of human trafficking for Venezuelan migrants has entered a more complex phase marked by legal uncertainty and endemic criminal influence. Though many Venezuelans remain optimistic about the restoration of democracy and support the U.S. capture of Maduro, the political realities inside Venezuela are fragile. Concerns linger over deeper instability, a prolonged or indefinite electoral process, and slowed economic recovery. Furthermore, the U.S. government's push to reopen consular services and repatriate migrants places Venezuelans at a higher risk of being targeted by traffickers who exploit their desperation.
In March, journalist Hollie McKay visited Medellin in northwestern Colombia to assess the impact of Maduro's capture on the trafficking of Venezuelans in Colombia. She writes that migrants are not expressing any indication of returning to Venezuela in the near future, and doubts that Colombia will see any immediate improvements in TIP: "It's going to stay stagnant because people aren't returning until they know they will have some kind of future, economic stability. I don't see the situation improving, might not get worse but won't improve."
The Colombian government has warned that though the situation has not yet deteriorated, it remains fragile and could trigger a sudden influx of migrants at any time. In the immediate days following Maduro's capture, Colombia created a three-phase plan focused on regularization, increased resources, and humanitarian response in case of an influx. While the plan addresses many underlying causes of TIP, it fails to outline concrete steps for TIP prevention and intervention. Large influxes of migrants to Colombia have correlated with increases in reported trafficking. Without a plan to address trafficking in the case of a sudden surge, Colombia remains at risk for increased trafficking activities.
Furthermore, the trafficking of Venezuelan migrants will continue to contribute to destabilization in Colombia, a key regional ally in the Western Hemisphere that has experienced setbacks in the peace process and increased violence this past year. The continuation of the Maduro regime under Delcy Rodriguez sustains groups such as the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN), further complicating hopes for peaceful demobilization peacefully.
Scale of the Problem
By 2025, Venezuela had experienced one of the largest mass exoduses in the world, with over 7.9 million Venezuelans having fled the country since 2014, 6.9 million of whom relocated to other countries within Latin America and the Caribbean. As of November 2025, there were a reported 2.8 million Venezuelan migrants in Colombia, making Colombia home to the third-largest refugee population in the world.
Human trafficking remains an urgent and escalating threat for Venezuelan migrants in Colombia, with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime reporting a steady rise in identified survivors since 2018. Between 2018 and 2023, the Colombian Ministry of the Interior reported 275 Venezuelan migrants as survivors of TIP, although these statistics are believed to be widely underreported. Despite a robust system to regularize Venezuelan migrants and refugees in Colombia, difficulties persist in accessing local services and navigating judicial systems for the reporting of trafficking threats and incidents. In addition to systemic barriers, intimidation and fear of retribution further contribute to underreporting.
Migration as a Driving Force of TIP
The sharpest increases in reported TIP cases have correlated with increased migration flows into Colombia, as evidenced by the rise in reported cases from 75 in 2016 to 436 in 2024. The number of Venezuelans identified as victims of TIP also nearly doubled from 2020 to 2021 and remains at record highs. Together, these trends suggest a strong correlation between rising Venezuelan migration and trafficking vulnerability in Colombia. They also highlight the vulnerability of Venezuelan women in particular, given that women make up the overwhelming majority of trafficking victims.
* * *
Figure 1: Total and Venezuelan Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Cases, 2016-2023
* * *
Access to regularization has also correlated with increased reporting of TIP cases in Colombia. In 2018, Colombia introduced the Special Permanence Permission (PEP), a temporary regularization measure that allowed Venezuelan migrants to live, work, and access social services for up to two years. A March 2026 study found that cities with higher numbers of registered PEP participants recorded more reports of domestic and sexual violence among female Venezuelan migrants. This pattern suggests that the policy enabled vulnerable women to come forward and report abuse without fearing deportation. Supporting survey evidence also indicates that women with PEP status were significantly more likely to file complaints than those who remained undocumented.
An increase in reported cases between 2022 and 2025 can also be attributed to additional favorable immigration policies for Venezuelans residing in Colombia. In 2021, Colombia created the Temporary Protected Status, a 10-year migratory regularization policy for Venezuelan immigrants that allows legal residency, work authorization, and access to public healthcare services. By the end of 2025, 67 percent of Venezuelans in Colombia had received legal status, creating meaningful gains in regularization and stronger pathways to reporting and identifying survivors.
Despite regularization efforts aimed at reducing migrant vulnerability, TIP both contributes to and accelerates regional migration flows. In this environment, the lines between voluntary migration, human smuggling, and forced exploitation are often blurred.
Recruitment Tactics and Trafficking Dynamics
According to the Department of State's 2025 Trafficking in Persons Report, traffickers recruit Venezuelan migrants and refugees using false promises of safe migration and fake work opportunities. These practices are especially prevalent along the Venezuela-Colombia border and in the Darien Gap, where large numbers of migrants pass through daily. Upon arrival in Colombia, many migrants are offered food and shelter only to become trapped in predatory repayment schemes. When they are unable to repay the debts owed to traffickers, they are often subjected to additional forms of exploitation and trafficking. Continued passage north to the United States poses additional risks, as it is estimated that 33 percent of Venezuelan migrants who arrived in the United States experienced sexual abuse during their migration, compared to only 4 percent of those in Peru and Colombia.
Bianca Fidone, a project manager at Colombian NGO Espacios de Mujer, confirmed in an interview with the authors that armed groups use forced participation in illicit activities as a way for migrants to "repay" the debts incurred: "These are methods that armed groups are using to settle debts--or, to put it another way, this is the strategy that armed groups are employing--and when we say 'employing,' we mean in every sense of the word, because they pay monthly salaries to carry out this type of activity."
Since the beginning of the migration crisis in 2014, patterns of both migration routes and tactics used by nonstate actors have evolved to continue to identify, target, and exploit migrants seeking opportunities abroad. This is exemplified in the shift in trafficking hotspots: Migrants and refugees were initially more vulnerable to trafficking in border towns leading into Colombia from Venezuela, but popular tourist destinations and large cities have become more common.
Discrimination and Structural Vulnerability
Discrimination and marginalization of Venezuelans in Colombia persist and contribute to both social and systemic barriers to integration. A recent public opinion study by the Center for Global Democracy shows that the vast majority of Venezuelan migrants report working in the informal sector, leaving most migrants without labor protections, benefits, or stable incomes. A 2024 study by the International Organization for Migration confirms the prevalence of informal labor participation and notes that although 90 percent of the working-age Venezuelan migrant population is employed, only 18 percent are employed in their respective fields.
A 2023 statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, highlighted the limited identification of survivors of trafficking, or individuals at risk of trafficking, for purposes of labor exploitation in Colombia. It noted that high levels of informality in sectors such as agriculture and domestic work posed serious concerns, alongside significant risks of trafficking linked to illegal mining. Moreover, as of 2023, there were no reported criminal prosecutions or convictions for trafficking for purposes of labor exploitation, pointing to substantial systemic deficiencies. This gap is further compounded by the absence of specialized services for labor trafficking survivors.
Beyond underreporting, impunity remains a significant issue for survivors and advocates seeking justice, despite Colombia having enacted several laws aimed at preventing human trafficking and prosecuting those responsible. For instance, only 52 out of the 908 reported cases of human trafficking between 2011 and 2016 resulted in convictions. Colombia's internal armed conflict further complicates justice for survivors, as there is no national legislation recognizing recruitment into armed groups as a form of human trafficking.
The trafficking of Venezuelan migrants into exploitative labor systems poses a threat to Colombia's broader security, as it perpetuates a shadow labor market that empowers and enriches armed groups. Furthermore, trafficking is detrimental to Colombia's recent labor reforms, which focus on fair wages, formalization, stability, and job creation in hopes of curtailing armed group recruitment and bolstering a rising middle class. Venezuelan migrant labor has contributed meaningfully to the Colombian economy, making migrant participation in the formal sector imperative to supporting future productivity.
Criminal Economies and Organized Crime
TIP in Colombia often takes the form of sex trafficking, and most registered cases involve women. In Colombia, prostitution is legal among consenting adults, but local authorities can regulate where it is allowed, as well as impose certain health and hygiene standards. At the same time, profiting from or facilitating prostitution is illegal, even though it is common for sex workers to rely on intermediaries for security. As a result, sex work often falls into a legal gray zone, where it is not only difficult to distinguish between voluntary and coerced sex work, but where there is also a contradiction between how the system works in practice and what the law stipulates. Venezuelan women are particularly vulnerable to trafficking through sex work because they are more likely to have experienced displacement and to lack the documentation needed to access formal jobs. This makes them more vulnerable to false job promises and more likely to rely on intermediaries for security, while their irregular status can also prevent them from denouncing abuse.
Another important beneficiary of TIP is organized crime, including transnational organized crime. These groups lure or force victims to engage in sexual exploitation, forced labor, forced marriage, and other activities that generate profit and expand revenue beyond drug trafficking alone. Illegal mining is an important source of revenue for organized crime. Criminal groups take advantage of weak government presence in parts of Colombia or operate with the complicity of state officials in Venezuela, where the systematic exploitation of minerals has become a source of income not only for traffickers but also for corrupt government authorities. TIP in Venezuela and Colombia is ubiquitous where illegal mining is found. Sex trafficking, for instance, has become closely intertwined with illegal mining, as the areas where this activity takes place create a high-risk environment for women, are often far from state control, and see an influx of mostly male workers that creates high demand for prostitution. Men and boys are also exploited through coerced or forced labor, facing deplorable working conditions and often lacking a real choice because of desperate economic situations. Child labor in mines is also commonplace; children as young as 10 years old are often forced to work for very low wages under inhumane conditions.
Organizations that create regional instability, like the ELN, Tren de Aragua, the Clan del Golfo, and other groups that have been allowed to operate in Venezuela with state complicity, use TIP not just as a form of opportunistic abuse, but as a component of a structured business model. If disrupting drug trafficking, preventing illegal migration, and advancing regional stability are core objectives for the region, actions that directly target TIP are essential, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also from a security and stability standpoint. An International Labor Organization study reports that each person subjected to sexual exploitation has a profit value of more than $27,000 per year, amounting to an aggregate revenue of approximately $1.46 billion for organizations involved in human trafficking in the United States, Colombia, and Peru.
Furthermore, TIP reinforces weak governance and a lack of institutional control over territory. The State Department's 2025 TIP Report cites corruption and official complicity in trafficking crimes as significant concerns. State corruption and trafficking work hand in hand, where both benefit from the other. Corruption is perpetuated through trafficking revenues, which are used as payments for bribes and subsequently expand the political and economic influence of nonstate actors. Once state control is weakened by the expansion and influence of nonstate actors through TIP activities, justice systems erode with near-total impunity for offenders.
TIP is thus not only a symptom of a lack of state control but is also a mechanism to sustain state fragility on both sides of the border. For that reason, anti-trafficking efforts should not be treated as a secondary humanitarian issue, but as central to any strategy focused on migration, organized crime, and regional stability.
* * *
Juliana Rubio is an associate director with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Kaela Werchniak is interim program coordinator with the CSIS Americas Program.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/after-maduro-human-trafficking-and-vulnerability-venezuelan-migrants-colombia
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
After Maduro: Human Trafficking and the Vulnerability of Venezuelan Migrants in Colombia
Trafficking in persons (TIP) remains a critical threat to the personal security of migrant populations while also undermining governance, economic stability, migration management, and the broader security of both countries of origin and destination. The fragile security ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by Associate Director Juliana Rubio and Interim Program Coordinator Kaela Werchniak, both of the Americas Program: * * * After Maduro: Human Trafficking and the Vulnerability of Venezuelan Migrants in Colombia Trafficking in persons (TIP) remains a critical threat to the personal security of migrant populations while also undermining governance, economic stability, migration management, and the broader security of both countries of origin and destination. The fragile securitysituations in both Colombia and Venezuela further exacerbate these risks and create conditions that allow criminal and nonstate armed groups to expand their influence.
Following the U.S. capture of Nicolas Maduro on January 3, 2026, the risk of human trafficking for Venezuelan migrants has entered a more complex phase marked by legal uncertainty and endemic criminal influence. Though many Venezuelans remain optimistic about the restoration of democracy and support the U.S. capture of Maduro, the political realities inside Venezuela are fragile. Concerns linger over deeper instability, a prolonged or indefinite electoral process, and slowed economic recovery. Furthermore, the U.S. government's push to reopen consular services and repatriate migrants places Venezuelans at a higher risk of being targeted by traffickers who exploit their desperation.
In March, journalist Hollie McKay visited Medellin in northwestern Colombia to assess the impact of Maduro's capture on the trafficking of Venezuelans in Colombia. She writes that migrants are not expressing any indication of returning to Venezuela in the near future, and doubts that Colombia will see any immediate improvements in TIP: "It's going to stay stagnant because people aren't returning until they know they will have some kind of future, economic stability. I don't see the situation improving, might not get worse but won't improve."
The Colombian government has warned that though the situation has not yet deteriorated, it remains fragile and could trigger a sudden influx of migrants at any time. In the immediate days following Maduro's capture, Colombia created a three-phase plan focused on regularization, increased resources, and humanitarian response in case of an influx. While the plan addresses many underlying causes of TIP, it fails to outline concrete steps for TIP prevention and intervention. Large influxes of migrants to Colombia have correlated with increases in reported trafficking. Without a plan to address trafficking in the case of a sudden surge, Colombia remains at risk for increased trafficking activities.
Furthermore, the trafficking of Venezuelan migrants will continue to contribute to destabilization in Colombia, a key regional ally in the Western Hemisphere that has experienced setbacks in the peace process and increased violence this past year. The continuation of the Maduro regime under Delcy Rodriguez sustains groups such as the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN), further complicating hopes for peaceful demobilization peacefully.
Scale of the Problem
By 2025, Venezuela had experienced one of the largest mass exoduses in the world, with over 7.9 million Venezuelans having fled the country since 2014, 6.9 million of whom relocated to other countries within Latin America and the Caribbean. As of November 2025, there were a reported 2.8 million Venezuelan migrants in Colombia, making Colombia home to the third-largest refugee population in the world.
Human trafficking remains an urgent and escalating threat for Venezuelan migrants in Colombia, with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime reporting a steady rise in identified survivors since 2018. Between 2018 and 2023, the Colombian Ministry of the Interior reported 275 Venezuelan migrants as survivors of TIP, although these statistics are believed to be widely underreported. Despite a robust system to regularize Venezuelan migrants and refugees in Colombia, difficulties persist in accessing local services and navigating judicial systems for the reporting of trafficking threats and incidents. In addition to systemic barriers, intimidation and fear of retribution further contribute to underreporting.
Migration as a Driving Force of TIP
The sharpest increases in reported TIP cases have correlated with increased migration flows into Colombia, as evidenced by the rise in reported cases from 75 in 2016 to 436 in 2024. The number of Venezuelans identified as victims of TIP also nearly doubled from 2020 to 2021 and remains at record highs. Together, these trends suggest a strong correlation between rising Venezuelan migration and trafficking vulnerability in Colombia. They also highlight the vulnerability of Venezuelan women in particular, given that women make up the overwhelming majority of trafficking victims.
* * *
Figure 1: Total and Venezuelan Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Cases, 2016-2023
* * *
Access to regularization has also correlated with increased reporting of TIP cases in Colombia. In 2018, Colombia introduced the Special Permanence Permission (PEP), a temporary regularization measure that allowed Venezuelan migrants to live, work, and access social services for up to two years. A March 2026 study found that cities with higher numbers of registered PEP participants recorded more reports of domestic and sexual violence among female Venezuelan migrants. This pattern suggests that the policy enabled vulnerable women to come forward and report abuse without fearing deportation. Supporting survey evidence also indicates that women with PEP status were significantly more likely to file complaints than those who remained undocumented.
An increase in reported cases between 2022 and 2025 can also be attributed to additional favorable immigration policies for Venezuelans residing in Colombia. In 2021, Colombia created the Temporary Protected Status, a 10-year migratory regularization policy for Venezuelan immigrants that allows legal residency, work authorization, and access to public healthcare services. By the end of 2025, 67 percent of Venezuelans in Colombia had received legal status, creating meaningful gains in regularization and stronger pathways to reporting and identifying survivors.
Despite regularization efforts aimed at reducing migrant vulnerability, TIP both contributes to and accelerates regional migration flows. In this environment, the lines between voluntary migration, human smuggling, and forced exploitation are often blurred.
Recruitment Tactics and Trafficking Dynamics
According to the Department of State's 2025 Trafficking in Persons Report, traffickers recruit Venezuelan migrants and refugees using false promises of safe migration and fake work opportunities. These practices are especially prevalent along the Venezuela-Colombia border and in the Darien Gap, where large numbers of migrants pass through daily. Upon arrival in Colombia, many migrants are offered food and shelter only to become trapped in predatory repayment schemes. When they are unable to repay the debts owed to traffickers, they are often subjected to additional forms of exploitation and trafficking. Continued passage north to the United States poses additional risks, as it is estimated that 33 percent of Venezuelan migrants who arrived in the United States experienced sexual abuse during their migration, compared to only 4 percent of those in Peru and Colombia.
Bianca Fidone, a project manager at Colombian NGO Espacios de Mujer, confirmed in an interview with the authors that armed groups use forced participation in illicit activities as a way for migrants to "repay" the debts incurred: "These are methods that armed groups are using to settle debts--or, to put it another way, this is the strategy that armed groups are employing--and when we say 'employing,' we mean in every sense of the word, because they pay monthly salaries to carry out this type of activity."
Since the beginning of the migration crisis in 2014, patterns of both migration routes and tactics used by nonstate actors have evolved to continue to identify, target, and exploit migrants seeking opportunities abroad. This is exemplified in the shift in trafficking hotspots: Migrants and refugees were initially more vulnerable to trafficking in border towns leading into Colombia from Venezuela, but popular tourist destinations and large cities have become more common.
Discrimination and Structural Vulnerability
Discrimination and marginalization of Venezuelans in Colombia persist and contribute to both social and systemic barriers to integration. A recent public opinion study by the Center for Global Democracy shows that the vast majority of Venezuelan migrants report working in the informal sector, leaving most migrants without labor protections, benefits, or stable incomes. A 2024 study by the International Organization for Migration confirms the prevalence of informal labor participation and notes that although 90 percent of the working-age Venezuelan migrant population is employed, only 18 percent are employed in their respective fields.
A 2023 statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, highlighted the limited identification of survivors of trafficking, or individuals at risk of trafficking, for purposes of labor exploitation in Colombia. It noted that high levels of informality in sectors such as agriculture and domestic work posed serious concerns, alongside significant risks of trafficking linked to illegal mining. Moreover, as of 2023, there were no reported criminal prosecutions or convictions for trafficking for purposes of labor exploitation, pointing to substantial systemic deficiencies. This gap is further compounded by the absence of specialized services for labor trafficking survivors.
Beyond underreporting, impunity remains a significant issue for survivors and advocates seeking justice, despite Colombia having enacted several laws aimed at preventing human trafficking and prosecuting those responsible. For instance, only 52 out of the 908 reported cases of human trafficking between 2011 and 2016 resulted in convictions. Colombia's internal armed conflict further complicates justice for survivors, as there is no national legislation recognizing recruitment into armed groups as a form of human trafficking.
The trafficking of Venezuelan migrants into exploitative labor systems poses a threat to Colombia's broader security, as it perpetuates a shadow labor market that empowers and enriches armed groups. Furthermore, trafficking is detrimental to Colombia's recent labor reforms, which focus on fair wages, formalization, stability, and job creation in hopes of curtailing armed group recruitment and bolstering a rising middle class. Venezuelan migrant labor has contributed meaningfully to the Colombian economy, making migrant participation in the formal sector imperative to supporting future productivity.
Criminal Economies and Organized Crime
TIP in Colombia often takes the form of sex trafficking, and most registered cases involve women. In Colombia, prostitution is legal among consenting adults, but local authorities can regulate where it is allowed, as well as impose certain health and hygiene standards. At the same time, profiting from or facilitating prostitution is illegal, even though it is common for sex workers to rely on intermediaries for security. As a result, sex work often falls into a legal gray zone, where it is not only difficult to distinguish between voluntary and coerced sex work, but where there is also a contradiction between how the system works in practice and what the law stipulates. Venezuelan women are particularly vulnerable to trafficking through sex work because they are more likely to have experienced displacement and to lack the documentation needed to access formal jobs. This makes them more vulnerable to false job promises and more likely to rely on intermediaries for security, while their irregular status can also prevent them from denouncing abuse.
Another important beneficiary of TIP is organized crime, including transnational organized crime. These groups lure or force victims to engage in sexual exploitation, forced labor, forced marriage, and other activities that generate profit and expand revenue beyond drug trafficking alone. Illegal mining is an important source of revenue for organized crime. Criminal groups take advantage of weak government presence in parts of Colombia or operate with the complicity of state officials in Venezuela, where the systematic exploitation of minerals has become a source of income not only for traffickers but also for corrupt government authorities. TIP in Venezuela and Colombia is ubiquitous where illegal mining is found. Sex trafficking, for instance, has become closely intertwined with illegal mining, as the areas where this activity takes place create a high-risk environment for women, are often far from state control, and see an influx of mostly male workers that creates high demand for prostitution. Men and boys are also exploited through coerced or forced labor, facing deplorable working conditions and often lacking a real choice because of desperate economic situations. Child labor in mines is also commonplace; children as young as 10 years old are often forced to work for very low wages under inhumane conditions.
Organizations that create regional instability, like the ELN, Tren de Aragua, the Clan del Golfo, and other groups that have been allowed to operate in Venezuela with state complicity, use TIP not just as a form of opportunistic abuse, but as a component of a structured business model. If disrupting drug trafficking, preventing illegal migration, and advancing regional stability are core objectives for the region, actions that directly target TIP are essential, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also from a security and stability standpoint. An International Labor Organization study reports that each person subjected to sexual exploitation has a profit value of more than $27,000 per year, amounting to an aggregate revenue of approximately $1.46 billion for organizations involved in human trafficking in the United States, Colombia, and Peru.
Furthermore, TIP reinforces weak governance and a lack of institutional control over territory. The State Department's 2025 TIP Report cites corruption and official complicity in trafficking crimes as significant concerns. State corruption and trafficking work hand in hand, where both benefit from the other. Corruption is perpetuated through trafficking revenues, which are used as payments for bribes and subsequently expand the political and economic influence of nonstate actors. Once state control is weakened by the expansion and influence of nonstate actors through TIP activities, justice systems erode with near-total impunity for offenders.
TIP is thus not only a symptom of a lack of state control but is also a mechanism to sustain state fragility on both sides of the border. For that reason, anti-trafficking efforts should not be treated as a secondary humanitarian issue, but as central to any strategy focused on migration, organized crime, and regional stability.
* * *
Juliana Rubio is an associate director with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Kaela Werchniak is interim program coordinator with the CSIS Americas Program.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/after-maduro-human-trafficking-and-vulnerability-venezuelan-migrants-colombia
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Mega-Merger Proposed to Power Data Center Alley
WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton:
* * *
Mega-merger Proposed to Power Data Center Alley
Executive Summary
* On May 18, NextEra Energy agreed to acquire Dominion Energy in a roughly $67-billion deal, poised to create the world's largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization.
* The agreement comes amid an unprecedented surge in power demand from artificial intelligence data centers, accelerating the need to modernize existing grid infrastructure and scale new generating ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton: * * * Mega-merger Proposed to Power Data Center Alley Executive Summary * On May 18, NextEra Energy agreed to acquire Dominion Energy in a roughly $67-billion deal, poised to create the world's largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization. * The agreement comes amid an unprecedented surge in power demand from artificial intelligence data centers, accelerating the need to modernize existing grid infrastructure and scale new generatingcapacity.
* The merging parties will need to navigate myriad state and federal regulators that will likely scrutinize the merged firm's ability to exercise market power in wholesale markets and could condition final approval on the divestiture of select generating assets.
-
Introduction
On May 18, NextEra Energy agreed to acquire Dominion Energy in a roughly $67-billion deal that would create the world's largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization.
The agreement comes amid an unprecedented surge in power demand from artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. To meet this demand, the industry faces an immediate need to modernize existing grid infrastructure and build new generating capacity.
The merging parties will need to navigate myriad state and federal regulators that will likely scrutinize the merged firm's ability to exercise market power in wholesale markets and could condition final approval on the divestiture of select generating assets.
The Merging Firms
Dominion Energy
Dominion Energy is a regulated electric utility that services 3.6 million customers in Viriginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, alongside regulated natural gas services to 500,000 customers in South Carolina. At the end of 2025, the firm's portfolio included 30.7 gigawatts (GW) of electric generating capacity, 10,800 miles of electric transmission lines, and 80,400 miles of electric distribution lines. Dominion Energy also develops and operates regulated offshore wind and solar power assets and is the largest producer of carbon-free electricity in New England.
Dominion's presence in Virginia has positioned the firm as the primary energy provider to the AI data center industry. With Ashburn, Virginia at the epicenter - home to 133 of the state's 609 data centers - Northern Virginia's Loudoun and Fairfax counties host the largest concentration of AI data centers globally, earning the region the nickname "Data Center Alley." According to Dominion, 28 percent of electricity sales through its wholly owned subsidiary, Virginia Power, directly service data centers. The company has connected an average of 15 data centers annually since 2013.
NextEra Energy
NextEra Energy is the largest electric power and energy infrastructure company in North America. It owns Florida Power & Light Company - the United States' largest electric utility - which supplies power to approximately 12 million people across Florida. At the end of 2025, NextEra Energy had approximately 80 GW of net generation and storage capacity, using a mix of natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear generation facilities, and battery storage facilities.
NextEra Energy also owns NextEra Energy Resources (NEER) - one of the largest energy infrastructure development companies - comprised of competitive energy and regulated transmission businesses. NEER owns, develops, constructs, manages, and operates generation facilities in wholesale energy markets in the United States and Canada as well as rate-regulated electric transmission assets throughout North America
NextEra Energy Transmission (NEET) is another subsidiary of NextEra Energy that owns, develops, finances, constructs, operates, and maintains transmission assets across North America.
Electricity Markets
Electricity markets are a mix of regulated and deregulated retail and wholesale markets. Apart from a nuclear power plant located in Connecticut, Dominion is a vertically integrated utility. This means it operates in every stage of the electricity supply chain - from generation to transmission and distribution - and functions as a regional monopoly under the oversight of state public utility commissions. These regulatory commissions set retail electricity prices based on operating and investment cost recovery plus a designated rate of return to fund future infrastructure.
Dominion Energy is also a member of PJM Interconnection, a deregulated Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). PJM operates energy, capacity, and ancillary service markets to determine wholesale electricity prices, serving 65 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia.
While NextEra's Florida Power and Light operates similarly as a vertically integrated, regulated utility, its service area lacks an RTO. Conversely, its NEER division operates entirely within competitive wholesale markets using long-term power purchase agreements. Under these agreements, buyers - typically utilities, corporations, or industrial facilities - purchase all of the electrical output from a specific infrastructure project at a pre-negotiated price.
According to Resources for the Future, a nonprofit, environmental, energy, and natural resources research organization, wholesale electricity markets are split into three distinct auction types:
Energy Markets
Energy markets are auctions that coordinate real-time and near-term electricity production. RTOs operate both day-ahead markets based on anticipated demand, and real-time markets that adjust for changes in demand. As shown in Figure 1, suppliers offer to sell a specific quantity of electricity while distributors bid for that electricity to meet demand. The market-clearing price, which is when the quantity of electricity supplied equals the quantity demanded, is received by the generators. The sell-side price for electricity is largely determined by the fuel source, with renewables typically demanding the lowest price. The RTO will then dispatch the power sequentially from least to most expensive.
Capacity Markets
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation - an independent organization that oversees and regulates the reliability of the power grid - requires energy retailers to support enough generating capacity to meet forecasted load plus a reserve margin to maintain grid reliability. Many RTOs run capacity auctions, so retailers secure their capacity requirements while enabling generators to recover fixed costs that are not covered in energy markets.
In these auctions, generators set a bid price at an amount equal to the cost of keeping a plant operational if needed. Similar to the energy market auction, the bids are arranged from lowest to highest. Once supply meets demand, all generators receive the same market clearing price, which is the price of the final, marginal generator to meet demand.
Ancillary Services
RTOs use ancillary services markets to cover everything outside capacity and energy markets. These services typically include operations that maintain grid frequency and short-term backup power.
The Merger and Regulatory Hurdles
Combining Dominion Energy and NextEra Energy would create the world's largest regulated electric utility business by market capitalization and one of the world's largest energy infrastructure companies. While the firms expect the deal to close in 12-18 months, the deal will require a multi-jurisdictional regulatory review and need the approval of:
* The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
* The Virginia State Corporation Commission
* The North Carolina Utilities Commission
* The Public Service Commission of South Carolina
The firms also notified the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice (DOJ) as required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, which has a mandatory 30-day waiting period before a deal can close.
While the legal mandate varies across each state and federal regulator, the focus will be the merger's effects on competition and consumers.
A horizontal merger - which is the consolidation of companies operating in the same industry at the same stage in the supply chain - of this magnitude typically triggers antitrust scrutiny. Yet the utility operations of Dominion and NextEra span different geographies as separate regulated monopolies. In other words, the firms do not directly compete in the retail power market.
The primary concern of regulators will likely be the wholesale market in the PJM Interconnection Region. The merger between Exelon-Constellation - which closed in March 2012 - can serve as a guide to how regulators, specifically those at the federal level, will evaluate the merger. In the Exelon-Constellation merger, the DOJ alleged that the merged firm would gain control of 28 percent and 22 percent of the generating capacity in the PJM Mid-Atlantic North and Mid-Atlantic South regions, respectively. At this level of capacity, the DOJ claimed that the firm would have the "ability and incentive" to increase its share of "higher-cost capacity" in those markets.
By increasing its share of higher-cost capacity, the firm could "reduce output and raise clearing prices by withholding capacity." According to the DOJ, the firm could submit "high offers in the PJM auctions for some of the capacity from its higher-cost units such that they are not called on to produce electricity," forcing PJM to use more expensive sources of electricity to meet demand and resulting in a higher market-clearing price. To restore competition, the DOJ required the merged firm to divest three generating plants to restore competition rather than blocking the deal entirely.
But how does a firm exercise its market power by withholding capacity? Suppose two firms, each with 10 percent of generating capacity in the PJM region, merge. The combined firm will have 20 percent of the region's total capacity. This capacity will be a mix of inexpensive fuel sources of electricity such as nuclear, solar, wind, and natural gas, and more expensive fuel sources. Because all generators are paid the market-clearing price - which is the most expensive source required to meet demand - there is an incentive to withhold capacity or bid a price to supply electricity that is so high it will not be called upon by PJM. With some of the supply withheld or priced above competitors, PJM will be forced to use more expensive electricity from the merged firm's competitors, raising the market-clearing price. The merged firm, however, will receive the higher market-clearing price for all the electricity supplied from its cheaper fuel source. Even though it may lose money on the power it withheld or bid too high, it still may be profitable.
It is likely that FERC and the other regulators evaluating the merger will look for specific areas in the PJM region where it may be profitable for a merged Dominion and NextEra to execute this strategy. Like Exelon-Constellation, rather than seeking to block the deal entirely, regulators may require specific generating asset divestitures.
The AI Twist
The build-out of AI data centers has sent electricity demand soaring and is changing the dynamics of utilities. The 24/7 energy demand from data centers has put pressure on utilities to ensure supply is available. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity consumption was flat for nearly 15 years, but demand has increased an average of 2.1 percent per year over the last five years. In EIA's high electricity demand scenario, data center server energy use by 2050 will be more than 16 times that in 2020, 84-percent higher than its baseline case.
The expected increased electricity demand from the data center build-out will require a similar investment in grid infrastructure. Fusing NextEra's renewable energy development business with the regulated utility model of Dominion could offer a blueprint for how the rest of the industry can bring capacity to the grid.
Conclusion
The electricity industry faces a pivotal moment as it tries to navigate the surging demand from AI infrastructure. The merger between NextEra and Dominion could offer a blueprint for how the industry can bring new capacity to the grid while maintaining reliability.
Regulators need to be mindful of this industry transition as it evaluates the merger's effect on competition and consumers.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/mega-merger-proposed-to-power-data-center-alley/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
Mega-merger Proposed to Power Data Center Alley
Executive Summary
* On May 18, NextEra Energy agreed to acquire Dominion Energy in a roughly $67-billion deal, poised to create the world's largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization.
* The agreement comes amid an unprecedented surge in power demand from artificial intelligence data centers, accelerating the need to modernize existing grid infrastructure and scale new generating ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 23, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton: * * * Mega-merger Proposed to Power Data Center Alley Executive Summary * On May 18, NextEra Energy agreed to acquire Dominion Energy in a roughly $67-billion deal, poised to create the world's largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization. * The agreement comes amid an unprecedented surge in power demand from artificial intelligence data centers, accelerating the need to modernize existing grid infrastructure and scale new generatingcapacity.
* The merging parties will need to navigate myriad state and federal regulators that will likely scrutinize the merged firm's ability to exercise market power in wholesale markets and could condition final approval on the divestiture of select generating assets.
-
Introduction
On May 18, NextEra Energy agreed to acquire Dominion Energy in a roughly $67-billion deal that would create the world's largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization.
The agreement comes amid an unprecedented surge in power demand from artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. To meet this demand, the industry faces an immediate need to modernize existing grid infrastructure and build new generating capacity.
The merging parties will need to navigate myriad state and federal regulators that will likely scrutinize the merged firm's ability to exercise market power in wholesale markets and could condition final approval on the divestiture of select generating assets.
The Merging Firms
Dominion Energy
Dominion Energy is a regulated electric utility that services 3.6 million customers in Viriginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, alongside regulated natural gas services to 500,000 customers in South Carolina. At the end of 2025, the firm's portfolio included 30.7 gigawatts (GW) of electric generating capacity, 10,800 miles of electric transmission lines, and 80,400 miles of electric distribution lines. Dominion Energy also develops and operates regulated offshore wind and solar power assets and is the largest producer of carbon-free electricity in New England.
Dominion's presence in Virginia has positioned the firm as the primary energy provider to the AI data center industry. With Ashburn, Virginia at the epicenter - home to 133 of the state's 609 data centers - Northern Virginia's Loudoun and Fairfax counties host the largest concentration of AI data centers globally, earning the region the nickname "Data Center Alley." According to Dominion, 28 percent of electricity sales through its wholly owned subsidiary, Virginia Power, directly service data centers. The company has connected an average of 15 data centers annually since 2013.
NextEra Energy
NextEra Energy is the largest electric power and energy infrastructure company in North America. It owns Florida Power & Light Company - the United States' largest electric utility - which supplies power to approximately 12 million people across Florida. At the end of 2025, NextEra Energy had approximately 80 GW of net generation and storage capacity, using a mix of natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear generation facilities, and battery storage facilities.
NextEra Energy also owns NextEra Energy Resources (NEER) - one of the largest energy infrastructure development companies - comprised of competitive energy and regulated transmission businesses. NEER owns, develops, constructs, manages, and operates generation facilities in wholesale energy markets in the United States and Canada as well as rate-regulated electric transmission assets throughout North America
NextEra Energy Transmission (NEET) is another subsidiary of NextEra Energy that owns, develops, finances, constructs, operates, and maintains transmission assets across North America.
Electricity Markets
Electricity markets are a mix of regulated and deregulated retail and wholesale markets. Apart from a nuclear power plant located in Connecticut, Dominion is a vertically integrated utility. This means it operates in every stage of the electricity supply chain - from generation to transmission and distribution - and functions as a regional monopoly under the oversight of state public utility commissions. These regulatory commissions set retail electricity prices based on operating and investment cost recovery plus a designated rate of return to fund future infrastructure.
Dominion Energy is also a member of PJM Interconnection, a deregulated Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). PJM operates energy, capacity, and ancillary service markets to determine wholesale electricity prices, serving 65 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia.
While NextEra's Florida Power and Light operates similarly as a vertically integrated, regulated utility, its service area lacks an RTO. Conversely, its NEER division operates entirely within competitive wholesale markets using long-term power purchase agreements. Under these agreements, buyers - typically utilities, corporations, or industrial facilities - purchase all of the electrical output from a specific infrastructure project at a pre-negotiated price.
According to Resources for the Future, a nonprofit, environmental, energy, and natural resources research organization, wholesale electricity markets are split into three distinct auction types:
Energy Markets
Energy markets are auctions that coordinate real-time and near-term electricity production. RTOs operate both day-ahead markets based on anticipated demand, and real-time markets that adjust for changes in demand. As shown in Figure 1, suppliers offer to sell a specific quantity of electricity while distributors bid for that electricity to meet demand. The market-clearing price, which is when the quantity of electricity supplied equals the quantity demanded, is received by the generators. The sell-side price for electricity is largely determined by the fuel source, with renewables typically demanding the lowest price. The RTO will then dispatch the power sequentially from least to most expensive.
Capacity Markets
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation - an independent organization that oversees and regulates the reliability of the power grid - requires energy retailers to support enough generating capacity to meet forecasted load plus a reserve margin to maintain grid reliability. Many RTOs run capacity auctions, so retailers secure their capacity requirements while enabling generators to recover fixed costs that are not covered in energy markets.
In these auctions, generators set a bid price at an amount equal to the cost of keeping a plant operational if needed. Similar to the energy market auction, the bids are arranged from lowest to highest. Once supply meets demand, all generators receive the same market clearing price, which is the price of the final, marginal generator to meet demand.
Ancillary Services
RTOs use ancillary services markets to cover everything outside capacity and energy markets. These services typically include operations that maintain grid frequency and short-term backup power.
The Merger and Regulatory Hurdles
Combining Dominion Energy and NextEra Energy would create the world's largest regulated electric utility business by market capitalization and one of the world's largest energy infrastructure companies. While the firms expect the deal to close in 12-18 months, the deal will require a multi-jurisdictional regulatory review and need the approval of:
* The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
* The Virginia State Corporation Commission
* The North Carolina Utilities Commission
* The Public Service Commission of South Carolina
The firms also notified the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice (DOJ) as required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, which has a mandatory 30-day waiting period before a deal can close.
While the legal mandate varies across each state and federal regulator, the focus will be the merger's effects on competition and consumers.
A horizontal merger - which is the consolidation of companies operating in the same industry at the same stage in the supply chain - of this magnitude typically triggers antitrust scrutiny. Yet the utility operations of Dominion and NextEra span different geographies as separate regulated monopolies. In other words, the firms do not directly compete in the retail power market.
The primary concern of regulators will likely be the wholesale market in the PJM Interconnection Region. The merger between Exelon-Constellation - which closed in March 2012 - can serve as a guide to how regulators, specifically those at the federal level, will evaluate the merger. In the Exelon-Constellation merger, the DOJ alleged that the merged firm would gain control of 28 percent and 22 percent of the generating capacity in the PJM Mid-Atlantic North and Mid-Atlantic South regions, respectively. At this level of capacity, the DOJ claimed that the firm would have the "ability and incentive" to increase its share of "higher-cost capacity" in those markets.
By increasing its share of higher-cost capacity, the firm could "reduce output and raise clearing prices by withholding capacity." According to the DOJ, the firm could submit "high offers in the PJM auctions for some of the capacity from its higher-cost units such that they are not called on to produce electricity," forcing PJM to use more expensive sources of electricity to meet demand and resulting in a higher market-clearing price. To restore competition, the DOJ required the merged firm to divest three generating plants to restore competition rather than blocking the deal entirely.
But how does a firm exercise its market power by withholding capacity? Suppose two firms, each with 10 percent of generating capacity in the PJM region, merge. The combined firm will have 20 percent of the region's total capacity. This capacity will be a mix of inexpensive fuel sources of electricity such as nuclear, solar, wind, and natural gas, and more expensive fuel sources. Because all generators are paid the market-clearing price - which is the most expensive source required to meet demand - there is an incentive to withhold capacity or bid a price to supply electricity that is so high it will not be called upon by PJM. With some of the supply withheld or priced above competitors, PJM will be forced to use more expensive electricity from the merged firm's competitors, raising the market-clearing price. The merged firm, however, will receive the higher market-clearing price for all the electricity supplied from its cheaper fuel source. Even though it may lose money on the power it withheld or bid too high, it still may be profitable.
It is likely that FERC and the other regulators evaluating the merger will look for specific areas in the PJM region where it may be profitable for a merged Dominion and NextEra to execute this strategy. Like Exelon-Constellation, rather than seeking to block the deal entirely, regulators may require specific generating asset divestitures.
The AI Twist
The build-out of AI data centers has sent electricity demand soaring and is changing the dynamics of utilities. The 24/7 energy demand from data centers has put pressure on utilities to ensure supply is available. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity consumption was flat for nearly 15 years, but demand has increased an average of 2.1 percent per year over the last five years. In EIA's high electricity demand scenario, data center server energy use by 2050 will be more than 16 times that in 2020, 84-percent higher than its baseline case.
The expected increased electricity demand from the data center build-out will require a similar investment in grid infrastructure. Fusing NextEra's renewable energy development business with the regulated utility model of Dominion could offer a blueprint for how the rest of the industry can bring capacity to the grid.
Conclusion
The electricity industry faces a pivotal moment as it tries to navigate the surging demand from AI infrastructure. The merger between NextEra and Dominion could offer a blueprint for how the industry can bring new capacity to the grid while maintaining reliability.
Regulators need to be mindful of this industry transition as it evaluates the merger's effect on competition and consumers.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/mega-merger-proposed-to-power-data-center-alley/
[Category: Think Tank]