Featured Stories
Jeffrey Wenger Named Rand's Distinguished Chair, AI, Workers, and the Economy
SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 22 -- Rand issued the following news release on Aug. 21, 2026:
* * *
Jeffrey Wenger Named RAND's Distinguished Chair, AI, Workers, and the Economy
Jeffrey Wenger, a senior economist at RAND, has been appointed Distinguished Chair, AI, Workers, and the Economy. In the two-year role, he will advance RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure's research agenda on artificial intelligence, including its effects on workers, labor markets, public finances, and the broader economy.
The position is supported by the Diller - von Furstenberg Family Foundation and the
... Show Full Article
SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 22 -- Rand issued the following news release on Aug. 21, 2026:
* * *
Jeffrey Wenger Named RAND's Distinguished Chair, AI, Workers, and the Economy
Jeffrey Wenger, a senior economist at RAND, has been appointed Distinguished Chair, AI, Workers, and the Economy. In the two-year role, he will advance RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure's research agenda on artificial intelligence, including its effects on workers, labor markets, public finances, and the broader economy.
The position is supported by the Diller - von Furstenberg Family Foundation and theLowy Family Foundation.
Wenger also directs the RAND Lowy Family Middle-Class Pathways Center and the Master of Policy Analysis Program at the RAND School of Public Policy. Additionally, he codirects the RAND von Furstenberg Family Budget Model, a suite of tools that helps decisionmakers understand federal spending and tax policy in unprecedented detail and evaluate ways to improve them.
"This role comes at a critical moment, as AI begins to reshape work and the broader economy," said Jason Matheny, RAND president and CEO. "Jeff's expertise will strengthen RAND's work in this area and help policymakers understand AI's impacts on economic opportunity."
Wenger's research focuses on the forces that shape economic opportunity, including middle-class stability and mobility, labor force participation, and the quality of work.
His published work includes A Typology of Economic Shocks and Applications for Macroeconomic Analysis, as well as research on veterans' pathways into civilian careers and how economic policy changes affect the American workforce. He has also coauthored research with RAND colleagues in the American Economic Review on the trade-off between working conditions and wages.
"I'm honored to step into this position and help build on RAND's work on the economic and workforce implications of AI," Wenger said. "As these technologies continue to evolve, policymakers will need careful research to better understand how they are affecting jobs, mobility, and economic opportunity."
* * *
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/2026/08/jeffrey-wenger-named-rands-distinguished-chair-ai-workers.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to RealClearWorld: Bulgaria's Prime Minister Radev Remains a Complicated Ally
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Aug. 21, 2026, by senior fellow Matthew Boyse to RealClearWorld:
* * *
Bulgaria's Prime Minister Radev Remains a Complicated Ally
Prime Minister Rumen Radev can be quite pleased with his situation. His landslide in the April 19 elections gave his Progressive Bulgaria party a clear majority in parliament. Former Vice President Iliana Iotova slid into his old job and leads in the polls for the October 25 presidential election.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Aug. 21, 2026, by senior fellow Matthew Boyse to RealClearWorld:
* * *
Bulgaria's Prime Minister Radev Remains a Complicated Ally
Prime Minister Rumen Radev can be quite pleased with his situation. His landslide in the April 19 elections gave his Progressive Bulgaria party a clear majority in parliament. Former Vice President Iliana Iotova slid into his old job and leads in the polls for the October 25 presidential election.His people are at all levels of government and his popularity remains high.
No party has governed Bulgaria alone since 2001 and no politician has held such sway in the country since 1989. One hundred days after being sworn in, what Radev has been doing with this power is clearer.
Corruption and State Capture
Radev has shown some progress on the corruption and state capture issues that voters most want him to fix, but he is moving slowly.
He quickly withdrew security from Magnitsky-sanctioned oligarch-turned-politician Delyan Peevski and former PM Boyko Borissov, both of whom many Bulgarians consider corrupt. But Radev's MPs declined to constitute a committee to investigate Peevski, arguing it would be "just a talking shop." Then in late July, the government presented a report on him, whereupon the National Audit Office opened an investigation, with a report due in three months.
To unlock the approximately 1.4 billion Euros the EU had suspended for rule of law and other concerns, the government established an Anti-Corruption Commission and passed laws on accountability for the Prosecutor General and countering corruption. These actions freed most of the EU funds; the deadline for remaining reforms is August 31.
Bulgarians will generally judge Radev on these issues. Opposition leaders have said they will support Radev if he tackles them but mobilize protests if he does not. Peevski is the litmus test but enjoys constitutional protections as a Member of Parliament.
Foreign Policy
PM Radev has clearly been pursuing a more independent foreign policy than his predecessors. His statements, actions, and travel indicate that he seeks maximum maneuverability within Bulgaria's alliances as he tacks between NATO, the EU, Russia, and the United States.
Radev's first parliamentary speech highlighted sovereignty, realism, and a more "pragmatic" foreign policy. He downgraded Bulgarian participation at key regional formats as President Iotova skipped the Three Seas Initiative and Bucharest 9 summits.
By travelling first to Berlin and Paris, Radev signaled that NATO and the EU were not his highest priorities, although Berlin remains a key reference point on the WWII-era Tsar Boris III principle "always with Germany, never against Russia." Radev has been inconsistent with the United States, first setting impossible conditions to base aircraft for Iran operations and then agreeing until October 1.
Accommodating Russia
Radev accommodates Moscow more explicitly than his predecessors did. He has repeatedly called for a "new security architecture" in Europe, which would favor Russia. He declined to support a Council of Europe war crimes tribunal for Putin and studiously avoids criticizing Moscow.
Radev reduced ties with Ukraine, in June stopping arms deliveries after his predecessors had sent 13 packages. His FM caused a kerfuffle by associating Bulgaria with a Ukraine-related summit declaration from which the government distanced itself. After Radev announced Bulgaria's withdrawal from the Coalition of the Willing, his FM said Sofia was never a member.
Commenting "the time for crusades is over," Radev conditioned approval of the major 21st EU sanctions package on dropping three Russians: Patriarch Kirill, Lukoil's Vagit Alekperov, and businessman Iskander Makhmudov.
Radev is not, however, acting like a complete "Putin proxy." At the NATO Ankara Summit, he sought cooperation with Ukraine on energy and drones, although offered little support. He just sent an ambassador to Kyiv after a gap of 4.5 years, and commercial arms sales continue.
Radev's approach instead is not to confront Russia, "promote peace," and protect the Bulgarian economy. He wants it both ways: in the West, but not all-in and between East and West.
But Not "Another Orban" or "Another Fico"
Radev is not "another Viktor Orban." He has neither a parliamentary supermajority nor the ambition to lead Europe's patriots. Bulgaria isn't as dependent on Russian energy, and he cannot afford EU punishment.
The analogy with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also doesn't fully fit. Radev does not deploy Fico's aggressive rhetoric, cultural themes and grievances, and hasn't been as hostile to media.
But Unique
Instead, Radev is charting his own course. He is a unique player and is pursuing his own interests in a unique way: balancing, hedging, and engaging in transactions with partners but fully satisfying no one.
Radev's MPs call this "multi-layered diplomacy." Others call it "multi-vector" or "multi-voiced" for messaging different audiences differently. Opposition leaders call it schizophrenia.This approach will make getting to yes with Radev challenging. He remains the weak link and complicated partner he was as president. This will make putting wins on scoreboards difficult - as with other treaty allies - but it can be done.
Read in RealClearWorld (https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2026/08/21/bulgarias_pm_radev_remains_a_complicated_ally_1201687.html).
* * *
Matthew Boyse is a senior fellow with Hudson Institute's Center on Europe and Eurasia specializing in Central Europe. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, the George Washington University, and American University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/bulgarias-prime-minister-radev-remains-complicated-ally-matthew-boyse
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Nonprofit Amici Supporting Boulder's Climate Lawsuit Against Energy Firms
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Aug. 21, 2026, by senior research analyst Robert Stilson:
* * *
Nonprofit amici supporting Boulder's climate lawsuit against energy firms
Anti-energy NGOs and other nonprofits with combined annual revenues of $436 million have filed briefs supporting Boulder, Colorado in a U.S. Supreme Court case arising from its lawsuit against major oil & gas firms. Boulder is seeking to hold the companies liable for what it claims are harms associated with climate change.
-
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Aug. 21, 2026, by senior research analyst Robert Stilson:
* * *
Nonprofit amici supporting Boulder's climate lawsuit against energy firms
Anti-energy NGOs and other nonprofits with combined annual revenues of $436 million have filed briefs supporting Boulder, Colorado in a U.S. Supreme Court case arising from its lawsuit against major oil & gas firms. Boulder is seeking to hold the companies liable for what it claims are harms associated with climate change.
-
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court will hearoral arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case arising from a 2018 lawsuit filed by Boulder, Colorado (both the city and county) against certain major energy companies. The underlying suit seeks damages for what those governments claim are the negative impacts of climate change. Fifteen standalone nonprofits have filed or joined Supreme Court amicus briefs supporting Boulder, and their most recently reported combined annual revenues exceed $436 million.
The Boulder Lawsuit
Boulder, Colorado is one of dozens of state and local governments which have sued major energy companies for billions of dollars over what the plaintiffs allege are the localized costs of climate change. A Colorado state court denied the defendant companies' motion to dismiss, holding that the state-law nuisance, consumer protection, and other claims were not preempted by federal law. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari as to both the preemption question and a threshold jurisdictional question--the latter arising from a dispute over whether the litigation had reached a stage appropriate for U.S. Supreme Court review. The questions currently before the U.S. Supreme Court are as follows:
Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.
Whether this Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case.
The Boulder lawsuit is part of a broader ideology-driven climate litigation campaign that seeks to achieve environmentalist political objectives outside of the democratic legislative process. It can be seen as a form of lawfare which has been rightly characterized by the energy company defendants as a "misuse of the legal system." The Pacific Legal Foundation, in an amicus brief supporting those companies, succinctly explains Boulder's "breathtakingly expansive" theory of liability and its consequences:
[B]ecause Petitioners produced and sold fossil fuels, they should be liable in state court for natural disasters that cannot be directly traced to them. That theory is not simply wrong as a matter of tort law but threatens to serve as a blueprint for dismantling America's domestic energy sector through litigation. If accepted, every oil and gas producer, refiner, and distributor in the country faces the same exposure--enormous retroactive liability for unproven damages--in every jurisdiction where a weather event has caused municipal costs.
While the questions before the U.S. Supreme Court do not concern the substantive merits of Boulder's lawsuit, a ruling on the federal preemption issue would have major implications for the entire climate litigation campaign, which has generally relied on state tort law. Recognizing the case's importance, dozens of amicus ("friend of the court") briefs have been filed by individuals, groups, and governmental entities with an interest in its outcome one way or the other. Given the fundamentally activist-driven nature of Boulder's lawsuit--and of the slew of similar ones which have been filed nationwide--it is worth looking at the nonprofit advocacy groups which have submitted briefs in support of its position.
Amicus Briefs Supporting Boulder
Fifteen standalone nonprofits filed or joined amicus briefs in support of Boulder. Their combined total revenues in either 2024 or 2025 (using whichever fiscal or calendar year for which the most recent complete Form 990 tax filing was available for each respective group) was more than $436 million. This total excludes any nonprofit affiliates of the named amici, as well as groups whose personnel submitted briefs under their own names.
Interestingly, even though the underlying litigation is rooted in pure climate activism, only a third of the nonprofit amici were environmental activist groups.
Environmental Groups
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) submitted a brief arguing that developments in "attribution science" have supposedly made it possible to link specific sources of emissions (such as energy companies) to specific extreme weather events in a given locality. The NRDC is itself a prolific environmental litigant and one of the largest such activist groups in the country. In its 2025 fiscal year, the group's flagship 501(c)(3) charitable arm reported almost $249 million in total revenue.
A second major national environmental activist group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, joined with six university professors in a brief which offered what the filers called "a fact-intensive historical account of what is known about [Boulder's] claims of [the energy companies'] alleged fraud and deception and how that body of evidence supports the underlying claims." The Union of Concerned Scientists is a 501(c)(3) charity which reported nearly $42 million in fiscal year 2024 revenues.
The Environmental Protection Network, an association of more than 750 former EPA staff and appointees, filed a brief alongside twenty former EPA officials in support of Boulder. The Environmental Protection Network is a 501(c)(3) charity that reported total 2024 revenues of over $3.8 million.
Another brief was filed by WHEN Justice, a relatively new 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit which received its tax-exempt status from the IRS in April 2025. WHEN Justice targets those it believes "put profit over people and planet" by utilizing "capital, media and the law to turn outrage into outcomes." In 2024, it reported total revenues of $291,000, though the Edward Charles Foundation reported granting $2,843,000 to the group in its own 2025 fiscal year.
Finally, an Oregon-based public interest law firm called Our Children's Trust submitted an amicus brief alongside several named individuals, including local youth from Boulder. The brief's stated purpose was "to assist the Court in understanding how children's health is deteriorating from fossil fuel pollution, and through that lens, the import of state sovereign authority and duty over fossil fuel pollution-related injuries." Our Children's Trust operates as a 501(c)(3) charity, and reported just under $3.9 million in 2024 revenues.
Non-Environmental Groups
Some of the amicus briefs filed by non-environmental groups nevertheless came from natural directions. Foremost among these would probably be the American Association for Justice, whose brief supporting Boulder made the eyebrow-raising assertion that "Respondents' causes of action will not result in ruinous liability for the fossil fuel industry." The American Association for Justice is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit whose member attorneys principally represent the plaintiff in civil litigation or the defendant in criminal cases--it is the "lawsuit lobby" which advocates for the professional interests of America's trial lawyers. In its fiscal year 2025, the American Association for Justice reported more than $34.5 million in total revenues.
Similarly, the National Association of Counties (a 501(c)(4) nonprofit with 2024 revenues of $28.9 million), the National League of Cities (a 501(c)(4) with 2024 revenues of $25.5 million), and the International Municipal Lawyers Association (a 501(c)(3) with 2025 revenues of $2.3 million), filed a brief supporting Boulder on both the jurisdictional question and on the underlying merits, writing that when "faced with deceptive and injurious conduct, local governments have the responsibility to take action despite the efforts of wrongdoers to divert and delay." All three groups--which represent the interests of their eponymous constituents--are founding members of the Local Government Legal Center, a coalition which was established in 2023 to advocate for those interests at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence were perhaps more unexpected amici. They filed a joint brief connecting climate lawsuits to their own litigation efforts "against gun manufacturers for certain conduct alleged to constitute a public nuisance at common law." Brady and Giffords are two of the three most prominent mainline gun control advocacy groups in the country (the third being the enormous Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety, which did not join the brief). The Brady Center is a 501(c)(3) which reported $17.8 million total revenues in its 2025 fiscal year, while the Giffords Law Center--also a 501(c)(3)--reported more than $11.4 million in 2024.
The 501(c)(4) activist group Public Citizen, which reported fiscal year 2024 revenues of $8.39 million, submitted a brief arguing against federal preemption. Two 501(c)(3)s--the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (2024 revenues: $5.4 million) and the National Native Law Students Association (fiscal year 2025 revenues: $71,977) joined a brief with thirteen federally recognized American Indian tribes and nine law professors, writing that "reversal of the decision below would severely handicap tribal governments as they struggle to deal with the consequences of the climate crisis." Another brief supporting Boulder was filed by the Constitutional Accountability Center, a 501(c)(3) which is "dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution's text and history," and which had total revenues of more than $2.9 million in 2024.
Other Briefs
A couple of other amicus briefs, which were not filed by nonprofits, might nevertheless be worth mentioning in that context. Ten different cities and counties which have filed their own similar climate lawsuits against energy companies joined as amici supporting Boulder, in a brief submitted by their counsel Sher Edling. This is notable, as Sher Edling has received $16 million worth of combined charitable grants from the New Venture Fund and the Resources Legacy Fund to support the firm's climate litigation work.
Another amicus brief supporting Boulder on the federal preemption issue was submitted by ninety Democratic-caucusing members of Congress, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). That brief also took aim at the amici supporting the energy companies, baselessly accusing them in a footnote of being "part of an industry-driven project to evade accountability for all conduct related to their businesses," and dismissing organizations as influential and programmatically diverse as the Manhattan Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Advancing American Freedom, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as little more than fossil fuel "industry front groups." It is unclear how this charge--even if it were true--would be relevant to informing the Supreme Court's analysis.
A decision in the Suncor Energy case--whether on jurisdictional or preemption grounds--is expected in 2027.
* * *
Robert Stilson, Senior Research Analyst
Robert runs several of CRC's specialized projects. Originally from Indiana, he has a B.A. from Hanover College and a J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, where he graduated magna cum laude.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/nonprofit-amici-supporting-boulders-climate-lawsuit-against-energy-firms/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CPA: U.S. Must Hold the Line on Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Coalition for a Prosperous America posted the following news release:
* * *
CPA: U.S. Must Hold the Line on Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
*
WASHINGTON, D.C. -Following the breakdown of U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) -which represents American steel mills, aluminum extruders, and other domestic metals producers -urged the administration to avoid tariff inversion by forgoing any tariff concessions on metal fabricated products. Aluminum and steel tariffs were imposed after Commerce investigations
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Coalition for a Prosperous America posted the following news release:
* * *
CPA: U.S. Must Hold the Line on Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
*
WASHINGTON, D.C. -Following the breakdown of U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) -which represents American steel mills, aluminum extruders, and other domestic metals producers -urged the administration to avoid tariff inversion by forgoing any tariff concessions on metal fabricated products. Aluminum and steel tariffs were imposed after Commerce investigationsfound that import dependence threatens the United States, and President Trump strengthened them in April -50 percent, with coverage of core downstream fabricated products where 97 percent of U.S. aluminum jobs are. Yesterday, CPA warned the administration against trading away the Section 232 metals tariffs.
"President Trump was right to strengthen the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the breakdown of these negotiations should put an end to proposals to weaken them," said Jon Toomey, President of CPA. "If Washington cuts the tariff on the fabricated article while the metal itself costs 30 percent more here, it has written the offshoring business plan itself. The way to rebuild primary metal without destroying the 1.45 million-job fabrication base that buys it is simple: tariff protection must follow the metal downstream."
An American aluminum fabricator cannot absorb a more-than-$2,000-per-metric-ton disadvantage in raw metal while its foreign competitor buys aluminum near world-market prices and receives a tariff concession on the finished article.. The stakes are just as high for steel plate -the material that becomes Navy hulls, submarines, and armor -where American mills have invested billions in new capacity as a result of the success of the Section 232 program that Vice President JD Vance just highlighted yesterday in Ohio at Cleveland Cliffs.
And as CPA's report on the dangers of USMCA exemptions, whatever Canada wins, Mexico takes through the USMCA review -and then it's Chinese metal remelted in Mexican cast houses, the exact playbook behind DOJ's $549.5 million Perfectus Aluminum settlement. A flat 25 doesn't open a door to Canada -it opens a highway to China.
"Canada is an important ally, but an ally should not expect the United States to sacrifice its own industrial base as the price of a trade agreement," Toomey continued. "The administration should maintain the full Section 232 protections for American steel and aluminum. Our steel companies are investing billions of dollars to supply the Navy, the submarine industrial base, armored vehicles, infrastructure, and other national-security requirements. At the same time, American aluminum extruders are finally receiving the protection needed to compete against foreign production and preserve a critical downstream manufacturing base. It makes no sense to ask these companies to invest in America and then negotiate away the policy that makes those investments possible."
***
Original text here: https://prosperousamerica.org/cpa-u-s-must-hold-the-line-on-section-232-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs/
Baseless Threats Won't Stop Our Independent Research, Says CAP's Neera Tanden
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on Aug. 21, 2026:
* * *
Baseless Threats Won't Stop Our Independent Research, Says CAP's Neera Tanden
Lawyers for President Donald Trump issued a letter demanding the Center for American Progress retract a factual report or face a $5 billion lawsuit. That report analyzes the impact of the administration's deployments of the National Guard in cities around the country, finding that they had no measurable impact on the rate of violent crime reductions.
In response, CAP President and CEO Neera Tanden issued
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on Aug. 21, 2026:
* * *
Baseless Threats Won't Stop Our Independent Research, Says CAP's Neera Tanden
Lawyers for President Donald Trump issued a letter demanding the Center for American Progress retract a factual report or face a $5 billion lawsuit. That report analyzes the impact of the administration's deployments of the National Guard in cities around the country, finding that they had no measurable impact on the rate of violent crime reductions.
In response, CAP President and CEO Neera Tanden issuedthe following statement:
The Center for American Progress is an independent, nonpartisan research organization, and our work is grounded in rigorous, evidence-based research and analysis. Based on analysis of crime data, our report demonstrated facts about the National Guard deployments that are inconvenient to the Trump administration. Since its inception, CAP has published analysis of the impact of government policy under Democratic and Republican administrations.
This threatened lawsuit's attack on facts and evidence is baseless. A fundamental protection of the First Amendment is to allow for the publication of facts and analysis that are contrary to the arguments and claims of any administration. A lawsuit is a transparent attempt to silence us. We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it.
In America, profound disagreements over public policy are resolved through robust public debate, not through threats or intimidation. Independent data, evidence, and analysis are essential to that debate. Efforts to silence independent research because its findings are unwelcome by an administration or president should alarm every American.
For more information or to speak with an expert, contact Mishka Espey at eespey@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-baseless-threats-wont-stop-our-independent-research-says-caps-neera-tanden/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Ohio's 1st District - Comeback at a Glance
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following fact sheet:
* * *
OHIO'S 1ST DISTRICT: THE COMEBACK AT A GLANCE
The district: the city of Cincinnati, dozens of other Hamilton County communities, and all of Warren County -- on current boundaries; a new map adopted October 31, 2025 takes effect with the 2026 elections, so figures on today's boundaries will shift. Median household income was $82,099 in 2024, about 14% above Ohio's $72,212; the median owner-occupied home was worth $336,300, below the $360,600 national median.
1 THE ECONOMY: TAX CUTS LAND AS CINCINNATI'S
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following fact sheet:
* * *
OHIO'S 1ST DISTRICT: THE COMEBACK AT A GLANCE
The district: the city of Cincinnati, dozens of other Hamilton County communities, and all of Warren County -- on current boundaries; a new map adopted October 31, 2025 takes effect with the 2026 elections, so figures on today's boundaries will shift. Median household income was $82,099 in 2024, about 14% above Ohio's $72,212; the median owner-occupied home was worth $336,300, below the $360,600 national median.
1 THE ECONOMY: TAX CUTS LAND AS CINCINNATI'SJOB MARKET TIGHTENS
* Cincinnati metro unemployment hit 3.5% in June 2026, down from 4.4% a year earlier.
* That is the second-lowest rate among Ohio metros reporting June data, behind Columbus only.
* Ohio's economy crossed a $1 trillion annual rate, in current dollars, for the first time in the first quarter of 2026.
* GE Aerospace is directing more than $115 million into Cincinnati-region operations in 2026.
* The roughly $4 billion Brent Spence Bridge Corridor rebuild broke ground May 8, 2026.
2 ENERGY: A STATE OIL RECORD, AND NUCLEAR PLANTS ADDING CAPACITY
* Utica Shale horizontal wells produced more than 48 million barrels of oil in 2025.
* Up 39% from 34.5 million barrels in 2024 and nearly triple 2021 output.
* January 2026 agreements cover 2,176 MW at two northern Ohio nuclear plants, which today support more than 1,200 jobs.
* Southern Ohio's Portsmouth site: a planned 10 gigawatts of new generation, expected to support more than 10,000 construction jobs.
* Duke Energy Ohio/Kentucky served about 880,000 electric customers as of 2022.
3 EDUCATION: UNIVERSAL SCHOLARSHIPS, AND A CINCINNATI SUBURB LEADING THE STATE
* More than 165,000 Ohio students use state-funded scholarships to attend private schools.
* EdChoice Expansion is open statewide, outside the separate Cleveland Scholarship program, with no cap; 100,922 students participated in 2024-25.
* In the first year every Ohio family became scholarship-eligible, a Cincinnati-suburb district topped the State with more than 2,000 EdChoice Expansion participants.
* Ohio opted in to a new federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for donations to scholarship-granting organizations, from 2027.
4 SAFER COMMUNITIES: HAMILTON COUNTY OVERDOSE DEATHS AT THEIR LOWEST SINCE 2012
* Hamilton County overdose deaths fell 30% in 2025, to 194 from 277 in 2024.
* That is a fourth consecutive annual decline and the lowest county total since 2012.
* Cincinnati reported 23,424 crimes in 2025, down from 24,349; homicides 61 versus 65.
* Southwest border apprehensions totaled 237,538 in FY2025, the lowest level since 1970.
* * *
OHIO'S 1ST DISTRICT: AT A GLANCE
Table: OHIO AND THE NATION, SIDE BY SIDE
Table: WHAT THE WORKING FAMILIES TAX CUTS DO
Table: THE DATA: EARLIER VS. LATEST, BY METRIC
* * *
THE BOTTOM LINE
Cincinnati-metro unemployment was 3.5% in June 2026, Ohio's economy crossed a $1 trillion annual rate (in current dollars) in the first quarter of 2026, and Hamilton County overdose deaths fell in 2025 to their lowest level since 2012. Ohio's Utica Shale set a state oil production record in 2025 in the Appalachian counties east of this district, and more than 165,000 Ohio students use state-funded scholarships. In the Cincinnati region, GE Aerospace is investing from its Evendale headquarters inside the district while a roughly $4 billion rebuild of the Brent Spence corridor is under way.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/ohios-1st-district-the-comeback-at-a-glance
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: American Bar Association Meets Accountability
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (TNSbrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 21, 2026:
* * *
The American Bar Association Meets Accountability
Today, the Department of Education released a new report addressing continued defiance of federal civil rights law by the American Bar Association's Council. This action follows a formal request from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) to the department to investigate the ABA Council's compliance with federal recognition criteria.
"The ABA has abused its position as the Nation's sole federally recognized accreditor
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (TNSbrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 21, 2026:
* * *
The American Bar Association Meets Accountability
Today, the Department of Education released a new report addressing continued defiance of federal civil rights law by the American Bar Association's Council. This action follows a formal request from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) to the department to investigate the ABA Council's compliance with federal recognition criteria.
"The ABA has abused its position as the Nation's sole federally recognized accreditorfor Juris Doctor programs by mandating unlawful racial discrimination under the guise of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion,'" said Chad Mizelle, Law and Justice Senior Fellow at AFPI. "It has had ample opportunity to remedy these practices. By refusing to do so, the ABA has created a conflict with federal civil rights law and our Nation's fundamental commitments to equal treatment under law."
As described by AFPI's Chief Legal Affairs Officer, Leigh Ann O'Neill, "The problem for the ABA is that federal civil rights law is not a cafeteria menu. Recipients of federal funds cannot pick and choose which laws they comply with and which laws they ignore. By mandating divisive ideological indoctrination-- which creates hostile learning environments--as a condition of accreditation, the ABA has effectively abdicated its Title IV gatekeeping responsibility. That is precisely why we wrote to the Department of Education in April, urging them to halt their recognition of the ABA as the sole JD program accreditor."
When faced with a recent decision to drop DEI mandates for accrediting law schools, the ABA chose to keep them intact, further demonstrating their commitment to infusing race-essentialist dogma into American legal education. AFPI applauds the Department of Education for stepping in to defend the constitutional rights of our Nation's students.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/the-american-bar-association-meets-accountability
[Category: ThinkTank]
