Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
TechFreedom: Department of Commerce Should Drop Brass Instruments From New Duty List
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
Department of Commerce Should Drop Brass Instruments from New Duty List
Today, TechFreedom filed comments with the Department of Commerce on proposed duties on additional aluminum, steel, and copper derivative articles. TechFreedom focuses on the proposed 25% duty on "brass-wind musical instruments and their parts and accessories," and strongly urges the Department to drop this category from the new duty list.
The amount of strategic metals contained in brass wind instruments ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * Department of Commerce Should Drop Brass Instruments from New Duty List Today, TechFreedom filed comments with the Department of Commerce on proposed duties on additional aluminum, steel, and copper derivative articles. TechFreedom focuses on the proposed 25% duty on "brass-wind musical instruments and their parts and accessories," and strongly urges the Department to drop this category from the new duty list. The amount of strategic metals contained in brass wind instrumentsis infinitesimal when compared to the other categories of products listed in the Request for Comment," said TechFreedom Senior Counsel Jim Dunstan. "There are fourteen categories of products to which a 25% duty will be attached. Some of those items are quite large and are made up of large quantities of the strategic metals. However, brass wind instruments account for a tiny fraction of imported strategic metals--roughly 5,000 times less by weight than semi-trailers--making their inclusion in the proposed duties a drop in the bucket compared with other categories. If the goal of these duties is to protect strategic metals, sweeping in brass wind instruments misses a beat."
"Duties imposed on brass wind instruments will backfire, ultimately destroying domestic production," Dunstan continued. "Rather than advancing the goal of spurring domestic production using strategic metals, the duty will do the opposite, disrupting domestic production of brass wind instruments by drying up the market for higher-end instruments produced domestically. American manufacturers of brass instruments compete on quality, not price, and focus on higher end instruments. Impose duties on imported beginner brass instruments, and parents and children will switch to non-tariffed instruments like woodwinds and percussion, quickly drying up the market for upgraded instruments."
"The ultimate impact of these duties could be the dumbing down of an entire generation," Dunstan continued. "Studies show that students who continue music education through high school score an average of 100 points higher on the SAT than those students without music education. Making the path harder and more expensive for children will result in fewer children gaining the benefits of a music education. We impose these duties at our own peril."
This issue hits particularly home for TechFreedom's Jim Dunstan, who plays French horn in the Fairfax Wind Symphony and served as band booster president for his daughters' high school bands in Fairfax, Virginia.
###
Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:
* #45: Convergence, Divergence, and Discretion: Aviv Nevo on the EC's Draft Merger Guidelines, Rethinking Antitrust Podcast (Aug. 26, 2026)
* The First Amendment's red line between the expressive and commercial realms, Concurrences (Nov. 10, 2025)
* Open letter calling on the FTC to take public comments before finalizing its policy statement on deceptive AI and federal preemption (Mar. 10, 2026)
* The FTC's AI Preemption Authority is Limited (Feb. 6, 2026)
* Comments to the DOJ in response to their "Request for information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Commerce" (Sep. 15, 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/department-of-commerce-should-drop-brass-instruments-from-new-duty-list/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Department of Commerce Should Drop Brass Instruments from New Duty List
Today, TechFreedom filed comments with the Department of Commerce on proposed duties on additional aluminum, steel, and copper derivative articles. TechFreedom focuses on the proposed 25% duty on "brass-wind musical instruments and their parts and accessories," and strongly urges the Department to drop this category from the new duty list.
The amount of strategic metals contained in brass wind instruments ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * Department of Commerce Should Drop Brass Instruments from New Duty List Today, TechFreedom filed comments with the Department of Commerce on proposed duties on additional aluminum, steel, and copper derivative articles. TechFreedom focuses on the proposed 25% duty on "brass-wind musical instruments and their parts and accessories," and strongly urges the Department to drop this category from the new duty list. The amount of strategic metals contained in brass wind instrumentsis infinitesimal when compared to the other categories of products listed in the Request for Comment," said TechFreedom Senior Counsel Jim Dunstan. "There are fourteen categories of products to which a 25% duty will be attached. Some of those items are quite large and are made up of large quantities of the strategic metals. However, brass wind instruments account for a tiny fraction of imported strategic metals--roughly 5,000 times less by weight than semi-trailers--making their inclusion in the proposed duties a drop in the bucket compared with other categories. If the goal of these duties is to protect strategic metals, sweeping in brass wind instruments misses a beat."
"Duties imposed on brass wind instruments will backfire, ultimately destroying domestic production," Dunstan continued. "Rather than advancing the goal of spurring domestic production using strategic metals, the duty will do the opposite, disrupting domestic production of brass wind instruments by drying up the market for higher-end instruments produced domestically. American manufacturers of brass instruments compete on quality, not price, and focus on higher end instruments. Impose duties on imported beginner brass instruments, and parents and children will switch to non-tariffed instruments like woodwinds and percussion, quickly drying up the market for upgraded instruments."
"The ultimate impact of these duties could be the dumbing down of an entire generation," Dunstan continued. "Studies show that students who continue music education through high school score an average of 100 points higher on the SAT than those students without music education. Making the path harder and more expensive for children will result in fewer children gaining the benefits of a music education. We impose these duties at our own peril."
This issue hits particularly home for TechFreedom's Jim Dunstan, who plays French horn in the Fairfax Wind Symphony and served as band booster president for his daughters' high school bands in Fairfax, Virginia.
###
Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:
* #45: Convergence, Divergence, and Discretion: Aviv Nevo on the EC's Draft Merger Guidelines, Rethinking Antitrust Podcast (Aug. 26, 2026)
* The First Amendment's red line between the expressive and commercial realms, Concurrences (Nov. 10, 2025)
* Open letter calling on the FTC to take public comments before finalizing its policy statement on deceptive AI and federal preemption (Mar. 10, 2026)
* The FTC's AI Preemption Authority is Limited (Feb. 6, 2026)
* Comments to the DOJ in response to their "Request for information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Commerce" (Sep. 15, 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/department-of-commerce-should-drop-brass-instruments-from-new-duty-list/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Congress, States Have Eroded TANF Programs for 30 Years, Leaving Families With Inadequate Cash Assistance
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Ife Finch Floyd, director of income security with the Housing and Income Security Team:
* * *
Congress, States Have Eroded TANF Programs for 30 Years, Leaving Families With Inadequate Cash Assistance
As Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) marks its 30th anniversary, we've warned how we risk repeating lessons hard-learned from the program's failures. Namely, TANF's rules require taking assistance away from people who don't meet a harsh work requirement, and the 2025 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Ife Finch Floyd, director of income security with the Housing and Income Security Team: * * * Congress, States Have Eroded TANF Programs for 30 Years, Leaving Families With Inadequate Cash Assistance As Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) marks its 30th anniversary, we've warned how we risk repeating lessons hard-learned from the program's failures. Namely, TANF's rules require taking assistance away from people who don't meet a harsh work requirement, and the 2025Republican reconciliation law newly applies or expands a similar requirement to other programs that provide people with vital economic and health assistance. But TANF deserves a look in its own right: it's the main program that provides cash support for families with the lowest incomes, and it has failed to provide that support to many families who need it and to move families to economic security.
Here are several ways in which TANF has failed: it reaches far fewer families living in poverty than at the start of the program; benefits are low and have lost inflation-adjusted value; states spend less on cash assistance for families and more on other, often unrelated, state budget areas; and more than two-thirds of Black children live in states with the weakest TANF programs. As we discuss elsewhere, TANF serves few non-employed single mothers and fails to connect those who may need additional support to sustainable employment.
Everyone should have what they need to provide for themselves and their families, and adequate supports when they don't, so that every child gets what they need to stay healthy, grow, and learn. Cash assistance is essential to helping families afford their basic needs when they experience poverty or face a crisis that could lead to economic hardship. But TANF's designers saddled this cash program with punitive policies based on racist narratives about Black mothers and a block grant structure that means funds diminish each year due to inflation and those diminished funds can be used far and wide in the state budget for purposes other than basic income assistance. These policies have made it increasingly difficult for families to meet the high cost of basic needs.
TANF reaches fewer families experiencing poverty than at its start.
There has been a dramatic decline in families receiving assistance, even during periods of high poverty. That's in large part because Congress structured TANF to give states significant control over, and encouragement to limit, their cash programs. It established a fixed block grant that incentivizes states to spend less on cash assistance; a five-year federal time limit to receive cash assistance, prompting some states to adopt even shorter time limits; and harsh policies that allow states to take away cash assistance from people who can't meet work requirements or other constraints.
TANF participation fell as a result of these harsh work requirements, time limits, funding constraints, and additional, state-driven access barriers that made it hard for families to apply for and be approved for benefits. In 2023, 4.7 million U.S. families with children were living in poverty, but fewer than 1 million received TANF cash assistance. The "TANF-to-poverty ratio" (TPR) shows that for every 100 families in poverty, only 21 received TANF cash assistance in 2023, down from 68 families in 1996. If TANF had the same reach in 2023 that its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), did in 1996, it would have helped about 2.4 million more families nationwide that year.
Benefit levels are low and have lost value over the past 30 years.
For those families who receive TANF, the program's monthly cash benefits are far too low to help them meet all their basic needs. Despite increases this year in states like Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, and North Dakota, the maximum TANF benefit for a family of three in every state was at or below 60 percent of the poverty line. Benefits are at or below 20 percent of the poverty line in 19 states. (The poverty line for a family of three is about $2,277 a month.)
TANF benefit levels were inadequate in most states at the start of the program, and most states have let their benefits erode further. That's especially true recently, when spikes in inflation mean that TANF benefits are doing even less to cover a family's basic needs. In 43 states, the real (inflation-adjusted) value of TANF cash benefits has fallen since 1996. Thirteen states have either cut or failed to increase benefit levels since 1996, and these states' benefit levels have lost nearly 53 percent or more of their value to inflation. In 30 states, benefit increases were insufficient to keep pace with inflation, leading to an average 25 percent loss in value across these states.
The block grant is worth half of what it was at TANF's start; states spend little on cash assistance.
Under TANF, the federal government gives states a fixed block grant totaling $16.5 billion each year. This amount has not increased since 1996. When accounting for inflation, it's now worth less than half of its original value. (States are also required to sustain a certain level of their own spending, called maintenance of effort or MOE, which totals $10 to $11 billion per year.)
In fiscal year 2024, states spent less than one-fourth of their combined federal and state TANF dollars on basic cash assistance for families with children. At TANF's start, 71 percent of federal and state TANF spending went to providing cash benefits to families with children. When TANF participation declined dramatically, many states did not expand eligibility or reinvest the resources into more adequate cash supports for the remaining families. For example, states did not examine the access barriers and other policies that were driving down the share of families eligible for help or increase grants enough to keep pace with inflation. Instead, they diverted resources away from TANF cash assistance to fund other programs and services.
More than two-thirds of Black children live in states with the weakest TANF programs.
In the history of cash assistance dating back generations, states, especially in the South, created policies that targeted Black mothers to minimize their access to cash support. While states across the country have eroded their TANF programs, recent studies have shown that states with higher shares of Black residents have more punitive and less generous TANF policies and tend to spend less on basic cash assistance. Today, about 68 percent of Black children, 60 percent of white children, and 54 percent of Latinx children live in states with the lowest TANF-to-poverty ratios, the lowest benefit levels, and/or the lowest spending on cash assistance as a share of total TANF-related spending. (See table.) At the same time, children of color are more likely to need cash assistance, which their families may not be able to access. In 2023, the latest year for which we have corrections for the underreporting of key benefits, deep poverty rates for Black and Latinx children continued to be at least twice as high as for white children in 2023.
TANF has moved steadily away from providing cash assistance to families experiencing poverty. These outcomes are the result of congressional and state leaders' policy choices, and they demonstrate why meaningful TANF reform must focus on rebuilding a stronger, more equitable cash assistance program.
* * *
Table: More Than Two-Thirds of Black children Live in States with Little TANF Assistance
* * *
Ife Finch Floyd is the Director of Income Security with the Housing and Income Security team. Previously, Ife was the Director of Economic Justice at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute and led the organization's proactive work to promote economic security. She created and led the first TANF advocacy group and the first SNAP coalition in Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/congress-states-have-eroded-tanf-programs-for-30-years-leaving-families-with-inadequate-cash
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Congress, States Have Eroded TANF Programs for 30 Years, Leaving Families With Inadequate Cash Assistance
As Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) marks its 30th anniversary, we've warned how we risk repeating lessons hard-learned from the program's failures. Namely, TANF's rules require taking assistance away from people who don't meet a harsh work requirement, and the 2025 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Ife Finch Floyd, director of income security with the Housing and Income Security Team: * * * Congress, States Have Eroded TANF Programs for 30 Years, Leaving Families With Inadequate Cash Assistance As Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) marks its 30th anniversary, we've warned how we risk repeating lessons hard-learned from the program's failures. Namely, TANF's rules require taking assistance away from people who don't meet a harsh work requirement, and the 2025Republican reconciliation law newly applies or expands a similar requirement to other programs that provide people with vital economic and health assistance. But TANF deserves a look in its own right: it's the main program that provides cash support for families with the lowest incomes, and it has failed to provide that support to many families who need it and to move families to economic security.
Here are several ways in which TANF has failed: it reaches far fewer families living in poverty than at the start of the program; benefits are low and have lost inflation-adjusted value; states spend less on cash assistance for families and more on other, often unrelated, state budget areas; and more than two-thirds of Black children live in states with the weakest TANF programs. As we discuss elsewhere, TANF serves few non-employed single mothers and fails to connect those who may need additional support to sustainable employment.
Everyone should have what they need to provide for themselves and their families, and adequate supports when they don't, so that every child gets what they need to stay healthy, grow, and learn. Cash assistance is essential to helping families afford their basic needs when they experience poverty or face a crisis that could lead to economic hardship. But TANF's designers saddled this cash program with punitive policies based on racist narratives about Black mothers and a block grant structure that means funds diminish each year due to inflation and those diminished funds can be used far and wide in the state budget for purposes other than basic income assistance. These policies have made it increasingly difficult for families to meet the high cost of basic needs.
TANF reaches fewer families experiencing poverty than at its start.
There has been a dramatic decline in families receiving assistance, even during periods of high poverty. That's in large part because Congress structured TANF to give states significant control over, and encouragement to limit, their cash programs. It established a fixed block grant that incentivizes states to spend less on cash assistance; a five-year federal time limit to receive cash assistance, prompting some states to adopt even shorter time limits; and harsh policies that allow states to take away cash assistance from people who can't meet work requirements or other constraints.
TANF participation fell as a result of these harsh work requirements, time limits, funding constraints, and additional, state-driven access barriers that made it hard for families to apply for and be approved for benefits. In 2023, 4.7 million U.S. families with children were living in poverty, but fewer than 1 million received TANF cash assistance. The "TANF-to-poverty ratio" (TPR) shows that for every 100 families in poverty, only 21 received TANF cash assistance in 2023, down from 68 families in 1996. If TANF had the same reach in 2023 that its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), did in 1996, it would have helped about 2.4 million more families nationwide that year.
Benefit levels are low and have lost value over the past 30 years.
For those families who receive TANF, the program's monthly cash benefits are far too low to help them meet all their basic needs. Despite increases this year in states like Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, and North Dakota, the maximum TANF benefit for a family of three in every state was at or below 60 percent of the poverty line. Benefits are at or below 20 percent of the poverty line in 19 states. (The poverty line for a family of three is about $2,277 a month.)
TANF benefit levels were inadequate in most states at the start of the program, and most states have let their benefits erode further. That's especially true recently, when spikes in inflation mean that TANF benefits are doing even less to cover a family's basic needs. In 43 states, the real (inflation-adjusted) value of TANF cash benefits has fallen since 1996. Thirteen states have either cut or failed to increase benefit levels since 1996, and these states' benefit levels have lost nearly 53 percent or more of their value to inflation. In 30 states, benefit increases were insufficient to keep pace with inflation, leading to an average 25 percent loss in value across these states.
The block grant is worth half of what it was at TANF's start; states spend little on cash assistance.
Under TANF, the federal government gives states a fixed block grant totaling $16.5 billion each year. This amount has not increased since 1996. When accounting for inflation, it's now worth less than half of its original value. (States are also required to sustain a certain level of their own spending, called maintenance of effort or MOE, which totals $10 to $11 billion per year.)
In fiscal year 2024, states spent less than one-fourth of their combined federal and state TANF dollars on basic cash assistance for families with children. At TANF's start, 71 percent of federal and state TANF spending went to providing cash benefits to families with children. When TANF participation declined dramatically, many states did not expand eligibility or reinvest the resources into more adequate cash supports for the remaining families. For example, states did not examine the access barriers and other policies that were driving down the share of families eligible for help or increase grants enough to keep pace with inflation. Instead, they diverted resources away from TANF cash assistance to fund other programs and services.
More than two-thirds of Black children live in states with the weakest TANF programs.
In the history of cash assistance dating back generations, states, especially in the South, created policies that targeted Black mothers to minimize their access to cash support. While states across the country have eroded their TANF programs, recent studies have shown that states with higher shares of Black residents have more punitive and less generous TANF policies and tend to spend less on basic cash assistance. Today, about 68 percent of Black children, 60 percent of white children, and 54 percent of Latinx children live in states with the lowest TANF-to-poverty ratios, the lowest benefit levels, and/or the lowest spending on cash assistance as a share of total TANF-related spending. (See table.) At the same time, children of color are more likely to need cash assistance, which their families may not be able to access. In 2023, the latest year for which we have corrections for the underreporting of key benefits, deep poverty rates for Black and Latinx children continued to be at least twice as high as for white children in 2023.
TANF has moved steadily away from providing cash assistance to families experiencing poverty. These outcomes are the result of congressional and state leaders' policy choices, and they demonstrate why meaningful TANF reform must focus on rebuilding a stronger, more equitable cash assistance program.
* * *
Table: More Than Two-Thirds of Black children Live in States with Little TANF Assistance
* * *
Ife Finch Floyd is the Director of Income Security with the Housing and Income Security team. Previously, Ife was the Director of Economic Justice at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute and led the organization's proactive work to promote economic security. She created and led the first TANF advocacy group and the first SNAP coalition in Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/congress-states-have-eroded-tanf-programs-for-30-years-leaving-families-with-inadequate-cash
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Gun Owners of America Has Been Accomplishing a Lot With a Little
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Junior Content Editor Sebastian Tuininga:
* * *
Gun Owners of America has been accomplishing a lot with a little
Gun Owners of America spent more on lobbying than the NRA in 2022 and secured numerous political and legal victories, all while the NRA declined in membership, revenue, and political significance.
-
Gun Owners of America (GOA) has recently won gun-rights victories that once seemed unimaginable for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the height of its influence. Despite raking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Junior Content Editor Sebastian Tuininga: * * * Gun Owners of America has been accomplishing a lot with a little Gun Owners of America spent more on lobbying than the NRA in 2022 and secured numerous political and legal victories, all while the NRA declined in membership, revenue, and political significance. - Gun Owners of America (GOA) has recently won gun-rights victories that once seemed unimaginable for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the height of its influence. Despite rakingin a fraction of the NRA's revenue and attention, GOA's unique strategy has cemented it as an important player in the modern gun-rights movement.
NRA background
The National Rifle Association's modern political influence can be traced to its 1977 annual meeting in Cincinnati. After creating the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) in 1975, the group faced internal debate over whether to focus on political advocacy or remain centered on firearms safety and competition shooting. In 1977, roughly 1,100 voting members ousted several executives and replaced them with leaders who pushed the NRA toward a stronger focus on Second Amendment advocacy.
From there, the NRA's legislative victories and defeats defined gun ownership in the United States from the 1980s to the 2000s.
Arguably the most relevant of these was the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA). FOPA served as a compromise that overturned significant portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. FOPA narrowed the definition of a firearms dealer, eased interstate sale of rifles and shotguns under certain conditions, and provided protection for people transporting firearms through states where they could otherwise face restrictions.
In 1994, an assault weapons ban narrowly passed the U.S. House by a vote of 216-214, then it passed the Senate, and was signed into law by then-President Clinton. This was a major defeat for the NRA, which had lobbied extensively against the proposal.
But the assault weapons ban language included an expiration date of September 2004. When the ban expired, the NRA successfully lobbied against its renewal, aided in part by the George W. Bush administration's lack of interest in extending it. What had initially been a major defeat became a victory for the NRA, demonstrating its ability to remain politically influential over the long haul.
While not always so triumphant, the NRA's frequent and important victories since the 1980s earned it an iconic reputation as the nation's premier defender of gun ownership rights. But in recent years that reputation has tarnished a bit, and the NRA's influence has arguably been eclipsed by the work of the smaller, yet scrappier Gun Owners of America.
Doing a lot with a little
Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association have employed different methods in defeating firearms restrictions. As noted above, the NRA focused on building a huge membership that would send money and write to Congress; rating and endorsing candidates; and thus influencing legislation.
The GOA formed around the same time that the NRA began to pivot toward gun rights advocacy, but aimed its focus on litigation. Instead of trying to convince lawmakers not to enact gun control, the GOA takes them to court when they do. (GOA does engage in lobbying and even outspent the NRA in lobbying in 2022.)
The GOA model has become influential in the modern era of politics, particularly following the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. The Heller decision strengthened the use of the Second Amendment's language, especially the "shall not be infringed" portion, as a tool in constitutional litigation. While the case was not initiated by GOA lawyers, Heller paved the way for their future victories.
One the GOA's biggest wins came from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen in 2022. An amicus brief filed by the GOA urged the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a "text, history, and tradition" test for evaluating gun-control laws and to recognize that the Second Amendment conferred a right to carry a firearm for self-defense. The court adopted a similar framework in its decision, allowing GOA to successfully challenge concealed-carry restrictions in New York.
Earlier this year, GOA, the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs challenged the National Firearms Act's (NFA) registration and approval requirements after Congress reduced the NFA's making and transfer taxes on suppressors and certain other weapons to zero (the previous fee was $200). GOA argued that after Congress eliminated the tax, the NFA regulations designed to facilitate its collection could no longer be constitutionally enforced.
On August 5, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the regulations could no longer be enforced after the underlying taxes were eliminated. He permanently blocked enforcement against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers.
Fifteen states joined the litigation. GOA subsequently announced that the ruling allowed suppressor transfers without NFA registration and approval. Firearms activist Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell became the first purchasers to receive suppressors through such transfers since the NFA's enactment in 1934.
Decline of the NRA
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has fallen out of favor with many of today's gun owners. This is in part due to their tendency to compromise on issues, separating them from the GOA's "no compromises" approach. As an example, while the NRA eventually supported the previously mentioned Heller case, they initially declined to participate when the named plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, asked the NRA for help.
But more recent scandals have also made the NRA appear less capable of using its revenue effectively.
In August 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued to dissolve the NRA, accusing its leadership of using millions of dollars in NRA funds for personal expenses and improperly benefiting friends and family members. These allegations suggested that the group had lost more than $64 million because of these practices over a three-year period.
The bankruptcy proceedings that followed raised even more questions about how the NRA was spending its money, including allegations involving private jets, luxury travel, and other personal expenses. Wayne LaPierre, the longtime leader of the firearms group, later admitted to receiving undisclosed benefits and resigned as CEO in January 2024. A New York jury eventually found him responsible for corruption and financial misconduct involving $5.4 million in NRA funds. LaPierre was later barred from serving as an NRA officer or director for ten years and ordered to repay roughly $4.3 million.
Gun Owners of America reported revenue of $7.6 million in 2024, a small fraction of the NRA's $173 million that year. However, the NRA has significantly declined in revenue. In 2020, just four years earlier, the NRA reported $282 million in revenue. The NRA has also seen a decline in annual membership dues since 2018, with revenue from annual membership consistently coming in at less than $100 million since 2021.
While GOA's influence has grown stronger because of the overall decline of the NRA's political effectiveness, revenue, and validity in leadership, most of GOA's new status was earned through the success of GOA's lawyers.
After D.C. v. Heller and the established jurisprudence of the Second Amendment's language, GOA's model for blocking and reversing gun-control initiatives in court has produced the most impressive recent wins for American gun owners.
The NRA won't be going away any time soon. They are still sitting on a massive pile of money and have millions of dedicated members across the country. But it is also true that the Gun Owners of America has emerged as at least NRA's equal in the contemporary gun-rights movement. And dollar for dollar, the GOA has been hitting a lot harder than their caliber size would suggest.
* * *
Sebastian Tuininga, Junior Content Editor
Sebastian joined CRC's staff in mid-2025, original joining as a research intern in 2023. He is a junior content editor, focusing on editing and adding content to InfluenceWatch.org. Sebastian graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University with a Bachelor's degree in International Relations and a minor in Economics.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/gun-owners-of-america-has-been-accomplishing-a-lot-with-a-little/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Gun Owners of America has been accomplishing a lot with a little
Gun Owners of America spent more on lobbying than the NRA in 2022 and secured numerous political and legal victories, all while the NRA declined in membership, revenue, and political significance.
-
Gun Owners of America (GOA) has recently won gun-rights victories that once seemed unimaginable for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the height of its influence. Despite raking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Junior Content Editor Sebastian Tuininga: * * * Gun Owners of America has been accomplishing a lot with a little Gun Owners of America spent more on lobbying than the NRA in 2022 and secured numerous political and legal victories, all while the NRA declined in membership, revenue, and political significance. - Gun Owners of America (GOA) has recently won gun-rights victories that once seemed unimaginable for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the height of its influence. Despite rakingin a fraction of the NRA's revenue and attention, GOA's unique strategy has cemented it as an important player in the modern gun-rights movement.
NRA background
The National Rifle Association's modern political influence can be traced to its 1977 annual meeting in Cincinnati. After creating the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) in 1975, the group faced internal debate over whether to focus on political advocacy or remain centered on firearms safety and competition shooting. In 1977, roughly 1,100 voting members ousted several executives and replaced them with leaders who pushed the NRA toward a stronger focus on Second Amendment advocacy.
From there, the NRA's legislative victories and defeats defined gun ownership in the United States from the 1980s to the 2000s.
Arguably the most relevant of these was the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA). FOPA served as a compromise that overturned significant portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. FOPA narrowed the definition of a firearms dealer, eased interstate sale of rifles and shotguns under certain conditions, and provided protection for people transporting firearms through states where they could otherwise face restrictions.
In 1994, an assault weapons ban narrowly passed the U.S. House by a vote of 216-214, then it passed the Senate, and was signed into law by then-President Clinton. This was a major defeat for the NRA, which had lobbied extensively against the proposal.
But the assault weapons ban language included an expiration date of September 2004. When the ban expired, the NRA successfully lobbied against its renewal, aided in part by the George W. Bush administration's lack of interest in extending it. What had initially been a major defeat became a victory for the NRA, demonstrating its ability to remain politically influential over the long haul.
While not always so triumphant, the NRA's frequent and important victories since the 1980s earned it an iconic reputation as the nation's premier defender of gun ownership rights. But in recent years that reputation has tarnished a bit, and the NRA's influence has arguably been eclipsed by the work of the smaller, yet scrappier Gun Owners of America.
Doing a lot with a little
Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association have employed different methods in defeating firearms restrictions. As noted above, the NRA focused on building a huge membership that would send money and write to Congress; rating and endorsing candidates; and thus influencing legislation.
The GOA formed around the same time that the NRA began to pivot toward gun rights advocacy, but aimed its focus on litigation. Instead of trying to convince lawmakers not to enact gun control, the GOA takes them to court when they do. (GOA does engage in lobbying and even outspent the NRA in lobbying in 2022.)
The GOA model has become influential in the modern era of politics, particularly following the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. The Heller decision strengthened the use of the Second Amendment's language, especially the "shall not be infringed" portion, as a tool in constitutional litigation. While the case was not initiated by GOA lawyers, Heller paved the way for their future victories.
One the GOA's biggest wins came from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen in 2022. An amicus brief filed by the GOA urged the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a "text, history, and tradition" test for evaluating gun-control laws and to recognize that the Second Amendment conferred a right to carry a firearm for self-defense. The court adopted a similar framework in its decision, allowing GOA to successfully challenge concealed-carry restrictions in New York.
Earlier this year, GOA, the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs challenged the National Firearms Act's (NFA) registration and approval requirements after Congress reduced the NFA's making and transfer taxes on suppressors and certain other weapons to zero (the previous fee was $200). GOA argued that after Congress eliminated the tax, the NFA regulations designed to facilitate its collection could no longer be constitutionally enforced.
On August 5, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the regulations could no longer be enforced after the underlying taxes were eliminated. He permanently blocked enforcement against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers.
Fifteen states joined the litigation. GOA subsequently announced that the ruling allowed suppressor transfers without NFA registration and approval. Firearms activist Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell became the first purchasers to receive suppressors through such transfers since the NFA's enactment in 1934.
Decline of the NRA
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has fallen out of favor with many of today's gun owners. This is in part due to their tendency to compromise on issues, separating them from the GOA's "no compromises" approach. As an example, while the NRA eventually supported the previously mentioned Heller case, they initially declined to participate when the named plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, asked the NRA for help.
But more recent scandals have also made the NRA appear less capable of using its revenue effectively.
In August 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued to dissolve the NRA, accusing its leadership of using millions of dollars in NRA funds for personal expenses and improperly benefiting friends and family members. These allegations suggested that the group had lost more than $64 million because of these practices over a three-year period.
The bankruptcy proceedings that followed raised even more questions about how the NRA was spending its money, including allegations involving private jets, luxury travel, and other personal expenses. Wayne LaPierre, the longtime leader of the firearms group, later admitted to receiving undisclosed benefits and resigned as CEO in January 2024. A New York jury eventually found him responsible for corruption and financial misconduct involving $5.4 million in NRA funds. LaPierre was later barred from serving as an NRA officer or director for ten years and ordered to repay roughly $4.3 million.
Gun Owners of America reported revenue of $7.6 million in 2024, a small fraction of the NRA's $173 million that year. However, the NRA has significantly declined in revenue. In 2020, just four years earlier, the NRA reported $282 million in revenue. The NRA has also seen a decline in annual membership dues since 2018, with revenue from annual membership consistently coming in at less than $100 million since 2021.
While GOA's influence has grown stronger because of the overall decline of the NRA's political effectiveness, revenue, and validity in leadership, most of GOA's new status was earned through the success of GOA's lawyers.
After D.C. v. Heller and the established jurisprudence of the Second Amendment's language, GOA's model for blocking and reversing gun-control initiatives in court has produced the most impressive recent wins for American gun owners.
The NRA won't be going away any time soon. They are still sitting on a massive pile of money and have millions of dedicated members across the country. But it is also true that the Gun Owners of America has emerged as at least NRA's equal in the contemporary gun-rights movement. And dollar for dollar, the GOA has been hitting a lot harder than their caliber size would suggest.
* * *
Sebastian Tuininga, Junior Content Editor
Sebastian joined CRC's staff in mid-2025, original joining as a research intern in 2023. He is a junior content editor, focusing on editing and adding content to InfluenceWatch.org. Sebastian graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University with a Bachelor's degree in International Relations and a minor in Economics.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/gun-owners-of-america-has-been-accomplishing-a-lot-with-a-little/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Takaichi's Approval Shield - Prospects for Her Second Year in Office
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Yuko Nakano, associate director of the U.S.-Japan Strategic Leadership Program:
* * *
Takaichi's Approval Shield: Prospects for Her Second Year in Office
Since Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi led the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to a two-thirds majority in Japan's Lower House election six months ago, she has faced challenges from within her party and the ruling coalition as she has tackled an ambitious and sometimes divisive legislative agenda. However, she remains in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Yuko Nakano, associate director of the U.S.-Japan Strategic Leadership Program: * * * Takaichi's Approval Shield: Prospects for Her Second Year in Office Since Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi led the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to a two-thirds majority in Japan's Lower House election six months ago, she has faced challenges from within her party and the ruling coalition as she has tackled an ambitious and sometimes divisive legislative agenda. However, she remains ina strong position, buoyed by relatively solid public support and polling patterns that resemble those of Japan's most popular and politically resilient prime ministers. That public standing provides her an "approval shield," limiting the incentive for potential critics and rivals to challenge her. The shield, however, is conditional. Sustaining it will require showing voters that her agenda speaks to their priorities. As Takaichi prepares for the fall Diet session, the challenges ahead will test how effectively she can use this political capital to keep a wide range of party and coalition actors aligned, including an impending cabinet reshuffle, moving key elements of her domestic agenda toward implementation, and sustaining Japan's commitments abroad.
The Approval Shield
The approval rating for Takaichi's cabinet has softened since she took office last October, but as Figure 1 shows, the wide gap between approval and disapproval across major polling series underscores the extent of Takaichi's current advantage. Although approval has come down from its initial high, that margin remains unusually large by recent standards, with no approval-disapproval crossover yet in sight. Her pattern looks less like the rapid erosion seen under several predecessors and closer to the strong opening phase of the second administration of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, although Abe's long tenure is a reminder that even politically resilient leaders can eventually lose that cushion.
* * *
Figure 1: Cabinet Approval and Disapproval Trends by Administration
* * *
Although Takaichi's support has fallen from 64.4 percent at the start of her administration to 50.2 percent in the latest Kyodo News poll, the composition of that support suggests that her political standing is firmer than this number alone might indicate. Cabinet approval in Japan often reflects passive support. For example, in a May 2022 Kyodo poll, when then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's approval rose to 61.5 percent, the top reason for support was that "there is no suitable alternative," at 43.3 percent, a pattern that has often hovered in the 40-50 percent range across recent administrations. For Takaichi, that figure has continued to climb, from 18.1 percent last October to 30.5 percent in the latest August survey, making it the single largest reason for support. Still, in the same survey, roughly 61 percent of those who supported her cabinet cited more affirmative leadership- or policy-related reasons, including expectations for her economic and foreign policies, trust in the prime minister, and confidence in her leadership. For now, this suggests that she remains on firmer public footing than many of her predecessors.
Takaichi's public standing also shapes her position inside the LDP. Her "prime minister premium," defined as cabinet approval minus support for the leading ruling party, is large by recent historical standards, comparable to the level seen under the popular reformist Junichiro Koizumi in the early 2000s (see Figure 2). This suggests that her political strength rests partly on her own personal appeal, not only on partisan support for the LDP, giving her greater latitude to shape the policy agenda and manage politically difficult decisions.
* * *
Figure 2: Prime Minister Approval Premiums
* * *
Within the LDP, no serious internal challenge to Takaichi has emerged yet. However, Takaichi lacks a factional base of her own. The formation of the National Power Research Group in May by Hiroshi Yamada, a longtime Takaichi ally, drew considerable media attention. The group grew out of an earlier policy study group associated with Takaichi, though she is not a member of this latest iteration, and it reportedly includes more than 80 percent of LDP lawmakers, including former Prime Minister Taro Aso and several of Takaichi's former leadership rivals. However, rather than signaling the formation of a political group or faction, the National Power Research Group is better understood as a broad policy forum for government-party coordination and airing views among a wide range of LDP actors on core administration priorities, such as fiscal stimulus, security policy, and intelligence reform. The group's breadth may help connect more lawmakers to Takaichi's agenda, but it also cuts against cohesion, leaving its role as a reliable support base for her uncertain.
Governing Friction in the Diet
By the numbers, the Diet session that concluded in July was a success for Takaichi. All government-submitted bills passed both chambers, marking only the fourth time in the postwar era that the government achieved a 100 percent passage rate. Those statistics, however, obscure the political friction played out during the session, much of it stemming from the challenge of managing a crowded agenda shaped by the priorities of both the LDP and the Osaka-based Japan Innovation party (JIP), the LDP's new coalition partner.
A JIP-backed measure to create a backup capital outside Tokyo and Imperial Household legislation, important to LDP conservatives, reflected the different priorities Takaichi had to balance within the ruling coalition. Other bills, including retrial-system reform and the National Intelligence Bureau bill, further complicated the legislative calendar. Opposition parties criticized the ruling coalition for heavy-handed handling of the proceedings, at times boycotting committee meetings and organizing walkouts to delay votes. They also pressed Takaichi over campaign-related allegations involving videos attacking her rivals. In the end, the legislative session was extended by eight days, underscoring that even a strong election mandate does not translate into smooth governing.
In addition, public opinion suggests that Takaichi's success in advancing her policy agenda may have carried some political costs. Nippon TV polls point to a gap between public priorities and the government's legislative agenda, which likely contributed to the softening of Takaichi's approval ratings. In October 2025, 92 percent of respondents said they wanted the new cabinet to prioritize measures against rising prices. By August, 64 percent said they did not approve of the government's response to inflation. The government had advanced a crowded legislative agenda of 64 bills that, on its face, had little direct connection to everyday economic concerns. In the same July poll, 72 percent of independents and 45 percent of ruling coalition supporters said they did not think the government had sufficiently explained its bills and policies.
Consumption Tax Test
Takaichi's decision to move forward with a temporary consumption tax cut on food and beverages adds a new test of political management as she attempts to regain momentum amid public dissatisfaction with the government's response to inflation. She initially put forward the idea when announcing the snap election in January, but it has been divisive within the LDP. In July, Takaichi instructed her party to prepare legislation lowering the consumption tax on food and beverages from the already reduced rate of 8 percent to 1 percent for two years, starting in April 2027, while pairing the cut with cash benefits for low- and middle-income earners. This move prompted internal debate within the LDP, where several senior figures have remained cautious.
Much of that caution centers on funding and fiscal sustainability. Consumption tax revenue supports social security, and the proposed cut is expected to create a revenue shortfall of roughly Yen5 trillion ($31.7 billion) annually. Critics have also questioned whether the food tax cut is well targeted since higher-income households also benefit from reduced rates and tend to receive a larger absolute benefit because they spend more on food. That helps explain why the government paired the 1 percent rate with targeted cash benefits for low- and middle-income households, despite the added fiscal and administrative complexity.
Public opinion reflects the same tension. NHK polling found that 49 percent of respondents supported Takaichi's proposal, while 39 percent opposed it, with 67 percent expressing concern about the fiscal impact. The LDP is likely to fall in line now that the prime minister has personally committed to the proposal, but whether the tax cut becomes an asset or a liability will depend largely on how clearly the government can present a credible funding plan and demonstrate that the combined measure effectively addresses citizens' concerns about inflation.
Outlook for Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy
The prime minister is expected to reshuffle her cabinet and LDP leadership team in September, coinciding with the expiration of the one-year terms of senior party officers. For Takaichi, the broader challenge is how she balances her relative independence within the party and preference for top-down decisionmaking centered in the prime minister's office with maintaining support across the LDP. So far, media attention has focused on how Takaichi will handle the Aso faction, whose support was instrumental to her leadership victory last fall and could again prove important ahead of another party leadership election next year. Early reporting suggests that the reshuffle may not be a complete overhaul. Key questions include whether Takaichi retains senior figures and former leadership rivals in prominent posts, and how she formalizes the LDP's coalition arrangement with the JIP. Observers also wonder whether she will adjust her economic team as Japan navigates yen depreciation, consumption tax cut funding, host-nation support talks with the United States, and investment commitments tied to the 2025 U.S.-Japan trade deal.
After announcing her new cabinet, Takaichi will once again need to navigate coalition dynamics in the Diet. The upcoming session is expected to take up legislation on the consumption tax cut and revisit the JIP-backed Lower House seat reduction bill, which was carried over from the previous session due to opposition resistance. Unlike the Lower House, the LDP-JIP ruling coalition lacks a majority in the Upper House, requiring Takaichi to seek issue-by-issue cooperation from opposition parties such as the Democratic Party for the People (DPFP), which opposes the consumption tax cut. Bridging those differences and potentially opening the door to broader cooperation with the DPFP on other priorities will be another challenge for the LDP in the coming months. Across each of these fronts, relatively strong public approval remains Takaichi's most important shield for the time being. As long as her ratings hold, few LDP lawmakers have an incentive to challenge a prime minister who delivered a historic Lower House victory. As Takaichi approaches the one-year mark since taking office, the fall agenda will determine whether her political strength and public support can be sustained.
The foreign policy implications are less about a likely change in direction than about how much political capital Takaichi can bring to implementation. Her active diplomatic calendar, engaging partners across the Indo-Pacific and beyond, has underscored continuity in Japan's external engagement. She also benefits from broad alignment within the LDP and Japan's policy community on priorities central to the U.S.-Japan alliance, including increased defense spending, defense industrial base coordination, partnerships with like-minded countries, and greater emphasis on economic security.
Japan's recent defense reforms reinforce that sense of continuity. Despite political transitions across three prime ministers and early concerns over funding, Tokyo has already delivered on the defense spending increase set out in the 2022 strategic documents, reaching the 2 percent of GDP target two years ahead of the original schedule. The government will also be revising the three strategic documents that guide Japan's national security and defense policy, including an updated threat assessment that addresses emerging challenges such as drone warfare. The revision will proceed in tandem with the budget formulation process for the next fiscal year, with both expected to be finalized by the end of the year.
As Japan updates its strategic vision, Takaichi's relatively solid public support and strong Lower House position should help her sustain that record of follow-through and offer her an opportunity to signal that Tokyo remains committed to the U.S.-Japan alliance agenda.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/takaichis-approval-shield-prospects-her-second-year-office
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Takaichi's Approval Shield: Prospects for Her Second Year in Office
Since Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi led the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to a two-thirds majority in Japan's Lower House election six months ago, she has faced challenges from within her party and the ruling coalition as she has tackled an ambitious and sometimes divisive legislative agenda. However, she remains in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by Yuko Nakano, associate director of the U.S.-Japan Strategic Leadership Program: * * * Takaichi's Approval Shield: Prospects for Her Second Year in Office Since Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi led the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to a two-thirds majority in Japan's Lower House election six months ago, she has faced challenges from within her party and the ruling coalition as she has tackled an ambitious and sometimes divisive legislative agenda. However, she remains ina strong position, buoyed by relatively solid public support and polling patterns that resemble those of Japan's most popular and politically resilient prime ministers. That public standing provides her an "approval shield," limiting the incentive for potential critics and rivals to challenge her. The shield, however, is conditional. Sustaining it will require showing voters that her agenda speaks to their priorities. As Takaichi prepares for the fall Diet session, the challenges ahead will test how effectively she can use this political capital to keep a wide range of party and coalition actors aligned, including an impending cabinet reshuffle, moving key elements of her domestic agenda toward implementation, and sustaining Japan's commitments abroad.
The Approval Shield
The approval rating for Takaichi's cabinet has softened since she took office last October, but as Figure 1 shows, the wide gap between approval and disapproval across major polling series underscores the extent of Takaichi's current advantage. Although approval has come down from its initial high, that margin remains unusually large by recent standards, with no approval-disapproval crossover yet in sight. Her pattern looks less like the rapid erosion seen under several predecessors and closer to the strong opening phase of the second administration of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, although Abe's long tenure is a reminder that even politically resilient leaders can eventually lose that cushion.
* * *
Figure 1: Cabinet Approval and Disapproval Trends by Administration
* * *
Although Takaichi's support has fallen from 64.4 percent at the start of her administration to 50.2 percent in the latest Kyodo News poll, the composition of that support suggests that her political standing is firmer than this number alone might indicate. Cabinet approval in Japan often reflects passive support. For example, in a May 2022 Kyodo poll, when then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's approval rose to 61.5 percent, the top reason for support was that "there is no suitable alternative," at 43.3 percent, a pattern that has often hovered in the 40-50 percent range across recent administrations. For Takaichi, that figure has continued to climb, from 18.1 percent last October to 30.5 percent in the latest August survey, making it the single largest reason for support. Still, in the same survey, roughly 61 percent of those who supported her cabinet cited more affirmative leadership- or policy-related reasons, including expectations for her economic and foreign policies, trust in the prime minister, and confidence in her leadership. For now, this suggests that she remains on firmer public footing than many of her predecessors.
Takaichi's public standing also shapes her position inside the LDP. Her "prime minister premium," defined as cabinet approval minus support for the leading ruling party, is large by recent historical standards, comparable to the level seen under the popular reformist Junichiro Koizumi in the early 2000s (see Figure 2). This suggests that her political strength rests partly on her own personal appeal, not only on partisan support for the LDP, giving her greater latitude to shape the policy agenda and manage politically difficult decisions.
* * *
Figure 2: Prime Minister Approval Premiums
* * *
Within the LDP, no serious internal challenge to Takaichi has emerged yet. However, Takaichi lacks a factional base of her own. The formation of the National Power Research Group in May by Hiroshi Yamada, a longtime Takaichi ally, drew considerable media attention. The group grew out of an earlier policy study group associated with Takaichi, though she is not a member of this latest iteration, and it reportedly includes more than 80 percent of LDP lawmakers, including former Prime Minister Taro Aso and several of Takaichi's former leadership rivals. However, rather than signaling the formation of a political group or faction, the National Power Research Group is better understood as a broad policy forum for government-party coordination and airing views among a wide range of LDP actors on core administration priorities, such as fiscal stimulus, security policy, and intelligence reform. The group's breadth may help connect more lawmakers to Takaichi's agenda, but it also cuts against cohesion, leaving its role as a reliable support base for her uncertain.
Governing Friction in the Diet
By the numbers, the Diet session that concluded in July was a success for Takaichi. All government-submitted bills passed both chambers, marking only the fourth time in the postwar era that the government achieved a 100 percent passage rate. Those statistics, however, obscure the political friction played out during the session, much of it stemming from the challenge of managing a crowded agenda shaped by the priorities of both the LDP and the Osaka-based Japan Innovation party (JIP), the LDP's new coalition partner.
A JIP-backed measure to create a backup capital outside Tokyo and Imperial Household legislation, important to LDP conservatives, reflected the different priorities Takaichi had to balance within the ruling coalition. Other bills, including retrial-system reform and the National Intelligence Bureau bill, further complicated the legislative calendar. Opposition parties criticized the ruling coalition for heavy-handed handling of the proceedings, at times boycotting committee meetings and organizing walkouts to delay votes. They also pressed Takaichi over campaign-related allegations involving videos attacking her rivals. In the end, the legislative session was extended by eight days, underscoring that even a strong election mandate does not translate into smooth governing.
In addition, public opinion suggests that Takaichi's success in advancing her policy agenda may have carried some political costs. Nippon TV polls point to a gap between public priorities and the government's legislative agenda, which likely contributed to the softening of Takaichi's approval ratings. In October 2025, 92 percent of respondents said they wanted the new cabinet to prioritize measures against rising prices. By August, 64 percent said they did not approve of the government's response to inflation. The government had advanced a crowded legislative agenda of 64 bills that, on its face, had little direct connection to everyday economic concerns. In the same July poll, 72 percent of independents and 45 percent of ruling coalition supporters said they did not think the government had sufficiently explained its bills and policies.
Consumption Tax Test
Takaichi's decision to move forward with a temporary consumption tax cut on food and beverages adds a new test of political management as she attempts to regain momentum amid public dissatisfaction with the government's response to inflation. She initially put forward the idea when announcing the snap election in January, but it has been divisive within the LDP. In July, Takaichi instructed her party to prepare legislation lowering the consumption tax on food and beverages from the already reduced rate of 8 percent to 1 percent for two years, starting in April 2027, while pairing the cut with cash benefits for low- and middle-income earners. This move prompted internal debate within the LDP, where several senior figures have remained cautious.
Much of that caution centers on funding and fiscal sustainability. Consumption tax revenue supports social security, and the proposed cut is expected to create a revenue shortfall of roughly Yen5 trillion ($31.7 billion) annually. Critics have also questioned whether the food tax cut is well targeted since higher-income households also benefit from reduced rates and tend to receive a larger absolute benefit because they spend more on food. That helps explain why the government paired the 1 percent rate with targeted cash benefits for low- and middle-income households, despite the added fiscal and administrative complexity.
Public opinion reflects the same tension. NHK polling found that 49 percent of respondents supported Takaichi's proposal, while 39 percent opposed it, with 67 percent expressing concern about the fiscal impact. The LDP is likely to fall in line now that the prime minister has personally committed to the proposal, but whether the tax cut becomes an asset or a liability will depend largely on how clearly the government can present a credible funding plan and demonstrate that the combined measure effectively addresses citizens' concerns about inflation.
Outlook for Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy
The prime minister is expected to reshuffle her cabinet and LDP leadership team in September, coinciding with the expiration of the one-year terms of senior party officers. For Takaichi, the broader challenge is how she balances her relative independence within the party and preference for top-down decisionmaking centered in the prime minister's office with maintaining support across the LDP. So far, media attention has focused on how Takaichi will handle the Aso faction, whose support was instrumental to her leadership victory last fall and could again prove important ahead of another party leadership election next year. Early reporting suggests that the reshuffle may not be a complete overhaul. Key questions include whether Takaichi retains senior figures and former leadership rivals in prominent posts, and how she formalizes the LDP's coalition arrangement with the JIP. Observers also wonder whether she will adjust her economic team as Japan navigates yen depreciation, consumption tax cut funding, host-nation support talks with the United States, and investment commitments tied to the 2025 U.S.-Japan trade deal.
After announcing her new cabinet, Takaichi will once again need to navigate coalition dynamics in the Diet. The upcoming session is expected to take up legislation on the consumption tax cut and revisit the JIP-backed Lower House seat reduction bill, which was carried over from the previous session due to opposition resistance. Unlike the Lower House, the LDP-JIP ruling coalition lacks a majority in the Upper House, requiring Takaichi to seek issue-by-issue cooperation from opposition parties such as the Democratic Party for the People (DPFP), which opposes the consumption tax cut. Bridging those differences and potentially opening the door to broader cooperation with the DPFP on other priorities will be another challenge for the LDP in the coming months. Across each of these fronts, relatively strong public approval remains Takaichi's most important shield for the time being. As long as her ratings hold, few LDP lawmakers have an incentive to challenge a prime minister who delivered a historic Lower House victory. As Takaichi approaches the one-year mark since taking office, the fall agenda will determine whether her political strength and public support can be sustained.
The foreign policy implications are less about a likely change in direction than about how much political capital Takaichi can bring to implementation. Her active diplomatic calendar, engaging partners across the Indo-Pacific and beyond, has underscored continuity in Japan's external engagement. She also benefits from broad alignment within the LDP and Japan's policy community on priorities central to the U.S.-Japan alliance, including increased defense spending, defense industrial base coordination, partnerships with like-minded countries, and greater emphasis on economic security.
Japan's recent defense reforms reinforce that sense of continuity. Despite political transitions across three prime ministers and early concerns over funding, Tokyo has already delivered on the defense spending increase set out in the 2022 strategic documents, reaching the 2 percent of GDP target two years ahead of the original schedule. The government will also be revising the three strategic documents that guide Japan's national security and defense policy, including an updated threat assessment that addresses emerging challenges such as drone warfare. The revision will proceed in tandem with the budget formulation process for the next fiscal year, with both expected to be finalized by the end of the year.
As Japan updates its strategic vision, Takaichi's relatively solid public support and strong Lower House position should help her sustain that record of follow-through and offer her an opportunity to signal that Tokyo remains committed to the U.S.-Japan alliance agenda.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/takaichis-approval-shield-prospects-her-second-year-office
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Urges EEOC to Eliminate Burdensome Employment Reporting Requirements
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Urges EEOC to Eliminate Burdensome Employment Reporting Requirements
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) urges the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to finalize its proposed rule eliminating the EEO-1 through EEO-6 reporting requirements and the related federal recordkeeping mandates.
The existing regime requires American employers to spend an estimated 5.2 million hours and $275 million collecting, categorizing, maintaining, and reporting workforce ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * AFPI Urges EEOC to Eliminate Burdensome Employment Reporting Requirements The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) urges the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to finalize its proposed rule eliminating the EEO-1 through EEO-6 reporting requirements and the related federal recordkeeping mandates. The existing regime requires American employers to spend an estimated 5.2 million hours and $275 million collecting, categorizing, maintaining, and reporting workforcedata to the federal government. AFPI's public comment argues that eliminating those requirements would reduce unnecessary compliance costs while allowing the EEOC to focus its resources on its core mission: investigating and enforcing the law when actual discrimination occurs.
"American businesses should be spending their time hiring workers, serving customers, and growing their companies--not filling out millions of hours' worth of federal paperwork that does little to protect anyone's civil rights," said Ryan Micozzi, AFPI Deputy General Counsel. "The EEOC has an opportunity to remove an outdated regulatory burden, restore the focus on individual merit and equal opportunity, and put government resources where they belong: protecting Americans from actual discrimination. We strongly encourage the Commission to move forward and finalize this common-sense reform."
AFPI's comment also argues that the current reporting system unnecessarily pushes employers to sort and measure workers by race and sex rather than focusing on individual qualifications and achievement. Eliminating these mandates would preserve the EEOC's authority to investigate legitimate allegations of discrimination while ending blanket reporting requirements imposed on employers regardless of whether any allegation exists.
America's workers and job creators deserve a federal government focused on protecting their rights, not generating paperwork. The EEOC should act.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-urges-eeoc-to-eliminate-burdensome-employment-reporting-requirements
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Urges EEOC to Eliminate Burdensome Employment Reporting Requirements
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) urges the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to finalize its proposed rule eliminating the EEO-1 through EEO-6 reporting requirements and the related federal recordkeeping mandates.
The existing regime requires American employers to spend an estimated 5.2 million hours and $275 million collecting, categorizing, maintaining, and reporting workforce ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * AFPI Urges EEOC to Eliminate Burdensome Employment Reporting Requirements The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) urges the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to finalize its proposed rule eliminating the EEO-1 through EEO-6 reporting requirements and the related federal recordkeeping mandates. The existing regime requires American employers to spend an estimated 5.2 million hours and $275 million collecting, categorizing, maintaining, and reporting workforcedata to the federal government. AFPI's public comment argues that eliminating those requirements would reduce unnecessary compliance costs while allowing the EEOC to focus its resources on its core mission: investigating and enforcing the law when actual discrimination occurs.
"American businesses should be spending their time hiring workers, serving customers, and growing their companies--not filling out millions of hours' worth of federal paperwork that does little to protect anyone's civil rights," said Ryan Micozzi, AFPI Deputy General Counsel. "The EEOC has an opportunity to remove an outdated regulatory burden, restore the focus on individual merit and equal opportunity, and put government resources where they belong: protecting Americans from actual discrimination. We strongly encourage the Commission to move forward and finalize this common-sense reform."
AFPI's comment also argues that the current reporting system unnecessarily pushes employers to sort and measure workers by race and sex rather than focusing on individual qualifications and achievement. Eliminating these mandates would preserve the EEOC's authority to investigate legitimate allegations of discrimination while ending blanket reporting requirements imposed on employers regardless of whether any allegation exists.
America's workers and job creators deserve a federal government focused on protecting their rights, not generating paperwork. The EEOC should act.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-urges-eeoc-to-eliminate-burdensome-employment-reporting-requirements
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Highlights Trump Administration's Efforts to Restore Equal Treatment Under the Law
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Highlights Trump Administration's Efforts to Restore Equal Treatment Under the Law
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a new Expert Insight highlighting the Trump Administration's efforts to restore equal treatment under the law by eliminating the use of disparate impact doctrine. These actions represent major progress toward a simple principle: Americans should be treated equally under the law.
Eliminating disparate impact doctrine will allow employers, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * AFPI Highlights Trump Administration's Efforts to Restore Equal Treatment Under the Law The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a new Expert Insight highlighting the Trump Administration's efforts to restore equal treatment under the law by eliminating the use of disparate impact doctrine. These actions represent major progress toward a simple principle: Americans should be treated equally under the law. Eliminating disparate impact doctrine will allow employers,schools, and institutions to uphold legitimate, merit-based standards without being forced to engineer equal outcomes.
The new Expert Insight highlights recent actions by the Trump Administration, including the Department of Justice's conclusion that existing EEOC interpretations of disparate impact liability under Title VII are unconstitutional and the Department of Education's rescission of disparate impact provisions from its Title VI regulations.
"Under disparate impact doctrine, neutral policies--i.e., treating people equally--can be labeled as 'discriminatory' when they produce group outcome differences (aka: "disparities"). The doctrine is facial absurd and irreconcilable with American values," said AFPI's Director of Higher Education Policy, Christopher Schorr, Ph.D. "It is also impractical, given that no natural law dictates the random distribution of individual interests and aptitudes across whichever demographic characteristics happen to be of interest to courts, regulators, or lawmakers. The Trump Administration should be commended for its efforts to eliminate disparate impact doctrine in federal civil law."
Read the full Expert Insight, Restoring Equal Treatment Under the Law: Ending Disparate Impact Doctrine here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/restoring-equal-treatment-under-the-law-ending-disparate-impact-doctrine).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-highlights-trump-administrations-efforts-to-restore-equal-treatment-under-the-law
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Highlights Trump Administration's Efforts to Restore Equal Treatment Under the Law
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a new Expert Insight highlighting the Trump Administration's efforts to restore equal treatment under the law by eliminating the use of disparate impact doctrine. These actions represent major progress toward a simple principle: Americans should be treated equally under the law.
Eliminating disparate impact doctrine will allow employers, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * AFPI Highlights Trump Administration's Efforts to Restore Equal Treatment Under the Law The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a new Expert Insight highlighting the Trump Administration's efforts to restore equal treatment under the law by eliminating the use of disparate impact doctrine. These actions represent major progress toward a simple principle: Americans should be treated equally under the law. Eliminating disparate impact doctrine will allow employers,schools, and institutions to uphold legitimate, merit-based standards without being forced to engineer equal outcomes.
The new Expert Insight highlights recent actions by the Trump Administration, including the Department of Justice's conclusion that existing EEOC interpretations of disparate impact liability under Title VII are unconstitutional and the Department of Education's rescission of disparate impact provisions from its Title VI regulations.
"Under disparate impact doctrine, neutral policies--i.e., treating people equally--can be labeled as 'discriminatory' when they produce group outcome differences (aka: "disparities"). The doctrine is facial absurd and irreconcilable with American values," said AFPI's Director of Higher Education Policy, Christopher Schorr, Ph.D. "It is also impractical, given that no natural law dictates the random distribution of individual interests and aptitudes across whichever demographic characteristics happen to be of interest to courts, regulators, or lawmakers. The Trump Administration should be commended for its efforts to eliminate disparate impact doctrine in federal civil law."
Read the full Expert Insight, Restoring Equal Treatment Under the Law: Ending Disparate Impact Doctrine here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/restoring-equal-treatment-under-the-law-ending-disparate-impact-doctrine).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-highlights-trump-administrations-efforts-to-restore-equal-treatment-under-the-law
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Applauds USDA's Harvest to Hallways Initiative to Bring Real Food to School Cafeterias
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Applauds USDA's Harvest to Hallways Initiative to Bring Real Food to School Cafeterias
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) celebrates USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.'s announcement of the Harvest to Hallways initiative, the next large step in the Trump Administration's effort to implement responsible nutrition policy. Through its policy work, AFPI has advocated expanding access to high-quality protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * AFPI Applauds USDA's Harvest to Hallways Initiative to Bring Real Food to School Cafeterias The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) celebrates USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.'s announcement of the Harvest to Hallways initiative, the next large step in the Trump Administration's effort to implement responsible nutrition policy. Through its policy work, AFPI has advocated expanding access to high-quality protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, andother real foods while creating greater opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers and strengthening the connection between federally supported nutrition programs and local communities. Now, as part of a multi-pronged effort to implement the New Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Harvest to Hallways initiative improves school meals by connecting more American farmers with local schools, investing in school kitchen infrastructure, and giving states and school districts new tools to serve healthier, more nutrient-dense meals to American children.
"Restoring proper nutrition in our school meals and improving access to whole, nutrient-dense foods is not only a win for our children's health, but it will also help to rebuild our food supply and revitalize American agriculture," said Kip Tom, AFPI vice chair for Rural Policy. "The most important crop we grow doesn't come from our fields, it is the next generation of Americans. By working with school districts to introduce locally produced foods into school meals, we are providing new markets for our beef and other protein producers, as well as fruit, vegetable, and other specialty crop growers. Growing strong minds and bodies begins with eating real foods, and American farmers are ready to meet the need."
The Harvest to Hallways initiative includes extensive regulatory reform and up to $70 million in investments in school cafeteria infrastructure, expanded local food procurement options for schools, and up to $25 million in additional Farm to School Grants for Fiscal Year 2026. This is what Making America Healthy Again looks like in practice: real food on lunch trays and real opportunity back on the farm. AFPI will keep fighting for policies that put real, nutrient-dense meals back at the center of American nutrition, because healthy kids and a thriving agricultural sector go hand in hand.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-usdas-harvest-to-hallways-initiative-to-bring-real-food-to-school-cafeterias
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Applauds USDA's Harvest to Hallways Initiative to Bring Real Food to School Cafeterias
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) celebrates USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.'s announcement of the Harvest to Hallways initiative, the next large step in the Trump Administration's effort to implement responsible nutrition policy. Through its policy work, AFPI has advocated expanding access to high-quality protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * AFPI Applauds USDA's Harvest to Hallways Initiative to Bring Real Food to School Cafeterias The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) celebrates USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.'s announcement of the Harvest to Hallways initiative, the next large step in the Trump Administration's effort to implement responsible nutrition policy. Through its policy work, AFPI has advocated expanding access to high-quality protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, andother real foods while creating greater opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers and strengthening the connection between federally supported nutrition programs and local communities. Now, as part of a multi-pronged effort to implement the New Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Harvest to Hallways initiative improves school meals by connecting more American farmers with local schools, investing in school kitchen infrastructure, and giving states and school districts new tools to serve healthier, more nutrient-dense meals to American children.
"Restoring proper nutrition in our school meals and improving access to whole, nutrient-dense foods is not only a win for our children's health, but it will also help to rebuild our food supply and revitalize American agriculture," said Kip Tom, AFPI vice chair for Rural Policy. "The most important crop we grow doesn't come from our fields, it is the next generation of Americans. By working with school districts to introduce locally produced foods into school meals, we are providing new markets for our beef and other protein producers, as well as fruit, vegetable, and other specialty crop growers. Growing strong minds and bodies begins with eating real foods, and American farmers are ready to meet the need."
The Harvest to Hallways initiative includes extensive regulatory reform and up to $70 million in investments in school cafeteria infrastructure, expanded local food procurement options for schools, and up to $25 million in additional Farm to School Grants for Fiscal Year 2026. This is what Making America Healthy Again looks like in practice: real food on lunch trays and real opportunity back on the farm. AFPI will keep fighting for policies that put real, nutrient-dense meals back at the center of American nutrition, because healthy kids and a thriving agricultural sector go hand in hand.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-usdas-harvest-to-hallways-initiative-to-bring-real-food-to-school-cafeterias
[Category: ThinkTank]