Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Capital Research Center: NEA's Latest Battle is a Direct Attack Against Conservative Parents
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025:
* * *
The NEA's latest battle is a direct attack against conservative parents
America's largest teachers' union has a training guide to help teachers identify, argue with and marginalize conservative parents.
By Kali Fontanilla
For years the National Education Association (NEA) has given the education of our nation's children a backseat to promoting Democratic Party politics. But now a leaked internal training document obtained by Defending Education has revealed that the nation's largest teachers'
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025:
* * *
The NEA's latest battle is a direct attack against conservative parents
America's largest teachers' union has a training guide to help teachers identify, argue with and marginalize conservative parents.
By Kali Fontanilla
For years the National Education Association (NEA) has given the education of our nation's children a backseat to promoting Democratic Party politics. But now a leaked internal training document obtained by Defending Education has revealed that the nation's largest teachers'union has taken this agenda to another level.
The new enemy: conservative parents.
The political agenda
The leaked training, "Advancing LGBTQ+ Justice and Transgender Advocacy," does not pretend to be about academics. Instead, it includes staff transition guides for teachers, exercises that instruct participants to analyze their "race, class, gender, and positionality," and role-play scenarios in which educators practice challenging parents who disagree with gender ideology.
These are not fringe resources. They are official professional development tools that encourage teachers to practice how to argue divisive issues with parents. According to the leaked module, the NEA's Organizing Department instructs teachers to profile "hostile" parents, build messaging strategies to discredit them, and frame Republican elected officials as threats to student safety.
This is a far-left activist bootcamp disguised as teacher development. There isn't a single mention of reading proficiency, nor a strategy for improving math outcomes. There's nothing about how to manage the behavioral chaos that has overtaken classrooms nationwide.
This activism is made possible by the enormous sums flowing to the NEA's nonprofit arm, via union dues and other sources. The union reported revenue of $402 million for 2024.
And according to OpenSecrets, the NEA's political committee gave $3.6 million to candidates and causes in 2024, with $3.54 million of the total (98 percent) sent to those aligned with the Democratic Party. A similar pattern exists for all elections going back to at least 1990.
What I saw as a public school teacher
The NEA's battle against conservative parents isn't new. It's just part of a multi-decade partisan war against conservatives. I spent 15 years inside public schools and saw the NEA's war against conservative parents long before it was leaked.
When I taught in a California school, those same frameworks and talking points appeared in my district's mandatory Ethnic Studies curriculum for 9th graders. Students were taught that the reality of only two genders is just a social construct, that whiteness is inherently oppressive, that identity determines outcome, and that if anyone dares to dissent it is evidence of their own bigotry. When I spoke up to the school board about these lessons with a group of parents, including a black father, I was called "anti-people of color" by the school board president.
The unions have been the ideological pipeline for this content for years. Materials similar to what I saw in the lessons for students, including a visual on internalized and institutional oppression, appeared in the recently leaked NEA teacher training.
The NEA has also spent years promoting "gender-affirming" school policies that deliberately sidestep parental consent. The union has endorsed guidelines instructing teachers to use a student's chosen name and gender identity at school while withholding that information from parents if the child requests confidentiality. NEA trainings have emphasized that a student's "privacy" should override parental notification and that educators should not disclose a child's social transition to their parents without the student's consent.
In practice, the nation's largest teachers' union has encouraged teaching staff to prevent families from learning life-altering information about minors.
At their 2021 annual meeting, the NEA passed New Business Item 39, committing the union to pushing critical race theory into K-12 schools nationwide. When this arguably racist agenda was exposed, the union scrubbed the language from its website and claimed conservatives were "inventing" CRT in classrooms. I watched the same thing happen locally when parents questioned the Ethnic Studies curriculum we were required to teach. The unions protected the ideology, not the ruth.
We also saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic and school closures, when the NEA joined other teacher unions to support efforts to delay school reopenings and to oppose legislation tying federal relief funds to full in-person instruction.
Conclusion
In this latest training, the NEA instructs teachers to frame conservatives as threatening the safety of marginalized students and to build responses to conservative disinformation networks. Translation: parents who disagree with union politics are not partners in their children's education--they are obstacles.
Though they didn't mean for it to get out, the NEA has sent a clear warning to the nation in this leaked document. They are telling us that they are a far-left political and indoctrination machine that views parents as the enemy. We should believe them.
* * *
Kali Fontanilla
Kali is serving as CRC's Senior fellow, particularly focusing on topics related to K-12 public education.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-neas-latest-battle-is-a-direct-attack-against-conservative-parents/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: What Does the Development Finance Corporation Reauthorization Mean for Energy?
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025:
* * *
What Does the Development Finance Corporation Reauthorization Mean for Energy?
By Ray Cai
After months of negotiations, congressional lawmakers have released the final draft of the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes language to reauthorize the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) through 2031. Congress established the DFC through the bipartisan BUILD Act under the first Trump administration; since then, the DFC has
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025:
* * *
What Does the Development Finance Corporation Reauthorization Mean for Energy?
By Ray Cai
After months of negotiations, congressional lawmakers have released the final draft of the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes language to reauthorize the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) through 2031. Congress established the DFC through the bipartisan BUILD Act under the first Trump administration; since then, the DFC hastaken on a distinctive role in the United States' evolving international development and strategic engagement agenda--including facilitating nearly $10 billion in energy-related investments worldwide. Yet policymakers and practitioners broadly agree that the DFC can be improved to better keep pace with rapidly evolving global challenges. With the NDAA expected to soon pass with minimal changes, this analysis examines key elements of the reauthorization and their implications for U.S. energy policy at large.
Q1: Does the reauthorization expand the DFC's capacity?
A1: The reauthorization strengthens the DFC's balance sheet and operational capacity to engage across a wider range of projects and markets. By raising the agency's contingent liability ceiling from $60 billion to $205 billion, Congress provides the DFC greater room for larger and more complex transactions. This expansion aligns with the White House's FY 2026 budget request, which proposes $3.8 billion in discretionary funding for the agency--a 280 percent increase from FY 2025--and reflects bipartisan support for a more robust and ambitious DFC.
The NDAA also authorizes a $5 billion equity revolving fund at the Department of the Treasury, which provides a dedicated capital stream for equity investment--an especially important tool in markets with inadequate access to debt financing. The fund is intended to address the budget scoring constraint, which has hampered DFC's equity program since its inception by writing off its investments as loss-making grant expenditures. Additional authorities--such as the potential for subordinate debt, up to 100 percent loan guarantees, and more latitude to engage state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds--all broaden the agency's ability to tailor its approach to market needs.
Aside from financial enhancements, the reauthorization also introduces institutional upgrades intended to improve the DFC's ability to execute deals. Expanded hiring authorities, higher compensation bands, and new training and internship pathways--including a dedicated program at the Foreign Service Institute--could help grow the talent pool and attract industry expertise that has been difficult to source. By tasking the chief risk officer to develop an agency-wide risk framework, Congress also signals intent for the DFC to adopt a more strategic and transparent approach to risk by moving beyond narrow, deal-by-deal assessments toward holistic, portfolio-level decisionmaking.
These reforms could be particularly consequential for capital-intensive sectors like energy. Energy investments--especially nuclear and other major infrastructure projects--often require large, blended financing packages and a tolerance for long construction timelines and complex political and regulatory environments. A more capable and risk-tolerant DFC will be better positioned to work across these value chains and throughout the project life cycle.
Q2: How does the reauthorization address the DFC's strategic role?
A2: The reauthorization introduces new mechanisms to better align the DFC with U.S. strategic priorities. The establishment of a chief strategic officer reflects congressional interest in ensuring that the agency's investments are coherent with U.S. foreign policy, economic competitiveness, and national security goals. In addition, the requirement for the DFC CEO to produce a five-year Strategic Priorities Plan--based on guidance from a new advisory council that includes members of key congressional committees--adds a formal process to orient the agency's work toward priority regions, sectors, and partnerships.
Energy value chains lie at the intersection of strategic priorities ranging from developing export markets for U.S. products to building climate resilience. A more strategically guided DFC could be better positioned to support energy investments that advance multiple objectives at once, whether by strengthening supply chains for key technologies, supporting the deployment of emerging energy systems, or enabling projects that reduce dependence on adversarial suppliers. As such, energy fits naturally within this broader strategic push and aligns closely with the priorities recommended by Congress for the two-year period beginning October 1, 2025: securing supply chains for critical minerals, supporting telecommunications investments, and establishing regional offices abroad.
Q3: Can the DFC retain its development focus?
A3: The NDAA generally maintains the DFC's core development mandate while allowing targeted flexibility where strategic needs require it. It instructs the DFC to continue prioritizing less-developed countries, while permitting operations in advancing-income and high-income countries with CEO certification and congressional reporting. Restrictions on working in wealthier markets--including a 25 percent cap on the share of total project cost the DFC can support, a 10 percent ceiling on any high-income country within the agency's overall exposure, and ethics oversight rules--could serve as guardrails as the agency navigates an expanding strategic remit. At the same time, the reauthorization preserves and expands key institutional features that anchor the DFC's development role. The chief development officer role remains in place, as do the Impact Quotient evaluation system, reporting and transparency requirements, and language reaffirming DFC's international focus. A new Development Finance Advisory Council could further institutionalize civil-society and development-sector input to ensure that the agency's activities remain grounded in development impact even as strategic pressures grow.
Recognizing that developmental and strategic objectives can reinforce one another is crucial for advancing energy priorities. Many emerging markets face structural barriers ranging from sovereign and currency risks, shallow capital markets, to gaps in physical infrastructure, institutional capacity, and human capital. The preserved development mandate enables the DFC to continue addressing these constraints and creating enabling conditions for productive investment that help increase energy access and market development in developing economies, a stated priority of the administration. It could also help the DFC to partially assume some, but not all, functions traditionally provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) including technical assistance and in-country presence. At the same time, measured flexibility to operate in higher-income markets allows the agency to support select projects or sectors that are strategically important but geographically concentrated, which include energy and critical minerals.
Q4: What questions remain as the DFC moves into implementation?
A4: Even with significant new authorities, important uncertainties remain that will determine how transformative the reauthorization ultimately proves. The equity scoring issue, for instance, is only partially addressed. While the revolving fund could provide a workable bridge solution, its catalytic potential depends on self-sustaining investment returns that could take years to realize. Experts argue that deeper reform of the Federal Credit Reform Act is still necessary to make the DFC's equity tools comparable to those of peer institutions; such reform would require additional legislative action, which may prove difficult to secure. Similar questions apply to the DFC's ability to build the talent and on-the-ground presence at the necessary scale; while expanded hiring authorities and new recruitment pathways are promising, the DFC will be recovering from a recent reduction in force that cut its staff from about 700 down to 500.
Uncertainty also persists around whether the DFC will be able to meaningfully increase its risk tolerance, source deals, or deploy a broader set of financial instruments--ranging from guarantees to political risk insurance--tailored to varied market conditions. Past experience suggests that internal restraint has often constrained the agency's ambition more than statutory limits; whether the new risk framework translates into better dealmaking will only become clear as more transactions move forward. Likewise, operational reforms--such as reducing procedural hurdles, improving reporting and Congressional notification (the threshold for which was moderately increased from $10 to $20 million) protocols, and streamlining origination processes--are still needed for the DFC to move efficiently enough to compete with its more agile peers, including Chinese policy banks; these improvements are also necessary for the DFC to partner more effectively with commercial, sovereign, or multilateral financial institutions. To this end, it is also crucial that well-intentioned safeguards do not inadvertently create additional bureaucratic burden.
Interagency coordination remains another critical challenge. Developing robust energy and infrastructure project pipelines often depends on complementary capabilities across institutions, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Export-Import Bank, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, as well as collaboration with the private sector, civil society, other development banks, and partner-country counterparts. Without a more structured, whole-of-government approach that aligns commercial diplomacy, technical assistance, and strategic finance tools, the DFC alone will not be able to support turnkey project development as envisioned. These coordination issues also intersect with broader directional questions, most notably whether the DFC can allocate its now expanded resources in a way that veritably serves both its developmental and strategic mandates. In many ways, the renewed DFC is better-equipped but faces heightened expectations--particularly as the retrenchment of USAID and other development and finance authorities leaves growing gaps in the U.S. international energy engagement apparatus, which the agency may increasingly be called upon to help fill.
* * *
Ray Cai is an associate fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
The author would like to thank the experts who shared their insights in CSIS interviews and convenings related to this topic.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does-development-finance-corporation-reauthorization-mean-energy
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Targeting State AI Laws Undermines, Rather Than Advances, U.S. Technology Leadership
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025:
* * *
Targeting State AI Laws Undermines, Rather than Advances, U.S. Technology Leadership
By Aalok Mehta
Yesterday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) targeting state regulations on AI and laying the groundwork for development of a national AI policy. Among other things, the order establishes an AI Litigation Task Force "whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" deemed to hinder AI innovation and takes steps to withhold Broadband
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025:
* * *
Targeting State AI Laws Undermines, Rather than Advances, U.S. Technology Leadership
By Aalok Mehta
Yesterday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) targeting state regulations on AI and laying the groundwork for development of a national AI policy. Among other things, the order establishes an AI Litigation Task Force "whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" deemed to hinder AI innovation and takes steps to withhold BroadbandEquity Access and Deployment and other federal funding from states that have "onerous" state AI laws, while calling for development of federal legislation on AI.
In targeting state laws well before a durable framework for regulating AI is in place at the federal level, however, the Trump administration remains deeply out of touch with what the American public--including prominent members of both political parties--wants, while simultaneously threatening to undermine both its domestic and international goals for AI technology.
The EO reflects the continued prominence of "AI accelerationists" within the administration, who argue that removing obstacles to development is perhaps the most important factor in ensuring that the United States can outcompete China in AI technology. The administration has twice attempted to codify this approach into law, without success. Congress stripped a moratorium on state AI laws out of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by a vote of 99 to 1, and a more recent attempt to include a provision in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act also failed.
In many ways, it's easy to be sympathetic to this viewpoint. In recent years, state governments have devoted significant attention to AI issues; in 2025 alone, they considered more than 1,000 AI bills covering a wide range of topics, including frontier AI models, deepfakes, and children's safety, with more than 100 signed into law. This builds on an already robust amount of AI legislative activity in 2024 and is likely to cause real issues in coming years. For example, the patchwork of privacy and data breach laws that have emerged at the state level in the absence of federal action impose a significant compliance burden on companies, disproportionately affecting small businesses and startups.
It is also the case, however, that the state legislators drafting AI bills are responding to real demand signals from their citizens. More than half of Americans are more concerned about AI than they are excited, a significant increase from the pre-ChatGPT era. A recent Gallup survey found that 80 percent of adults in the United States think government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, even if it means developing AI capabilities more slowly; just 9 percent say "government should prioritize developing AI capabilities as quickly as possible."
The diversity of state laws reflects the breadth of American concerns about AI, including model safety; unauthorized use of copyrighted material for AI training; the potential connection between chatbot use and suicide; the proliferation of deepfakes, particularly unauthorized sexual content; children's safety; and the use of AI for high-impact decisionmaking such as access to housing or financial services..
The new EO recognizes the political challenges to its approach. Compared to an earlier leaked draft, the EO places greater emphasis on working with Congress to develop a national legislative framework for AI. The EO also now explicitly states that the administration does not intend to push for preemption of state laws on children's safety, data centers, and other select areas--a clear indication that the administration recognizes just how much political traction these issues have at the state level.
Ultimately, however, the EO puts the cart before the horse, marshaling the resources of the federal government to push back on state laws now while calling for development of a federal framework at some indeterminate point in the future. This is highly problematic for the United States' long-term AI ambitions.
First, the EO's approach is not aligned with what U.S. citizens and many lawmakers want when it comes to AI. Americans remain highly skeptical about the benefits of AI, as well as about the technology industry in general, and they are keen not to repeat the mistakes of the social media era. By preempting state laws before a federal framework exists, the EO stands to further increase concerns about AI technology and to slow down the pace of AI adoption, at a time when China is investing significantly in and seeing promising results from its own push on adoption.
Second, the concerns driving the development of this EO are largely a matter of false urgency. There is little evidence to date that state laws are having a significant impact on the pace of AI development, but they often address substantiated areas of harm. Without a federal standard, fragmentation is likely to become a more significant issue in the future, but it does not appear to be an issue that requires an immediate response. Moreover, state lawmakers and the public are right to be skeptical about claims of future legislation by Congress; the United States has been working for more than 20 years on comprehensive privacy legislation.
Third, the EO takes an unnecessarily antagonistic approach to the efforts of state lawmakers. AI is a revolutionary technology that stands to impact every sector of the economy at an unprecedented pace, but those same features make it particularly difficult to regulate well. As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted in 1932, "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." State lawmakers are making genuine attempts to grapple with world-changing technology; the administration would benefit from learning from and incorporating their efforts rather than villainizing and dismissing them. This EO is also unlikely to have the desired impact; it hinges on uncertain legal interpretations that raise constitutional issues and are almost certain to be challenged in court.
Finally, the EO increases the challenges that the United States faces in engaging on AI governance internationally. As with state fragmentation, a patchwork of international laws that vary in requirements and scope could also impose significant, counterproductive, and inconsistent compliance requirements on U.S. companies, slowing their ability to innovate and expand into new markets. But the United States cannot credibly push for a unified regulatory approach globally without an affirmative vision for AI governance--backed up with legislative action--at home.
Preemption is a worthwhile goal that can address real concerns about the burdens of state fragmentation on AI innovation. An AI moratorium--accompanied by unsatisfying promises about future legislative action--is not. The EO's aggressive use of litigation and threats of withholding federal funding are out of tune with the American public, legally questionable, and unnecessarily antagonistic towards states; they will also certainly attract legal challenges and unproductively consume both federal and state resources.
The administration would be much better served by delaying these plans. Instead, it should focus on leveraging data from state legislative efforts and other emerging areas of consensus--such as model cards and scaling frameworks--to develop a realistic and politically viable legislative approach to AI to pair with preemption. Otherwise, the administration risks exacerbating public skepticism of AI technology, backsliding on its goals of increasing adoption of U.S. technology, and undermining its ability to lead internationally.
* * *
Aalok Mehta is director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/targeting-state-ai-laws-undermines-rather-advances-us-technology-leadership
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: College Football Leadership - A Study in Narcissism
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 (TNSxrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025, to Townhall:
* * *
College Football Leadership: A Study in Narcissism
By Dr. Richard Rogers and Frank D. Murphy
College football was never intended to function as a sovereign empire, operating independently from the academic life of the university. It was meant to complement education, not eclipse it. It was designed to foster character, discipline, teamwork, and community -- all within the broader purpose of preparing young people to become thoughtful, responsible adults. Yet
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 (TNSxrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025, to Townhall:
* * *
College Football Leadership: A Study in Narcissism
By Dr. Richard Rogers and Frank D. Murphy
College football was never intended to function as a sovereign empire, operating independently from the academic life of the university. It was meant to complement education, not eclipse it. It was designed to foster character, discipline, teamwork, and community -- all within the broader purpose of preparing young people to become thoughtful, responsible adults. Yettoday, the leadership culture surrounding college football often reflects something very different: a system driven by ego, prestige, and the relentless pursuit of winning at any cost.
Somewhere along the way, the mission shifted.
The emphasis moved from developing human beings to producing entertainment. Athletes are now celebrated almost exclusively for what they can do inside a stadium, not for who they are becoming in the classroom, in their personal lives, or in the world beyond campus. Coaches are praised for the size of their contracts and the number of their championship rings, even when the student-athletes under their authority fail to graduate, struggle academically, or are left unprepared to navigate adulthood once the cheering stops. The phrase "student-athlete," repeated endlessly in press conferences and recruiting speeches, is a mere marketing slogan, rather than an educational commitment.
To read the full article, click here (https://townhall.com/columnists/rich-rogers/2025/12/12/college-football-leadership-a-study-in-narcissism-n2667782).
* * *
Dr. Richard Rogers is from Flowery Branch, Georgia and serves AFPI as Vice Chair of American Values.
Frank D.Murphy serves as Chair, Athletes for America Coalition and Director of Community Impact.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/college-football-leadership-a-study-in-narcissism
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Civilization Erasure, Christmas Markets, and Hungary
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025, to American Greatness:
* * *
Civilization Erasure, Christmas Markets, and Hungary
By The Honorable Fred Fleitz
Not surprisingly, a controversial prediction in the new Trump administration's National Security Strategy that Europe is facing "civilization erasure" because of out-of-control mass migration infuriated European elites. The Economist attacked this reference as "shocking." The Independent, a UK newspaper, referred to it as a "sinister conspiracy theory."
I want to set this aside
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025, to American Greatness:
* * *
Civilization Erasure, Christmas Markets, and Hungary
By The Honorable Fred Fleitz
Not surprisingly, a controversial prediction in the new Trump administration's National Security Strategy that Europe is facing "civilization erasure" because of out-of-control mass migration infuriated European elites. The Economist attacked this reference as "shocking." The Independent, a UK newspaper, referred to it as a "sinister conspiracy theory."
I want to set this asidefor a moment and talk about European Christmas markets, especially in Hungary.
These markets are an old tradition where people gather to shop and socialize in the four weeks of Advent before Christmas at outdoor stalls, often in city squares, to purchase handmade goods, eat sweet treats and sausages, and drink mulled wine, a spiced wine cocktail served hot. The markets usually include Nativity scenes. Some have small performances and people singing Christmas carols.
To read the full article, click here (https://amgreatness.com/2025/12/12/civilization-erasure-christmas-markets-and-hungary/).
* * *
Fred Fleitz is originally from Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, and serves as Vice Chair of AFPI's American Security.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/civilization-erasure-christmas-markets-and-hungary
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: 'America First' Starts in Our Own Hemisphere
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025, to the Hill:
* * *
'America First' Starts in our Own Hemisphere
By Melissa Ford Maldonado
There's a reason American airmen, sailors, and Marines are putting themselves into harm's way in the southern Caribbean. It's not because Washington suddenly returned to neoconservative adventurism. It is because a narco-state ruled by a corrupt leftist dictator has become the latest frontline in defending the American people.
That might surprise some who still believe President Trump's "America
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 12, 2025, to the Hill:
* * *
'America First' Starts in our Own Hemisphere
By Melissa Ford Maldonado
There's a reason American airmen, sailors, and Marines are putting themselves into harm's way in the southern Caribbean. It's not because Washington suddenly returned to neoconservative adventurism. It is because a narco-state ruled by a corrupt leftist dictator has become the latest frontline in defending the American people.
That might surprise some who still believe President Trump's "AmericaFirst" ideal means "America only." But what's happening off the coast of Venezuela tells a different story. The fight against Nicolas Maduro's criminal regime isn't about foreign crusades, but about keeping poison off our streets and chaos off our shores.
For a generation, U.S. national security policy wandered the earth, guarding oil fields in Syria while leaving American towns in Texas undefended. We policed deserts halfway around the world but let narco-fleets cruise the Caribbean, ferrying the chemicals that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. Something had gone badly wrong.
Trump came back to fix it.
To read the full article, click here (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5644877-america-first-starts-in-our-own-hemisphere/).
* * *
Melissa Ford Maldonado is the Director of the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), where she leads efforts to strengthen U.S. leadership and influence throughout Latin America.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-starts-in-our-own-hemisphere
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Celebrates Tina Peters' Pardon, Calls on Colorado to Grant State Pardon
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates Tina Peters' Pardon, Calls on Colorado to Grant State Pardon
The America First Policy Institute welcomes President Donald Trump's pardon of Tina Peters, a former Colorado election official who was targeted by a weaponized justice system after she blew the whistle on what she thought was voter fraud. In 2024, she was sentenced to 9 years in state prison. Without a state pardon, she will remain in prison.
The most fundamental responsibility of an election official is to raise their
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates Tina Peters' Pardon, Calls on Colorado to Grant State Pardon
The America First Policy Institute welcomes President Donald Trump's pardon of Tina Peters, a former Colorado election official who was targeted by a weaponized justice system after she blew the whistle on what she thought was voter fraud. In 2024, she was sentenced to 9 years in state prison. Without a state pardon, she will remain in prison.
The most fundamental responsibility of an election official is to raise theirvoice when they have reason to believe election fraud is taking place. Ms. Peters did just that and had the full weight of the Colorado government viciously crash down on her.
Colorado prosecutors sent a signal to other conservatives that if you seek to protect our elections, you will pay a price. This is the opposite of transparency and is an obvious violation of voter integrity. As a nation, our citizens deserve to know that election officials are making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. There is no way for that to happen when they believe they will be sent to prison for voicing any concerns about into potential fraud.
What Ms. Peters has endured is wrong. It is immoral and is inconsistent with the values we hold as a free nation, as a free people with honest elections.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-celebrates-tina-peters-pardon-calls-on-colorado-to-grant-state-pardon
[Category: ThinkTank]
