Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Putin's War Calculus Keeps Oscillating as Spring Offensive Stumbles
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by Pavel K. Baev, senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Putin's War Calculus Keeps Oscillating as Spring Offensive Stumbles
Executive Summary:
* The ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf is affecting Russia amid the Kremlin's war against Ukraine with spikes in oil prices and a reduction of U.S. pressure on Moscow, making the timeline for a peace deal far from certain.
* Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, Western
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by Pavel K. Baev, senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Putin's War Calculus Keeps Oscillating as Spring Offensive Stumbles
Executive Summary:
* The ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf is affecting Russia amid the Kremlin's war against Ukraine with spikes in oil prices and a reduction of U.S. pressure on Moscow, making the timeline for a peace deal far from certain.
* Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, Westernsanctions, and underinvestment in the oil and gas industry affect Russia's ability to capitalize on the changing gas market amid the conflict in the Gulf.
* Russian society continues to experience general wariness as a new round of conscription campaigns starts in April and Russia limits Internet access and shuts down Telegram. This could lead to local problems and turn into triggers of mass protest.
The effect of the ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf on Russia's war against Ukraine grows more complex as the parties of both conflicts experience attrition of various kinds. Russian commentators tend to exaggerate Iran's capacity to withstand air assaults, but also suggest that the U.S. leadership cannot accept anything less than a convincing victory (Rossiiskaya gazeta, March 24; TopWar.ru, March 28). Such an outcome can only be secured by a high-risk land operation, while some pundits speculate about the possibility of an Israeli nuclear strike (Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 24; RIAC, March 27). Russia's ability to benefit from the reduction in U.S. pressure on Moscow's deadlocked and destructive war against Ukraine makes a peace deal is far from certain.
The spike in oil prices grants the most obvious benefit for Russia. The volume of additional revenues, however, cannot be calculated by simply multiplying an increase in exports by the new benchmark price (Carnegie Politika, March 27). For once, Russia's oil and gas production cannot be increased measurably because the industry is severely affected by sanctions and underinvestment (Neftegaz.ru, March 25). Some sanctions relaxation could generate additional profits, provided Russia's "shadow fleet" tankers operate without restrictions (Riddle, March 24). Ukraine, however, is firmly set to deny Moscow any windfall of petro-revenues and delivered a series of airstrikes at the end of March on the Primorsk and Ust-Luga oil terminals in the Gulf of Finland (The Insider, March 27; Fontanka.ru, March 29). Russia has not officially acknowledged the damage, which is visible from space. Mainstream Russian media, however, is full of opinions condemning the alleged "free passage" for Ukrainian drones through Estonian and Latvian airspace (Rossiiskaya gazeta, March 26). No such claims can be invented to explain away successful Ukrainian strikes on port infrastructure in Novorossiysk and on tankers trying to deliver cargo to this terminal (RBC, March 14).
The trickle of additional income can only slightly alleviate Russia's financial crisis. In February, the country's financial crisis reached such intensity that Chief of Russia's Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina warned that deep cuts in budget expenditures were inevitable (Meduza; The Moscow Times, March 24). Russian President Vladimir Putin still demanded that the government ensure a return to the "trajectory of stable growth," but he could not avoid doubts about the sustainability of the war effort (Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 23). Seeking to buy himself more time and assuming that extra oil revenues would not amount to much, Putin invited the richest oligarchs to make "voluntary" contributions to the war chest (The Bell, March 25). The rumors about this barely camouflaged extortion at a closed meeting have inevitably spread, and the Kremlin found them so embarrassing that an official repudiation was issued, presenting the proposition as a private initiative of one of the tycoons (Vedomosti, March 27). Only a few among Russia's ultra-rich dare to hint at the destructive economic consequences of Putin's war against Ukraine, but their silent discontent comes in tune with the louder public angst (Forbes.ru, March 26).
General wariness amid the war can turn local problems--such as the unannounced and brutally treated epidemic among the farm animals in Novosibirsk oblast--into triggers of mass protests (Novaya gazeta Europe, March 25). In Moscow and other major urban centers, the main driver of discontent is the recurrent attempt to limit Internet access and to shut down Telegram, the most popular messaging app in Russia (Meduza, March 25). Street protests against these crude measures have been swiftly suppressed. Still, the incompetence of officials who tried to invoke vague security reasons for thus suppression has become apparent to millions of participants in the digital economy, shocked by the sudden curtailing of their social networks (Radio Svoboda, March 25). The vexation is particularly strong among the younger generations, where support for the war is the lowest. The new army recruitment campaign targeting students as potential drone operators only adds to the critical mass of outrage (Re: Russia, March 23).
Visible success in the conduct of the war is needed for calming public ire. Without success, Putin's goal of gaining control over the whole of Donbas--confirmed yet again to the seemingly rather unenthusiastic oligarchs--becomes a recipe for disaster (Kommersant, March 26). The start of the spring offensive is delivering the opposite effect, however, as the renewed Russian attacks yield fewer territorial gains than the positions lost to Ukrainian counterattacks (Novaya gazeta Europe, March 23). The strategic equation becomes a double negative as the system of commercial recruitment produces less fresh manpower than needed to compensate for the staggering losses (Carnegie Politika, February 10; Mediazona, March 27). Moscow's conscription campaign starts on April 1, and while draft dodging is severely penalized, anti-war sentiment among youth inevitably translates into a desire to avoid military service at any cost (Komsomol'skaya Pravda, March 28). The low quality of Russian troops aggravates the problem of the depletion of stocks of key weapon systems, such as main battle tanks and tube artillery. The old Soviet strategy of amassing manpower and firepower does not work in the battle for Donbas (TopWar.ru, March 29). After months of slow Russian advances, Ukraine has gained a new edge in the drone warfare on the tactical level as the fast introduction of various innovations makes it possible to expand the "kill-zone" and target Russian logistics and reserves (Re: Russia, March 20).
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered Ukrainian technology and expertise for defending against Iranian drone strikes to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, and signed military cooperation agreements with these states, tacitly underscoring Russia's strategic partnership with Iran (Gazeta.ru; RBC-Ukraine, March 28). Putin is clearly unable to counter either this diplomatic maneuvering or the resonance of Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia's territory. He tries to demonstrate resolve in pursuing the immediate goal of defeating Ukraine and the greater desire of destroying the trans-Atlantic unity, but the resource base of his strategy is shrinking, and the credibility of his posturing is eroding.
Domestic costs of sustaining the unproductive war effort keep growing. The calculus of possible benefits to be derived from the war in the Gulf does not go up in parallel with its duration. Putin appears to keep hoping that some turn of global events would break the logic of his unwinnable war and eliminate the imperative of making a rational choice for freezing the hostilities. In reality, these hopes result in more missed opportunities to escape a dead end of his own making.
* * *
Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/putins-war-calculus-keeps-oscillating-as-spring-offensive-stumbles/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Kremlin Inadequately Responds to Increased Ukrainian Strikes
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by analyst Kassie Corelli in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Kremlin Inadequately Responds to Increased Ukrainian Strikes
Executive Summary:
* Kyiv has intensified strikes on Russian military plants and other strategic targets such as oil depots, microelectronics facilities, and energy infrastructure, highlighting Ukraine's rapid military advancements amid Russian stagnation.
* Independent analysts point out that the Russian Ministry of Defense has systematically exaggerated its successes throughout
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by analyst Kassie Corelli in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Kremlin Inadequately Responds to Increased Ukrainian Strikes
Executive Summary:
* Kyiv has intensified strikes on Russian military plants and other strategic targets such as oil depots, microelectronics facilities, and energy infrastructure, highlighting Ukraine's rapid military advancements amid Russian stagnation.
* Independent analysts point out that the Russian Ministry of Defense has systematically exaggerated its successes throughoutthe four years of the full-scale conflict against Ukraine, but has been unable to alter its wartime tactics or achieve serious results fundamentally.
* Moscow is trying to compensate for its miscalculations by increasing the defense budget and attempting to attract young people to the front, primarily students, exacerbating an already dire demographic crisis.
Ukraine has significantly increased the number of strikes in Russian territory. In mid-March, Ukraine's armed forces launched a hundred rocket and drone attacks on Russia over the course of one week. Oil depots, microelectronics facilities, and energy infrastructure sites were attacked. According to independent military experts, this intensification is linked to the increase in Ukraine's production of long-range drones (Novaya Gazeta-Evropa, March 16). Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova drew attention to the escalation of attacks, stating that the Ukrainian attacks are "overseen by the same people who are behind the situation around Iran" (Komsomol'skaya Pravda, March 18).
Russian military analysts are taking a more realistic view of the situation. They note that Kyiv itself is significantly changing its goals and methods of war, specifically increasing the scale of drone use, as well as the tactical and operational depth of its operations. They note that the Ukrainians are also deploying additional air defense forces to protect logistics and critical routes, have begun constructing defensive fortifications, and have even started an audit of personnel losses (Topwar.ru, March 15). Following the strike on the Kremniy El plant in Bryansk on March 10, writers for Military Review--an outlet close to the Russian Ministry of Defense--admitted that Russian anti-aircraft systems were incapable of taking down not only Ukrainian rockets, but also intelligence gathering drones. They revealed that Moscow's longtime practice of disabling mobile Internet access in Bryansk oblast does not affect drone attacks (Topwar.ru, March 14). Other writers at the site seriously warn that Ukraine is capable of hacking into and using to its own advantage the numerous surveillance cameras installed on Russian streets (Topwar.ru, March 17). The most widespread response in Russia has been to disable mobile internet for weeks at a time. These internet shutdowns are now occurring not only in border regions but also in Moscow (Meduza, March 12).
No meaningful changes in Russian war tactics are discernible. Independent journalists note that the Russian Ministry of Defense regularly issues fabricated reports about its supposed "successes." Official Dense Ministry sources cite a figure of 1.3 million Ukrainian military personnel killed in action, while independent analysts put the real figure of Ukrainian fallen at 180-200 thousand. A similar situation prevails regarding the amount of Ukrainian military equipment allegedly destroyed by Russian forces, equipment which, if one were to believe Russian Defense Ministry data, has been destroyed in quantities exceeding the total Ukrainian inventory throughout the war. Russian military authorities have repeatedly claimed the capture of settlements that, in reality, remain outside their control (Verstka, February 24).
Russian military analysts are once again invoking the "nuclear shield" and expressing hope for an "expansion of the nuclear club to include states from the list of countries friendly to Russia" (Topwar.ru, March 10). Concurrently, Moscow is ramping up military spending, which currently accounts for fully half of the country's budget (see EDM, March 16). Instead of refining combat tactics, however, the Kremlin is channeling financial resources into payments for contract soldiers--as usual, attempting to resolve the problem by deploying additional manpower to the front lines.
This time, students are the primary target. Over the last several months, independent journalists have documented at least 200 meetings at Russian higher education institutions and colleges promoting contract military service. The recruiters aggressively urge students to join the "drone ranks," at times threatening them with expulsion and assuring them that new recruits will be assigned exclusively to drone operations and will not be deployed in assaults. An analysis of the proposed contract, however, revealed that if a candidate fails to pass the selection process for the drone units, they will be assigned as a regular infantryman and their contract will be open-ended. Independent journalists note that few students are willing to sign such contracts (Verstka, March 4).
Many young people join the army immediately after finishing school. Journalists note that 18-year-olds are predominant among volunteers, inspired by years of military propaganda and dreaming of assignment to the front (BBC-Russian Service, June 23, 2025). Russian propaganda highlights cases where recent high school graduates sign military contracts behind their parents' backs and head off to war, portraying their actions as heroic (Lenta.ru, February 9). Children's writer and poet Masha Rupasova, who spent four years collecting material from women's chat groups one way or another connected to the war, confirms this information. Masha is certain that this is the direct result of four years of active war propaganda in schools, including meetings with veterans and the creation of a heroic image of soldiers (Facebook/masha.rupasova, March 12).
Evaluating the long-term effect of propaganda on schoolchildren is impossible. Still, most young soldiers will serve as mere cannon fodder, incapable of turning the tide on the front lines. The only result of such a policy is the descent of Russia into a catastrophic demographic hole through the destruction of its own youth.
* * *
Kassie Corelli is an analyst with The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/kremlin-inadequately-responds-to-increased-ukrainian-strikes/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Times: How U.S. Military Dominance Unravels China's War Machine
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by China Center Director Miles Yu to the Washington Times:
* * *
How US Military Dominance Unravels China's War Machine
Battlefield performance triggers purges, failures and deeper cracks inside the CCP system.
*
The modern trajectory of China's weapons development cannot be understood without recognizing a recurring pattern: Every major leap in the People's Liberation Army has been triggered by decisive
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by China Center Director Miles Yu to the Washington Times:
* * *
How US Military Dominance Unravels China's War Machine
Battlefield performance triggers purges, failures and deeper cracks inside the CCP system.
*
The modern trajectory of China's weapons development cannot be understood without recognizing a recurring pattern: Every major leap in the People's Liberation Army has been triggered by decisivedemonstrations of U.S. military superiority.
From the Persian Gulf War to more recent confrontations involving Iran and Venezuela, American battlefield dominance has repeatedly exposed systemic weaknesses in China's military-industrial complex, forcing cycles of hurried modernization, internal crisis and political purges.
This pattern reflects not only strategic rivalry but also deeper structural deficiencies within the Chinese Communist Party system itself.
At its core, the CCP has long defined the United States as its principal adversary. From Mao Zedong's ideological framing of struggle against Western imperialism to Xi Jinping's emphasis on "great power competition" and systemic sabotage against America's global standing on all fronts, the party's strategic mission has consistently centered on overcoming and ultimately displacing American power.
Yet rather than pursuing steady, innovation-driven development, China's military modernization has largely been shock-driven. The 1991 Gulf War jolted Beijing into recognizing the decisive role of precision strike, stealth and networked warfare. The 1999 U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and the 2001 EP-3 incident further reinforced the PLA's vulnerability, accelerating investments in aerospace, cyberspace and anti-access capabilities.
Each episode confirmed a pattern: China advances not through sustained internal innovation but through reaction to U.S. military triumphs.
These efforts, however, remain constrained by systemic weaknesses. First, the CCP struggles to generate genuine innovation and relies heavily on reverse engineering and the acquisition of foreign technologies.
Second, even when designs are obtained, China often falls short in replicating the underlying engineering precision and materials science required for consistent performance. Third, civil-military fusion, intended to accelerate development, has instead fostered corruption and inefficiency across the defense sector, leading to the most devastating consequence of all: the questionable credibility of PLA weapons' quality and reliability.
Finally, a political system built on propaganda encourages inflated claims and self-deception, masking real deficiencies until they are exposed under operational conditions.
It is in real-world deployments that these contradictions become undeniable. In recent operations involving Venezuela and Iran, China-supplied air defense networks, radar systems and missile platforms repeatedly failed to perform when confronted with advanced U.S. stealth and electronic warfare capabilities.
Systems that were promoted as capable of detecting or deterring high-end threats proved ineffective under pressure. These failures did more than undermine specific platforms as they exposed the gap between China's claims and its actual capabilities.
The CCP's response has not been transparency but internal upheaval. Rather than reassessing structural weaknesses, the regime has initiated sweeping purges across both military leadership and the defense research community.
Since America's flawless success in Venezuela in early January, large numbers of senior PLA commanders have been made "nonpersons" and disappeared from public view, including figures at the highest levels of command.
Attendance of full generals at major political gatherings has sharply declined. Only six of the 26 full general-grade officers showed up at the Two Sessions in early March, suggesting an extraordinary level of internal disruption within the military hierarchy. Of the six uniformed members of the Central Military Commission, the CCP's highest military command authority, four, or two-thirds, have been purged in recent months.
These purges have extended to the scientific and industrial core of China's weapons development system.
Since the U.S. Venezuela operation in January, key figures associated with major defense programs -- including aircraft carrier construction, advanced fighter design, radar systems, air defense missiles and strategic weapons -- have been removed from public life or stripped of status.
These include Hu Yongming, top scientist for China's naval aviation and carrier development, Yang Wei, the leading designer of advanced fighter aircraft, including J-10 and J-20, Wu Manqing, the PLA's leading radar and counter-stealth specialist, Wei Yiyin, a senior figure in air defense missile research, and Zhao Xiangeng, a key figure in advanced nuclear weapons design. All represent critical nodes in China's defense innovation network.
There are scores of others.
Their sudden disappearances suggest not isolated incidents but a broader dismantling of the technical leadership behind China's military modernization.
In parallel, there have been high-profile prosecutions within the defense-industrial sector. On Wednesday, Tan Ruisong, chairman of AVIC, the massive state conglomerate responsible for producing most of China's combat aircraft, was sentenced to death on charges of corruption and misconduct. His case highlights the extent to which political and financial incentives have distorted the development process, undermining efficiency and reliability.
Then there are the unexplained deaths of leading scientists in key research areas. Figures associated with hypersonic weapons and advanced aerodynamics -- fields central to China's next-generation capabilities -- have died suddenly in recent weeks while still active in their work.
They include Fang Daining, 68, and Yan Hong, 57, China's two leading hypersonic weapons researchers. The lack of clear explanations for their deaths has fueled speculation and underscores the opaque and high-pressure environment within China's defense research establishment.
Together, these developments point to a deeper systemic problem. The CCP's model does not allow for open acknowledgment of failure. Instead, when shortcomings are exposed -- especially under the pressure of comparison with U.S. military performance -- the response is to assign blame to individuals rather than address institutional flaws. This creates a cycle in which political purges replace technical reform.
The consequences are profound. By removing experienced leaders and scientists, the system undermines its own capacity for learning and improvement. At the same time, the climate of fear discourages honest reporting and critical analysis, reinforcing the very patterns of overstatement and underperformance that led to failure in the first place. Innovation becomes riskier, not safer; truth becomes more dangerous than error.
Ultimately, U.S. military triumphs have had a dual effect on China's weapons development. They have acted as catalysts for rapid advancement, forcing China to modernize and expand its capabilities, but they also have functioned as stress tests, exposing the structural weaknesses of a system that prioritizes control over competence.
Each confrontation does not simply widen the technological gap but also triggers internal instability within China's military and scientific institutions.
The result is a paradox. The CCP's determination to rival the United States drives it to pursue ever more ambitious military programs. Yet the very system that mobilizes these efforts also limits their success. Without the capacity for transparent evaluation, genuine innovation and institutional resilience, progress remains uneven and fragile.
In this sense, the competition between the United States and China is not only a contest of weapons but also of systems. The United States benefits from a model that tolerates failure as part of progress, allowing it to adapt and improve over time. China's system, by contrast, transforms failure into a political crisis.
As long as this dynamic persists, each new demonstration of U.S. military superiority will not only challenge China externally but also destabilize it internally, reinforcing the very gap it seeks to close.
Read in The Washington Times (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/mar/30/us-military-dominance-unravels-chinas-war-machine/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Miles Yu is a senior fellow and director of the China Center at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/how-us-military-dominance-unravels-chinas-war-machine-miles-yu
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Posts Commentary: Philanthropy and Decadence - What Would Walter Berns Do?
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by Steven F. Hayward to the Giving Review:
* * *
Philanthropy and decadence: What would Walter Berns do?
The late scholar argued throughout his career that we err when we limit our consideration of speech and free expression to narrow legal contests and mere process reforms.
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
*
In order to see a persistent problem in a radically new way, it may be useful to recur to some old questions that are seldom asked any more. Should
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by Steven F. Hayward to the Giving Review:
* * *
Philanthropy and decadence: What would Walter Berns do?
The late scholar argued throughout his career that we err when we limit our consideration of speech and free expression to narrow legal contests and mere process reforms.
Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
*
In order to see a persistent problem in a radically new way, it may be useful to recur to some old questions that are seldom asked any more. Shouldwe consider a dramatic re-ordering of how philanthropy is regulated and understood today? A reorientation of our thinking might be found in the work of the late Walter Berns. Although he never wrote directly about the politics of philanthropy, Berns did write at length about controversies over art and free expression, arguing that virtue and decency were not subjective values, but essential to the health of civil society.
Berns argued throughout his entire academic career that we err when we limit our consideration of speech and free expression to narrow legal contests and mere process reforms. But understanding how his broader vista might apply to philanthropic reform requires some background.
Older readers may recall an arts controversy from nearly 40 years ago, when it became known that several controversial pieces by avant garde modern artists such as Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe had been funded by taxpayers though the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Serrano had received a $20,000 NEA grant that went toward the production and display of "Piss Christ," which featured a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, while photographer Robert Mapplethorpe was the recipient of a $30,000 NEA grant for a collection of photos featuring scenes of homosexual sadomasochism--including children among the subjects--to be displayed at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, D.C.
We needn't reopen the perennial debate over "what is art" to make a general objection to taxpayer support for any art, and the controversy in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in budget cuts to the NEA along with new guidelines to prevent a recurrence of government-funded art that offends the sense of decency of the overwhelming majority of Americans. The "arts community" screamed that this amounted to "censorship," as though artists are somehow entitled to taxpayer support, and even though there was never any effort to prevent artists from producing whatever they want--on their own dime.
After all, art has always been supported by wealthy art patrons since antiquity, and if a private donor like the Ford Foundation wishes to support repulsive art, it is free to do so. This seems sensible except for one detail that is usually overlooked: because American philanthropy exists within the special tax-exempt structure for nonprofit organizations, philanthropic support for the arts represents indirect taxpayer support, after all.
Is this a significant problem? In the abstract, probably not. The tax-exemption for nonprofit organizations has long been intended to encourage charitable giving and efforts to promote the public welfare that are beyond the capacity or means of government. Think of the countless museums, libraries, monuments, hospitals, and educational programs that private charity has made possible over the decades, not to mention religious charities that offer help to people in need that is vastly superior to the government welfare state.
By degrees, however, big philanthropy has taken a decidedly left-wing cast over the past few decades, and in areas well beyond art. Whether this has come about because of an undertow from our growing welfare state is a subject for another day, but the pernicious effect of this ideological drift is freshly on our mind again in the aftermath of a recent Atlantic magazine article on the degradation of the humanities on college campuses abetted by the Andrew Mellon Foundation, one of the largest foundation donors to the humanities. How large? In 2024, the National Endowment for the Humanities had a total grant budget of $78 million. The Mellon Foundation's grant budget for 2024 was $540 million.
In 2020, the Mellon Foundation announced that it was henceforth "prioritizing social justice in all of its grantmaking."It does not require a special decoder ring to know this means highly ideological leftist pedagogy. Don't take my word for it. The author of the Atlantic feature, Tyler Austin Harper, is a left-of-center academic, but he declares of the Mellon influence: "A multibillion-dollar politicized grant-making entity has a stranglehold over humanities research and teaching, and is using that power to push them in a direction that blurs the boundaries between scholarship and activism, pedagogy and politics." Harper displays the receipts in the form of numerous university curricula and projects that lack even a tenuous connection to the humanities rightly understood.
Tax-exempt philanthropies have always been prohibited from "partisan" activity, meaning any support for individual candidates, parties or formal political organizations, and ballot measures. But what about support for insidious ideological projects that exert a "partisan" effect in a different way, distorting education and having deleterious effects on civic virtue and the basic bonds necessary for common citizenship?
It is perhaps tempting to propose expanding the legal guardrails around tax-exempt activity, or instituting a review process that could strip the tax-exempt status of foundations and grant recipients who engage in egregious ideological projects. In concept, expanding the definition of "partisan activity" to include clearly and intentionally political teaching and activism is not difficult. The practical difficulties with this idea are significant, however, as a bright line between politicized content and merely controversial content would be hard to fix. Is all research and teaching about racism politicized, or just 98% of it?
Likewise, there is reason to worry that such a change would likely also sweep up many conservative foundations and organizations, especially under a hostile administration Above all, it will be said to be censorship, even though such a reform wouldn't be censoring anyone's speech at all--it would merely limit indirect taxpayer support.
All of these practical difficulties could be solved through the simple step of narrowing the tax-exemption completely for broad categories of philanthropy, such as humanities and social science in higher education, but also art, "public broadcasting," "creative writing" workshops, and so forth. Tax-exempt philanthropy could still support college buildings, libraries, art-gallery buildings, hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, youth camps, and other non-political or "bricks-and-mortar" purposes. Many of these charitable purposes receive significant support from individuals who don't even take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, and there is no reason to think this would change even among the very wealthy. The Medicis and other Florentine patrons didn't support Renaissance art for the tax deductions.
To the objection that this amounts to ending large swaths of current philanthropy, Berns would likely say--"precisely." I know from private conversations with Berns over the years that he deplored the effect of "big money" in politics in terms very close to what so-called "political reformers" use, but he was resolutely opposed to both public financing of political campaigns or government regulation of campaign spending, which he knew would be much more insidious than our current political-finance practices. A term he used in those conversations about money in politics provides a pivot to philanthropy in the arts and humanities: it was "indecent" that politicians had to grub for money in such large quantities, and he thought it contributed to a degradation of civic virtue in contemporary politics.
One of Berns's distinct contributions to constitutionalism was his very first book, whose unusual title suggests immediately why it stands out: Freedom, Virtue, and the First Amendment. Seldom do discussions of freedom of speech and the First Amendment regard virtue as a serious factor in interpreting law. While the book masterfully exposes the incoherence and inconsistency of the various Supreme Court improvisations of circumstances for which the government might rightly limit freedom of speech (such as the "clear and present danger" test or the "fighting words" doctrine), he thought ultimately the Supreme Court was fated to fail in its attempt to find an "impossible exactitude in the precepts guiding the affairs of men."
Regarding the "danger" test, for example, Berns wrote that "[t]he Court might have reserved its use for national security cases, or it might have conceded that the Constitution permits the law to act against dangers to civility as well as national security." (Emphasis added.) The problem with the "danger" test, he wrote, was that it did not recognize virtue: "For liberals in general and libertarians in particular, the word virtue carries overtones of authoritarianism, bigotry, Kulturkampfen, and autos-da-fe. The one inexpiable sin is for government to get into the business of distinguishing good from evil."
Freedom, Virtue, and the First Amendment appeared in 1957, before the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the First Amendment to include "free expression," which meant pornography, naked dancing, and f-bombs on t-shirts in the courtroom, not to mention the right of Nazis to parade in a town with a high number of Holocaust survivors. Liberals then and today think the remedy for noxious or hateful speech intended to intimidate (such as Jews on college campuses and elsewhere) is "more speech," and kind of "Gresham's law in reverse," as Berns put it.
Keep in mind that the young Berns, fresh out of the Navy after World War II, wanted to be a novelist, and went through a bohemian phase living in an artist commune in Santa Fe centered around Frieda Lawrence (D.H. Lawrence's widow). He quickly abandoned this quest and moved to political science instead. But it helps explain why, even as he deplored the accelerating cultural rot in America in the 1960s and after, he thought that even "obscene" art could nonetheless be high art, such as James Joyce's Ulysses. Even as Berns's great friend Robert Bork was openly advocating that some regime of censorship should be considered, Berns resisted when he revisited this issue in the early 1970s:
Just as it is no simple task to formulate a rule of law that distinguishes the nonobscene from the obscene, it is still more difficult to distinguish the obscene from a work of genuine literary merit. In fact, it is impossible, and our failure to understand this may be said to be a condition, if not a cause, of our present situation. Our laws proscribe obscenity as such and by name, and we are unwilling to admit that great literary and dramatic works can be, and frequently are, obscene. In combination these two facts explain how it came about that we now have, with the sanction of the law, what is probably the most vulgar theater and literature in history. The paradox is readily explained. The various statutes making up the law have made obscenity a criminal thing, and our judges assume that if a work of art is really a work of art, and not vulgar rubbish, it cannot be obscene. Thus, Judge John M. Woolsey, in his celebrated opinion in the Ulysses case, recounts how he asked two literary friends whether the book was obscene within the legal definition, which he had to explain to them, and how they both agreed it was not. But of course Ulysses is obscene. No so obscene as an undoubted masterpiece, Aristophanes' Assembly of Women, for example, would not be a masterpiece--which would not be anything--were its obscenity removed, but obscene nevertheless.
While Berns admits that finding a stable legal standard to make "bright-line" discriminations about what is obscene is likely impossible, he thought censorship more broadly considered was a serious idea that a democratic nation should embrace. He understood that vulgarity and nihilist decadence was not simply a matter of aesthetic taste or literary preference, and that the gradual loss of shame portended serious political consequences:
There is a connection between self-restraint and shame, and therefore a danger in promoting shamelessness and the fullest self-expression or indulgence. ... Tyranny is the mode of government for the shameless and self-indulgent who have carried liberty beyond any restraint, natural or conventional. ... Anyone can be ruled by a tyrant, and the more debased his subjects the safer his rule.
What prompted his extended reflections on the issue was a surprising (to any conservative) New York Times house editorial, "Beyond the (Garbage) Pail," that deplored a recent stage play explicitly portraying sexual intercourse. This and other fresh examples provoked the usually "sophisticated" and urbane Times editorial board:
Far from providing a measure of cultural emancipation, such descents into degeneracy represent caricatures of art, deserving no exemption from the laws of common decency merely because they masquerade as drama or literature. It is preposterous to banish topless waitresses when there is no bottom to voyeurism on the stage or in the movie houses.
Just as Berns or Bork might have put it themselves!
Berns thought the ultimate case for censorship was not protecting the morals of individuals, but protecting democracy itself:
Censorship, because it inhibits self-indulgence and supports the idea of propriety and impropriety, protects political democracy; paradoxically, when it faces the problem of the justified and unjustified use of obscenity, censorship also serves to maintain the distinction between art and trash and, therefore, to protect are and, thereby, to enhance the quality of this democracy.
It is probably too much to hope that our jurists would revisit or revive legal scrutiny of obscenity, which is too narrow for current purposes and the question of philanthropy anyway. The example of the political branches restricting the scope of NEA grantmaking suggests going a step further--and beyond merely the arts. With the degradation of the humanities and social sciences at our universities today, I can imagine Berns embracing the proposal to end indirect taxpayer support for the arts, humanities, and social sciences--the latter two because they have become so dominated by forces essentially hostile to western civilization and the open-market system that generates the very wealth that our elite new class uses to attack it. Ending the indirect taxpayer support through tax-exempt grantmaking wouldn't be censoring anyone; it would only mean that the destructors in our midst would no longer enjoy a taxpayer subsidy.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/philanthropy-and-decadence-what-would-walter-berns-do/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Florida's 'Farm-to-Hospital' Pledge to Expand Fresh, Medically Tailored Meals for Patients
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on March 30, 2026:
* * *
Florida's "Farm-to-Hospital" Pledge to Expand Fresh, Medically Tailored Meals for Patients
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz attend Miami launch
*
MIAMI, FL-- Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) convened federal, state, and local healthcare leaders at Nicklaus Children's Hospital for a "Take Back Your Health" event with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on March 30, 2026:
* * *
Florida's "Farm-to-Hospital" Pledge to Expand Fresh, Medically Tailored Meals for Patients
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz attend Miami launch
*
MIAMI, FL-- Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) convened federal, state, and local healthcare leaders at Nicklaus Children's Hospital for a "Take Back Your Health" event with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & MedicaidServices (CMS), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
The event announced Florida's first voluntary, statewide pledge connecting hospitals with farmers who can provide whole foods for patients. Building on a groundbreaking initiative in Kentucky, this cross-sector collaboration will expand access to fresh, nutrient-dense, medically tailored meals, especially for children receiving care in specialized units.
"Thanks to the America First Policy Institute for advocating to improve nutrition in health care. And thank you to Nicklaus Children's Health System President & CEO Matthew Love and his outstanding team for your hospitality, your leadership, and your commitment to putting real food on patients' plates," said Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "Quality health care starts with quality food. The actions announced today will help improve patient outcomes, prevent chronic disease, and Make America Healthy Again."
The pledge, offered by Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson, creates a pathway for all Florida hospitals to source higher volumes from local producers, strengthening nutrition strategies for patients. It will also help overcome contracting and procurement barriers that have historically limited farm-to-hospital sourcing.
"Any time we can encourage connecting our Florida farmers with customers is a triple win. We get healthy food to consumers, we support our local economy, and we strengthen our national security through domestic supply," said Commissioner Simpson. "Florida's Department of Agriculture has a successful program for food banks and we stand ready to expand our Farmers Feeding Florida program to our hospitals and patients. We are grateful for the leadership of President Trump and his administration for this effort."
Nicklaus Children's Hospital and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are the first to sign the pledge, with hospitals across the state encouraged to join.
The day of events, coinciding with National Nutrition month, kicked off with a private roundtable with hospital executives and food-system partners to discuss scalable solutions that support better health outcomes and healthier communities. Following the roundtable, Secretary Kennedy visited patients and staff to highlight the role of nutrition and tailored meals in medical care.
The programming culminated in a press conference outlining the partnership's goals and next steps, including the vision to expand farm-to-hospital models in states across the country. Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz also announced that CMS sent out a health and safety memo to American hospitals today to encourage compliance with the Dietary Guidelines of America.
Select photos from the event are available here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2navmlemp4ba7ff2km9tg/AC4eBKo5Pfc_gCXZ8NSFQMw?rlkey=qr84fd230gzbk5xt15jnmabw1&e=1&st=sb09yjm4&dl=0), approved for use with credit to the America First Policy Institute (AFPI).
The Nicklaus-Florida Department of Agriculture partnership is expected to support initiatives that may include:
* Expanded farm-to-hospital purchasing and streamlined sourcing pathways for local producers, including a commitment from participating hospitals to spend at least 5% of their yearly food and drink budget on nutritious, whole foods that align with the new federal Dietary Guidelines
* Workforce and training programs connected to nutrition services and food preparation
* Medically tailored meal strategies designed for specific patient populations
* Partnerships that help hospitals improve food quality and nutrient density across menus
"Florida is showing what's possible when healthcare leaders, agriculture, and public officials work together to put patients first," said Hannah Anderson, AFPI Director of Healthy America Policy and Senior Director of Policy. "This is about practical solutions--better food, better health, and a model that can be replicated nationwide."
"Every state should be able to do this," said Stacey Schieffelin, AFPI Chief External Affairs Officer and Chair of the America First Women's Initiative. "This is not red or blue--this is about feeding the American people and helping families live healthier lives."
America First Policy Institute is proud to support efforts to elevate scalable, nonpartisan solutions that improve nutrition, strengthen local agriculture, and help institutions deliver healthier food to the people they serve.
Learn more about AFPI's Healthy America work here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/policy-areas/healthy-america).
Learn more about AFPI's Farmers First Agenda here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/policy-areas/farmers-first-agenda).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/floridas-farm-to-hospital-pledge-to-expand-fresh-medically-tailored-meals-for-patients
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to South Florida Sun Sentinel: From Hospital to Home - Fixing America's Health Starts With Food
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on March 30, 2026, by Florida state chapter chair Bob Rommel to the South Florida Sun Sentinel:
* * *
From Hospital to Home: Fixing America's Health Starts with Food
Today, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will visit Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami to highlight a first-of-its-kind initiative connecting local farms directly with healthcare providers. This partnership--aligned with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Take Back Your Health initiative--will bring fresh, nutrient-dense
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on March 30, 2026, by Florida state chapter chair Bob Rommel to the South Florida Sun Sentinel:
* * *
From Hospital to Home: Fixing America's Health Starts with Food
Today, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will visit Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami to highlight a first-of-its-kind initiative connecting local farms directly with healthcare providers. This partnership--aligned with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Take Back Your Health initiative--will bring fresh, nutrient-densefood and medically tailored meals to patients, including children in pediatric oncology units.
Earlier this year the federal government released the new Dietary Guidelines, the nutrition standards that shape everything from school lunches to federal food programs across the country. The message from the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture was simple: Americans need to get back to eating real food.
What Americans eat shows up in how long we live - and how well. The updated Dietary Guidelines turn that simple, timeless truth into practical guidance for American families.
To keep reading, click here (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2026/03/30/from-hospital-to-home-fixing-americas-health-starts-with-food-opinion/).
* * *
Bob Rommel, Chair, AFPI Florida
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/from-hospital-to-home-fixing-americas-health-starts-with-food
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Opinion: $100,000 in Social Security Benefits Is Too Much
NEW YORK, March 31 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on March 30, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
$100,000 in Social Security Benefits Is Too Much
When someone says a retiree is "living off Social Security," it's not usually $100,000 a year. But some US retired couples will be receiving that much in a few years -- and a proposal to cap their benefit at that amount has started a painful and much-needed conversation about who should get government benefits and how much.
America's welfare state is not just a safety net
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 31 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on March 30, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
$100,000 in Social Security Benefits Is Too Much
When someone says a retiree is "living off Social Security," it's not usually $100,000 a year. But some US retired couples will be receiving that much in a few years -- and a proposal to cap their benefit at that amount has started a painful and much-needed conversation about who should get government benefits and how much.
America's welfare state is not just a safety netfor the most needy or unlucky. Over time, it has become a significant source of income and services for the middle and upper-middle class. There is nothing wrong with that, in principle, if it's what Americans want. In reality, however, the federal government cannot afford it. Cutting benefits for wealthy retirees is an obvious first step, but truly getting the debt under control will require reductions for other people, too.
The $100,000 annual Social Security benefit -- which will go to about 0.05% of retired couples at first -- may seem unbelievable. But if you and your spouse have both earned the maximum salary for the last 35 years (it was $53,400 in 1991 and is currently $184,000), and you each claim your own benefits, your household will get $99,648 this year, indexed for inflation. If you both wait till age 70 to claim, you'll get nearly $125,000.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-03-30/-100-000-in-social-security-benefits-is-too-much)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/100000-in-social-security-benefits-is-too-much
[Category: ThinkTank]
