Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Statement From Groundwork's Lindsay Owens on DoorDash's $17 Billion Acquisition of Instacart
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
Statement From Groundwork's Lindsay Owens on DoorDash's $17 Billion Acquisition of Instacart
October 29, 2026
Move follows FTC's demand that DoorDash, Instacart, seven other companies provide information on their use of personal data to set prices and compensation
-
In response to the news that DoorDash has agreed to acquire Instacart for $17 billion, Lindsay Owens - President and CEO of the economic think tank Groundwork Collaborative and author of new book, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release: * * * Statement From Groundwork's Lindsay Owens on DoorDash's $17 Billion Acquisition of Instacart October 29, 2026 Move follows FTC's demand that DoorDash, Instacart, seven other companies provide information on their use of personal data to set prices and compensation - In response to the news that DoorDash has agreed to acquire Instacart for $17 billion, Lindsay Owens - President and CEO of the economic think tank Groundwork Collaborative and author of new book,Gouged: The End of a Fair Price--and What That Means for Your Wallet - released the following statement.
"A grocery company that made its fortune running experiments on shoppers to determine how much they can overcharge them is now merging with a delivery company that built tech to track its customers' every click and scroll to charge them as much as it can. The goal of the merger is obvious: DoorDash is openly touting that the deal will combine the AI tools that each company has built.
The FTC knows these two companies are at the forefront of unfair and deceptive pricing technology, which is why it ordered them to open up their pricing labs just yesterday. Two of the biggest ripoff machines in America should not be allowed to become one. The FTC must block this merger."
Groundwork and Owens have been leading the charge against corporations' harmful adoption of surveillance pricing and AI pricing tools, putting a spotlight on how they are reinventing the ripoff - and forcing some to run damage control or even end their deceptive pricing outright:
* An investigation by Groundwork Collaborative, Consumer Reports, and More Perfect Union into Instacart's pricing experiments found that many U.S. shoppers who order grocery pickup and delivery through Instacart are unknowingly enrolled in AI-enabled experiments that can charge up to 23% more for the same item ordered from the same store at the same time, which could cost a household of four about $1,200 per year. After facing public backlash and a probe from the FTC, Instacart shut down its pricing lab.
* Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, Owens called out Target, DoorDash, Walmart, Uber, JetBlue, and Instacart for their use of surveillance pricing and other deceptive tactics that are used to cheat consumers out of their hard-earned money.
* Just yesterday, the FTC announced an investigation into nine companies on the forefront of surveillance pricing, including both DoorDash and Instacart. The FTC's inquiry comes after Congress put bipartisan pressure on the FTC to investigate surveillance pricing - including in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing that Owens participated in.
* * *
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/statement-from-groundworks-lindsay-owens-on-doordashs-17-billion-acquisition-of-instacart/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Statement From Groundwork's Lindsay Owens on DoorDash's $17 Billion Acquisition of Instacart
October 29, 2026
Move follows FTC's demand that DoorDash, Instacart, seven other companies provide information on their use of personal data to set prices and compensation
-
In response to the news that DoorDash has agreed to acquire Instacart for $17 billion, Lindsay Owens - President and CEO of the economic think tank Groundwork Collaborative and author of new book, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release: * * * Statement From Groundwork's Lindsay Owens on DoorDash's $17 Billion Acquisition of Instacart October 29, 2026 Move follows FTC's demand that DoorDash, Instacart, seven other companies provide information on their use of personal data to set prices and compensation - In response to the news that DoorDash has agreed to acquire Instacart for $17 billion, Lindsay Owens - President and CEO of the economic think tank Groundwork Collaborative and author of new book,Gouged: The End of a Fair Price--and What That Means for Your Wallet - released the following statement.
"A grocery company that made its fortune running experiments on shoppers to determine how much they can overcharge them is now merging with a delivery company that built tech to track its customers' every click and scroll to charge them as much as it can. The goal of the merger is obvious: DoorDash is openly touting that the deal will combine the AI tools that each company has built.
The FTC knows these two companies are at the forefront of unfair and deceptive pricing technology, which is why it ordered them to open up their pricing labs just yesterday. Two of the biggest ripoff machines in America should not be allowed to become one. The FTC must block this merger."
Groundwork and Owens have been leading the charge against corporations' harmful adoption of surveillance pricing and AI pricing tools, putting a spotlight on how they are reinventing the ripoff - and forcing some to run damage control or even end their deceptive pricing outright:
* An investigation by Groundwork Collaborative, Consumer Reports, and More Perfect Union into Instacart's pricing experiments found that many U.S. shoppers who order grocery pickup and delivery through Instacart are unknowingly enrolled in AI-enabled experiments that can charge up to 23% more for the same item ordered from the same store at the same time, which could cost a household of four about $1,200 per year. After facing public backlash and a probe from the FTC, Instacart shut down its pricing lab.
* Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, Owens called out Target, DoorDash, Walmart, Uber, JetBlue, and Instacart for their use of surveillance pricing and other deceptive tactics that are used to cheat consumers out of their hard-earned money.
* Just yesterday, the FTC announced an investigation into nine companies on the forefront of surveillance pricing, including both DoorDash and Instacart. The FTC's inquiry comes after Congress put bipartisan pressure on the FTC to investigate surveillance pricing - including in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing that Owens participated in.
* * *
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/statement-from-groundworks-lindsay-owens-on-doordashs-17-billion-acquisition-of-instacart/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Rand Issues Commentary: America's Least Bad Option in Iran
SANTA MONICA, California, Oct. 30 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Oct. 29, 2026, to :
* * *
America's Least Bad Option in Iran
By Raphael S. Cohen and Howard J. Shatz
So far, the Iran war has cost the United States 800 casualties, tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of damaged or destroyed buildings on U.S. military bases in the region, and a drawdown of munitions that is straining supplies. Fuel prices have risen sharply since the start of the war, pushing U.S. inflation to a level last seen in 2023. According to polls, most Americans do not believe there was "sufficient reason" ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Oct. 30 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Oct. 29, 2026, to : * * * America's Least Bad Option in Iran By Raphael S. Cohen and Howard J. Shatz So far, the Iran war has cost the United States 800 casualties, tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of damaged or destroyed buildings on U.S. military bases in the region, and a drawdown of munitions that is straining supplies. Fuel prices have risen sharply since the start of the war, pushing U.S. inflation to a level last seen in 2023. According to polls, most Americans do not believe there was "sufficient reason"for the United States to attack Iran, and public opposition to the war has increased over time. And there is little sign that the fighting is coming to a close. As of now, the Iranian regime seems disinclined to cease its attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, stop its regional proxies from attacking elsewhere, or curb its nuclear program.
What should the United States do now?
In broad strokes, there are three options. First, ramp the war back up. Some--including U.S. President Donald Trump--have floated the idea of returning to a full-scale bombing campaign similar to what we saw during the conflict's initial phase. Others have proposed escalating the war, for example by using ground forces to seize Iranian territory.
At the other end of the spectrum lies a second option: The United States could walk away from the conflict. Even Republican supporters of the Trump administration have increasingly called for an end to the war.
The third option is to stay the current course: Maintain the blockade and economic pressure campaign, respond with force when Iran or its proxies strike U.S. or partner targets, and push for negotiations that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the Iranian nuclear program. Of the three options, this may be the least satisfying; it almost certainly will not bring quick results. But it is strategically prudent.
As messy as the conflict has been, the U.S. blockade of Iran and the wider Operation Economic Outcast are going in the direction that the United States wants. Iran is imploding economically. Its currency recently traded at 2.5 million rials to the dollar, a dramatic depreciation from about 630,000 to the dollar in 2024. Inflation has recently reached almost 90 percent, with food inflation at almost 130 percent. Moreover, Iran's floating oil storage--a shadow fleet of tankers anchored outside the Strait of Hormuz, whose cargo has mitigated some of the effects of the blockade--is now depleted. That further increases the pressure on the Iranian economy.
Although the U.S. spot price has risen above $100 per barrel at times, oil is still priced well below previous peaks once you adjust for inflation. Middle Eastern crude is also again flowing out of the region at near prewar levels, although other critical commodities--liquefied natural gas, refined fuels, fertilizer--remain bottlenecked.
To be fair, economic coercion--even when it causes a full economic crisis--has a mixed track record in effecting regime change. Major economic dislocations have sometimes led to dramatic changes in government, as in Yugoslavia following years of economic problems in the 1980s. Inflationary crises can facilitate democratization, as happened in much of Latin America in the 1980s. But in other cases, such as the U.S. pressure campaigns against Cuba and North Korea, the regimes were still able to use what resources they had to maintain their hold on power.
The history of the last Iran nuclear deal shows that economic pressure campaigns have a better record when they are aimed at achieving more modest objectives. In that case, mounting economic duress forced even the Iranian regime's hard-liners to the negotiating table. This time around, the regime seems even less inclined to make concessions, at least judging from its public statements, but the pressure campaign is also more extreme.
The primary downside to maintaining the current approach is that it is unlikely to lead to a swift resolution of the conflict. Strategies built around economic pressure generally take months or even years to succeed. But time is on Washington's side. The blockade is continuing to bite under economic conditions that some deem "unbearable," with unemployment rising and this year's GDP projected to shrink by 7.6 percent. If Iran can stabilize its economy, the United States will need to alter its approach. But if not, the Iranian regime--as fractured and hard-line as it may be--will sooner or later need to compromise to avoid collapse.
Moreover, the alternatives to staying the course are worse. Resuming a full-scale war to "blow the entire nation up" is unlikely to be feasible. Even if we bracket concerns over U.S. weapons stockpiles, air campaigns alone have rarely succeeded in overthrowing a government. Plus, given the intensity of the bombardment in the opening weeks of the war, it's hard to imagine what more the United States could do from the air that would tip the balance. Removing the Iranian regime by ground power would be a Herculean undertaking: Compared with Iraq, the site of the last major U.S. war in the region, Iran has nearly double the population and almost quadruple the territory.
Returning to large-scale conflict would also come at a cost. Despite the effectiveness of the bombardment from February to April, Iran still has the ability to produce missiles and drones. U.S. military casualties stand at 15 killed and more than 800 wounded, a figure that would almost certainly rise if the conflict intensified. Similarly, the war has already taken a toll on military equipment and bases in the region, and more damage would be incurred if the conflict flares up again. Then there are the less tangible costs, such as the erosion of Washington's global reputation, especially if military strikes hit civilian infrastructure.
Then there is the global economic cost of a renewed large-scale conflict. Analysts estimate that it could take years to fully repair the damage to the Middle East's energy infrastructure that has occurred so far. A return to hostilities would risk further damage to these already battered facilities, not to mention the prospect of even higher energy prices.
More modest military options also come with significant risks. The most widely discussed option is the seizure of Kharg Island, an island around 20 miles off the Iranian coast that serves as the country's hub for 90 percent of its oil exports. This would aim to either destabilize the regime or use the island as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Although the United States certainly has the capacity to seize the island, the challenge would be holding the territory afterward. The island is well within range of Iranian missiles and drones, leaving any troops stationed there and resupply efforts vulnerable to attack. Air defenses provide only a partial solution, so the United States would likely sustain casualties. This would also create political pressure on the United States to abandon the island prematurely--before it could pressure Iran into a lasting settlement.
Walking away from the war, by contrast, carries its own costs. Iran has so far rejected proposals to allow the free passage of global exports through Hormuz in exchange for an end to the blockade. Unilaterally dropping the blockade would effectively leave the Strait of Hormuz in Iranian hands, allowing the regime to tax transiting ships as it sees fit. Iran has reportedly stated that it wants to charge oil tankers approximately $1 per barrel--or about $2 million per ship--for safe passage. Iran could use that revenue to strengthen the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' coercive control over the state and fund its proxy militias across the region. This would also grant Iran a powerful economic weapon to wield in the future and leave the United States with less leverage in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Furthermore, a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would have repercussions across the region. The Iran war is not the only violent conflict in the Middle East today. Others include the Israeli-Iranian conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Yemeni civil war, the Saudi Arabia-Houthi war, ongoing Iranian attacks on Iraqi Kurdistan, and Sunni jihadist terrorism. None of these go away if U.S.-Iran war ends, and some may even intensify. After all, Iran would perceive a U.S. withdrawal as a win against its superpower archrival, leaving it emboldened to act with greater freedom across the region. With the blockade lifted, Tehran could resume funding its various proxy groups, which have been weakened by the effects of the war. That would be bad news for regional stability, global energy prices, and U.S. inflation.
The fallout wouldn't stop there. Iranian malign activity spans the globe. Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group, is active in Latin America. Iranian officials tried to assassinate senior U.S. officials inside the United States. Most recently, Iran was allegedly behind an attempt to attack a Royal Air Force base in Britain and a number of other plots targeting civilians in Europe. Unbound and bent on revenge, Iran is unlikely to be contained to just one corner of the globe.
Walking away from Iran could also exacerbate the United States' other strategic problems. As China, Russia, and North Korea become increasingly aligned with Iran and each other, a victory for Tehran would benefit them all. Iran has supplied Russia with drones for the latter's war in Ukraine and recently deepened its military cooperation with the Kremlin. Iran also enjoys close ties with China, providing it with energy and buying Chinese dual-use technology. After a perceived victory over the United States, Iranian cooperation with both countries would only strengthen. Adversaries would also point to this as evidence of the United States' abandoning its allies in the Middle East, which would certainly not help rehabilitate Washington's international reputation.
Sticking with the current approach is unlikely to result in a clean and quick end to the war. But sometimes an imperfect option is actually the right one--if only because the others are that much worse.
This commentary was originally published by Foreign Policy on October 26, 2026 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/10/26/iran-war-trump-options-escalation-blockade-hormuz/).
* * *
More About This Commentary
Raphael S. Cohen is the director of the RAND School of Public Policy's national security and technology policy programs and the director of RAND Project Air Force's Strategy and Doctrine Program.
Howard J. Shatz is a senior economist at RAND and a professor of public policy at the RAND School of Public Policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/10/americas-least-bad-option-in-iran.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
America's Least Bad Option in Iran
By Raphael S. Cohen and Howard J. Shatz
So far, the Iran war has cost the United States 800 casualties, tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of damaged or destroyed buildings on U.S. military bases in the region, and a drawdown of munitions that is straining supplies. Fuel prices have risen sharply since the start of the war, pushing U.S. inflation to a level last seen in 2023. According to polls, most Americans do not believe there was "sufficient reason" ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Oct. 30 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Oct. 29, 2026, to : * * * America's Least Bad Option in Iran By Raphael S. Cohen and Howard J. Shatz So far, the Iran war has cost the United States 800 casualties, tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of damaged or destroyed buildings on U.S. military bases in the region, and a drawdown of munitions that is straining supplies. Fuel prices have risen sharply since the start of the war, pushing U.S. inflation to a level last seen in 2023. According to polls, most Americans do not believe there was "sufficient reason"for the United States to attack Iran, and public opposition to the war has increased over time. And there is little sign that the fighting is coming to a close. As of now, the Iranian regime seems disinclined to cease its attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, stop its regional proxies from attacking elsewhere, or curb its nuclear program.
What should the United States do now?
In broad strokes, there are three options. First, ramp the war back up. Some--including U.S. President Donald Trump--have floated the idea of returning to a full-scale bombing campaign similar to what we saw during the conflict's initial phase. Others have proposed escalating the war, for example by using ground forces to seize Iranian territory.
At the other end of the spectrum lies a second option: The United States could walk away from the conflict. Even Republican supporters of the Trump administration have increasingly called for an end to the war.
The third option is to stay the current course: Maintain the blockade and economic pressure campaign, respond with force when Iran or its proxies strike U.S. or partner targets, and push for negotiations that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the Iranian nuclear program. Of the three options, this may be the least satisfying; it almost certainly will not bring quick results. But it is strategically prudent.
As messy as the conflict has been, the U.S. blockade of Iran and the wider Operation Economic Outcast are going in the direction that the United States wants. Iran is imploding economically. Its currency recently traded at 2.5 million rials to the dollar, a dramatic depreciation from about 630,000 to the dollar in 2024. Inflation has recently reached almost 90 percent, with food inflation at almost 130 percent. Moreover, Iran's floating oil storage--a shadow fleet of tankers anchored outside the Strait of Hormuz, whose cargo has mitigated some of the effects of the blockade--is now depleted. That further increases the pressure on the Iranian economy.
Although the U.S. spot price has risen above $100 per barrel at times, oil is still priced well below previous peaks once you adjust for inflation. Middle Eastern crude is also again flowing out of the region at near prewar levels, although other critical commodities--liquefied natural gas, refined fuels, fertilizer--remain bottlenecked.
To be fair, economic coercion--even when it causes a full economic crisis--has a mixed track record in effecting regime change. Major economic dislocations have sometimes led to dramatic changes in government, as in Yugoslavia following years of economic problems in the 1980s. Inflationary crises can facilitate democratization, as happened in much of Latin America in the 1980s. But in other cases, such as the U.S. pressure campaigns against Cuba and North Korea, the regimes were still able to use what resources they had to maintain their hold on power.
The history of the last Iran nuclear deal shows that economic pressure campaigns have a better record when they are aimed at achieving more modest objectives. In that case, mounting economic duress forced even the Iranian regime's hard-liners to the negotiating table. This time around, the regime seems even less inclined to make concessions, at least judging from its public statements, but the pressure campaign is also more extreme.
The primary downside to maintaining the current approach is that it is unlikely to lead to a swift resolution of the conflict. Strategies built around economic pressure generally take months or even years to succeed. But time is on Washington's side. The blockade is continuing to bite under economic conditions that some deem "unbearable," with unemployment rising and this year's GDP projected to shrink by 7.6 percent. If Iran can stabilize its economy, the United States will need to alter its approach. But if not, the Iranian regime--as fractured and hard-line as it may be--will sooner or later need to compromise to avoid collapse.
Moreover, the alternatives to staying the course are worse. Resuming a full-scale war to "blow the entire nation up" is unlikely to be feasible. Even if we bracket concerns over U.S. weapons stockpiles, air campaigns alone have rarely succeeded in overthrowing a government. Plus, given the intensity of the bombardment in the opening weeks of the war, it's hard to imagine what more the United States could do from the air that would tip the balance. Removing the Iranian regime by ground power would be a Herculean undertaking: Compared with Iraq, the site of the last major U.S. war in the region, Iran has nearly double the population and almost quadruple the territory.
Returning to large-scale conflict would also come at a cost. Despite the effectiveness of the bombardment from February to April, Iran still has the ability to produce missiles and drones. U.S. military casualties stand at 15 killed and more than 800 wounded, a figure that would almost certainly rise if the conflict intensified. Similarly, the war has already taken a toll on military equipment and bases in the region, and more damage would be incurred if the conflict flares up again. Then there are the less tangible costs, such as the erosion of Washington's global reputation, especially if military strikes hit civilian infrastructure.
Then there is the global economic cost of a renewed large-scale conflict. Analysts estimate that it could take years to fully repair the damage to the Middle East's energy infrastructure that has occurred so far. A return to hostilities would risk further damage to these already battered facilities, not to mention the prospect of even higher energy prices.
More modest military options also come with significant risks. The most widely discussed option is the seizure of Kharg Island, an island around 20 miles off the Iranian coast that serves as the country's hub for 90 percent of its oil exports. This would aim to either destabilize the regime or use the island as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Although the United States certainly has the capacity to seize the island, the challenge would be holding the territory afterward. The island is well within range of Iranian missiles and drones, leaving any troops stationed there and resupply efforts vulnerable to attack. Air defenses provide only a partial solution, so the United States would likely sustain casualties. This would also create political pressure on the United States to abandon the island prematurely--before it could pressure Iran into a lasting settlement.
Walking away from the war, by contrast, carries its own costs. Iran has so far rejected proposals to allow the free passage of global exports through Hormuz in exchange for an end to the blockade. Unilaterally dropping the blockade would effectively leave the Strait of Hormuz in Iranian hands, allowing the regime to tax transiting ships as it sees fit. Iran has reportedly stated that it wants to charge oil tankers approximately $1 per barrel--or about $2 million per ship--for safe passage. Iran could use that revenue to strengthen the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' coercive control over the state and fund its proxy militias across the region. This would also grant Iran a powerful economic weapon to wield in the future and leave the United States with less leverage in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Furthermore, a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would have repercussions across the region. The Iran war is not the only violent conflict in the Middle East today. Others include the Israeli-Iranian conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Yemeni civil war, the Saudi Arabia-Houthi war, ongoing Iranian attacks on Iraqi Kurdistan, and Sunni jihadist terrorism. None of these go away if U.S.-Iran war ends, and some may even intensify. After all, Iran would perceive a U.S. withdrawal as a win against its superpower archrival, leaving it emboldened to act with greater freedom across the region. With the blockade lifted, Tehran could resume funding its various proxy groups, which have been weakened by the effects of the war. That would be bad news for regional stability, global energy prices, and U.S. inflation.
The fallout wouldn't stop there. Iranian malign activity spans the globe. Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group, is active in Latin America. Iranian officials tried to assassinate senior U.S. officials inside the United States. Most recently, Iran was allegedly behind an attempt to attack a Royal Air Force base in Britain and a number of other plots targeting civilians in Europe. Unbound and bent on revenge, Iran is unlikely to be contained to just one corner of the globe.
Walking away from Iran could also exacerbate the United States' other strategic problems. As China, Russia, and North Korea become increasingly aligned with Iran and each other, a victory for Tehran would benefit them all. Iran has supplied Russia with drones for the latter's war in Ukraine and recently deepened its military cooperation with the Kremlin. Iran also enjoys close ties with China, providing it with energy and buying Chinese dual-use technology. After a perceived victory over the United States, Iranian cooperation with both countries would only strengthen. Adversaries would also point to this as evidence of the United States' abandoning its allies in the Middle East, which would certainly not help rehabilitate Washington's international reputation.
Sticking with the current approach is unlikely to result in a clean and quick end to the war. But sometimes an imperfect option is actually the right one--if only because the others are that much worse.
This commentary was originally published by Foreign Policy on October 26, 2026 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/10/26/iran-war-trump-options-escalation-blockade-hormuz/).
* * *
More About This Commentary
Raphael S. Cohen is the director of the RAND School of Public Policy's national security and technology policy programs and the director of RAND Project Air Force's Strategy and Doctrine Program.
Howard J. Shatz is a senior economist at RAND and a professor of public policy at the RAND School of Public Policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/10/americas-least-bad-option-in-iran.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Death of Northern Man Leader Reorders Extreme Right of Russian Nationalism
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 29, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Death of Northern Man Leader Reorders Extreme Right of Russian Nationalism
Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* The death of Mikhail Mavashi, 41, the rap star behind the Northern Man group, in a reported automobile accident, reduces the chances that his extreme Russian nationalist group will threaten Russia with widespread violence by attracting veterans to their banner.
* Any hopes that Mavashi's death will be followed by the demise of the Northern ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 29, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Death of Northern Man Leader Reorders Extreme Right of Russian Nationalism Paul Goble Executive Summary: * The death of Mikhail Mavashi, 41, the rap star behind the Northern Man group, in a reported automobile accident, reduces the chances that his extreme Russian nationalist group will threaten Russia with widespread violence by attracting veterans to their banner. * Any hopes that Mavashi's death will be followed by the demise of the NorthernMan group and its violence are misplaced given that its members are already threatening new attacks and that other Russian nationalist groups will seek to win over its members.
* The Kremlin will certainly find new Northern Man violence easier to deal with as this will undoubtedly come from regional branches rather than the center, but it will face real difficulties if groups like the Russian Community adopt Northern Man approaches.
-
Rap star Mikhail Mavashi, 41, who was behind the Northern Man group, died in a reported automobile accident on October 14 (Ekho FM, October 25). The Northern Man group is informed by paganist ideas and the conviction that others are not doing enough, including through using violence, to back Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine, expel immigrants, and instill traditional Russian values. His death reduces the chances that this extreme Russian nationalist group will attract returning veterans and threaten Russian society with a mounting tide of violence, something the Kremlin has long feared (Meduza, September 12, 2025; see EDM, September 18, 2025). Mavashi's death does not eliminate that threat entirely, however, as members of the Northern Man organization say they will use violence against anyone who attempts to exploit their leader's passing. In the wake of Mavashi's death, they are less likely to act as an all-Russian force and more likely to operate through the organization's regional structures across the country (Window on Eurasia, October 26). Moscow will find that easier, but it will face another challenge at the same time. The Russian Community, the largest Russian nationalist group and one with close ties to the Kremlin, is likely to adopt some of Northern Man's approach to win over its supporters and gain recruits from returning veterans (see EDM, October 15, 2024, May 27, July 30, 2025).
Since Mavashi set up the Northern Man group in 2022, it has lived in the shadow of the Russian Community (BBC Russian Service, June 7, 2024). The latter is better funded and more closely connected to both the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church. Many also dismiss Mavashi as just a rap music star who took his group's name from a song he wrote and who speaks more through music than through typical political declarations, rather than a serious political leader (Meduza, October 12, 2025). Because he is a rapper, however, his messages to his followers are simple and direct. He routinely called for expanding support of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, promoting Slavic unity, opposing immigration, promoting traditional values, and using violence to achieve those ends (Ukrainian News, October 25). Those goals and the call for violence to achieve them in particular attracted many less well-educated Russians. Veterans of the war against Ukraine powered the growth of the Northern Man group and forced even Russian government officials to take notice, even if most commentators dismissed the Northern Man as an afterthought to the Russian Community. Not only has the Russian Community been forced to cooperate with Northern Man despite their differences on religion and methods, but various regional governments in the Russian Federation have felt compelled to cooperate with Northern Man branches and include representatives of Mavrashi's organization in their advisory groups (7x7, November 20, 2023; Natsional'niy Aktsent, April 29, 2024; NGRegion, June 30, 2024). Northern Man is thus more important than many acknowledge, especially because it can reach groups the Russian political elite often ignores.
Between the group's founding and Mavashi's death, Northern Man has become more active in promoting its goals, even creating paramilitary groups to do so (7x7, November 20, 2023; Orlovckiye Novosti, March 23, 2025). Using these forces, it has repeatedly attacked ethnic minorities and those who have questioned the implementation of what Putin calls "Russian traditional values," sometimes working with the Russian authorities or with other Russian nationalist groups like the Russian Community or the Forty of Forties and sometimes on its own at cross purposes with others (NGregion, June 30, 2024; Ruskaya narodnaya liniya, December 2, 2021). Overall, and despite the lack of mainstream coverage in Moscow and the West, the Northern Man group has been remarkably successful in blocking the activities of others it does not approve of and in promoting its own agenda, even at times when the Russian authorities have blocked those of others (Telegram/@mikhailmavashi, November 5, 2024).
In important respects, Mavashi and his Northern Man group recall Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). Zhirinovsky was often dismissed as a clown, but his influence and ideas spread widely in Russia during his lifetime and afterward precisely because he said bluntly what others were afraid, or at least unwilling, to say. Because of this parallel, the Kremlin has always been wary of groups like Northern Man, even when it sees them as useful fellow travelers on particular occasions. That caution explains why the Kremlin has become ever more nervous about Mavashi and the Northern Man group as the number of veterans returning from Putin's war against Ukraine has skyrocketed and expanded the number of people in the Russian Federation ready to listen to Mavashi and support the Northern Man group even when that puts the organizer and his organization at odds with the Kremlin authorities (see EDM, September 28, 2025).
There is little doubt that at least some in the Kremlin are not unhappy that Mavashi himself has departed from the scene. They may even be convinced that without his charisma, the entire Northern Man project will collapse, since it was his rap music that set not only the tone but also the group's agenda. As some have been forced to acknowledge about the impact of Zhirinovsky after his death, however, Mavashi's influence and hence that of his Northern Man organization could even increase despite the absence of obvious successors and the lack of outside supporters, just as has been the case with Zhirinovsky and the LDPR (The Moscow Time, October 7). If that should prove to be so in this case, then Mavrashi's death could hardly have come at a worse time for the Kremlin given that the Northern Man group has become a symbol precisely when veterans of Putin's expanded war against Ukraine are flooding back into the country and providing him and his organization with an expanded support base.
While Mavrashi personally may not benefit from this, his organization, and even more the other major Russian nationalist project, the Russian Community, almost certainly will. The Northern Man group is simply too large to destroy all at once, especially since many of its values align with the Kremlin's, and the Russian Community will undoubtedly seek to win over Northern Man members and gain the supporters it expected from returning veterans. These moves will challenge the Kremlin's control of that group and make it harder for Putin to manage how Mavrashi's demise has reshaped the extreme right of the Russian nationalist world.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/death-of-northern-man-leader-reorders-extreme-right-of-russian-nationalism/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Death of Northern Man Leader Reorders Extreme Right of Russian Nationalism
Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* The death of Mikhail Mavashi, 41, the rap star behind the Northern Man group, in a reported automobile accident, reduces the chances that his extreme Russian nationalist group will threaten Russia with widespread violence by attracting veterans to their banner.
* Any hopes that Mavashi's death will be followed by the demise of the Northern ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 29, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Death of Northern Man Leader Reorders Extreme Right of Russian Nationalism Paul Goble Executive Summary: * The death of Mikhail Mavashi, 41, the rap star behind the Northern Man group, in a reported automobile accident, reduces the chances that his extreme Russian nationalist group will threaten Russia with widespread violence by attracting veterans to their banner. * Any hopes that Mavashi's death will be followed by the demise of the NorthernMan group and its violence are misplaced given that its members are already threatening new attacks and that other Russian nationalist groups will seek to win over its members.
* The Kremlin will certainly find new Northern Man violence easier to deal with as this will undoubtedly come from regional branches rather than the center, but it will face real difficulties if groups like the Russian Community adopt Northern Man approaches.
-
Rap star Mikhail Mavashi, 41, who was behind the Northern Man group, died in a reported automobile accident on October 14 (Ekho FM, October 25). The Northern Man group is informed by paganist ideas and the conviction that others are not doing enough, including through using violence, to back Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine, expel immigrants, and instill traditional Russian values. His death reduces the chances that this extreme Russian nationalist group will attract returning veterans and threaten Russian society with a mounting tide of violence, something the Kremlin has long feared (Meduza, September 12, 2025; see EDM, September 18, 2025). Mavashi's death does not eliminate that threat entirely, however, as members of the Northern Man organization say they will use violence against anyone who attempts to exploit their leader's passing. In the wake of Mavashi's death, they are less likely to act as an all-Russian force and more likely to operate through the organization's regional structures across the country (Window on Eurasia, October 26). Moscow will find that easier, but it will face another challenge at the same time. The Russian Community, the largest Russian nationalist group and one with close ties to the Kremlin, is likely to adopt some of Northern Man's approach to win over its supporters and gain recruits from returning veterans (see EDM, October 15, 2024, May 27, July 30, 2025).
Since Mavashi set up the Northern Man group in 2022, it has lived in the shadow of the Russian Community (BBC Russian Service, June 7, 2024). The latter is better funded and more closely connected to both the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church. Many also dismiss Mavashi as just a rap music star who took his group's name from a song he wrote and who speaks more through music than through typical political declarations, rather than a serious political leader (Meduza, October 12, 2025). Because he is a rapper, however, his messages to his followers are simple and direct. He routinely called for expanding support of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, promoting Slavic unity, opposing immigration, promoting traditional values, and using violence to achieve those ends (Ukrainian News, October 25). Those goals and the call for violence to achieve them in particular attracted many less well-educated Russians. Veterans of the war against Ukraine powered the growth of the Northern Man group and forced even Russian government officials to take notice, even if most commentators dismissed the Northern Man as an afterthought to the Russian Community. Not only has the Russian Community been forced to cooperate with Northern Man despite their differences on religion and methods, but various regional governments in the Russian Federation have felt compelled to cooperate with Northern Man branches and include representatives of Mavrashi's organization in their advisory groups (7x7, November 20, 2023; Natsional'niy Aktsent, April 29, 2024; NGRegion, June 30, 2024). Northern Man is thus more important than many acknowledge, especially because it can reach groups the Russian political elite often ignores.
Between the group's founding and Mavashi's death, Northern Man has become more active in promoting its goals, even creating paramilitary groups to do so (7x7, November 20, 2023; Orlovckiye Novosti, March 23, 2025). Using these forces, it has repeatedly attacked ethnic minorities and those who have questioned the implementation of what Putin calls "Russian traditional values," sometimes working with the Russian authorities or with other Russian nationalist groups like the Russian Community or the Forty of Forties and sometimes on its own at cross purposes with others (NGregion, June 30, 2024; Ruskaya narodnaya liniya, December 2, 2021). Overall, and despite the lack of mainstream coverage in Moscow and the West, the Northern Man group has been remarkably successful in blocking the activities of others it does not approve of and in promoting its own agenda, even at times when the Russian authorities have blocked those of others (Telegram/@mikhailmavashi, November 5, 2024).
In important respects, Mavashi and his Northern Man group recall Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). Zhirinovsky was often dismissed as a clown, but his influence and ideas spread widely in Russia during his lifetime and afterward precisely because he said bluntly what others were afraid, or at least unwilling, to say. Because of this parallel, the Kremlin has always been wary of groups like Northern Man, even when it sees them as useful fellow travelers on particular occasions. That caution explains why the Kremlin has become ever more nervous about Mavashi and the Northern Man group as the number of veterans returning from Putin's war against Ukraine has skyrocketed and expanded the number of people in the Russian Federation ready to listen to Mavashi and support the Northern Man group even when that puts the organizer and his organization at odds with the Kremlin authorities (see EDM, September 28, 2025).
There is little doubt that at least some in the Kremlin are not unhappy that Mavashi himself has departed from the scene. They may even be convinced that without his charisma, the entire Northern Man project will collapse, since it was his rap music that set not only the tone but also the group's agenda. As some have been forced to acknowledge about the impact of Zhirinovsky after his death, however, Mavashi's influence and hence that of his Northern Man organization could even increase despite the absence of obvious successors and the lack of outside supporters, just as has been the case with Zhirinovsky and the LDPR (The Moscow Time, October 7). If that should prove to be so in this case, then Mavrashi's death could hardly have come at a worse time for the Kremlin given that the Northern Man group has become a symbol precisely when veterans of Putin's expanded war against Ukraine are flooding back into the country and providing him and his organization with an expanded support base.
While Mavrashi personally may not benefit from this, his organization, and even more the other major Russian nationalist project, the Russian Community, almost certainly will. The Northern Man group is simply too large to destroy all at once, especially since many of its values align with the Kremlin's, and the Russian Community will undoubtedly seek to win over Northern Man members and gain the supporters it expected from returning veterans. These moves will challenge the Kremlin's control of that group and make it harder for Putin to manage how Mavrashi's demise has reshaped the extreme right of the Russian nationalist world.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/death-of-northern-man-leader-reorders-extreme-right-of-russian-nationalism/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Why Do Democrats Want New Gun Laws When They Won't Enforce the Ones We Already Have?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Why do Democrats want new gun laws when they won't enforce the ones we already have?
Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026
Back in February, I asked "Why does the DFL want to introduce new laws on gun ownership when the current laws on gun use aren't being enforced?" The question remains pertinent as the party tries to push the issue in the current campaign.
As my colleague Dave Zimmer noted of ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Why do Democrats want new gun laws when they won't enforce the ones we already have? Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026 Back in February, I asked "Why does the DFL want to introduce new laws on gun ownership when the current laws on gun use aren't being enforced?" The question remains pertinent as the party tries to push the issue in the current campaign. As my colleague Dave Zimmer noted ofthe recent gunfight at the homecoming football game in Eden Prairie, it is alleged that Adam Abdihakeem Adam:
- ...intentionally fired a handgun at a group of people in a busy parking lot of a high school, striking two. He could have easily killed several...
- Adam was charged with two counts of 2nd degree assault (as well as a lesser count of "riot") and held on $100,000 bail.
- Earlier this year an ICE agent brandished his firearm during an incident on a freeway during which he believed he was being boxed in by a protestor. The agent did not shoot the firearm or injure anyone during the incident. When a State Trooper interviewed him, the agent fully cooperated and gave a statement about what led to the incident.
- Morgan Kunz charged that ICE agent with two counts of 2nd degree assault and held him on $100,000 bail.
Adam could and should have been charged with attempted murder for allegedly firing a gun into a crowd of people, but the DFL endorsed Hennepin County Attorney, Mary Moriarty, chose to hit him with 2nd degree assault instead.
Today, Dave has another tale of local violence:
- One December 3rd, 2025, at 10:32 pm, Joshua Rocha (21) of Savage, was driving the wrong direction in a lane of traffic near the Mall of America. Bloomington police officers attempted to stop Rocha but he refused for some time.
- After finally getting Rocha to stop, Rocha refused to show his hands and was then observed handling a large rifle. Shortly thereafter, Rocha turned towards three officers who had taken cover behind a police car and fired multiple rounds at the officers, striking the squad car by fortunately missing the officers. Officers returned fire, striking Rocha in the hands, and were able to successfully take him into custody.
Dave reports that "The Hennepin County Attorney's Office initially charged Rocha appropriately with three counts of attempted murder (with intent), and three counts of first-degree assault - use of deadly force against a police officer," but that, during a plea hearing on August 12th, "the Hennepin County Attorney offered to dismiss the three attempted murder charges in exchange for a guilty plea on the three first degree assault charges." The result is that Rocha, who used an "assault-style rifle," "will serve just over eight years in prison and be released back into the community before his 30th birthday."
In this vote harvesting season, the DFL has made much of its desire to impose new laws on gun ownership. One is forced to ask why, when they are so reluctant to enforce the currently existing laws on gun use?
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment. john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/why-do-democrats-want-new-gun-laws-when-they-wont-enforce-the-ones-we-already-have/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Why do Democrats want new gun laws when they won't enforce the ones we already have?
Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026
Back in February, I asked "Why does the DFL want to introduce new laws on gun ownership when the current laws on gun use aren't being enforced?" The question remains pertinent as the party tries to push the issue in the current campaign.
As my colleague Dave Zimmer noted of ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Why do Democrats want new gun laws when they won't enforce the ones we already have? Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026 Back in February, I asked "Why does the DFL want to introduce new laws on gun ownership when the current laws on gun use aren't being enforced?" The question remains pertinent as the party tries to push the issue in the current campaign. As my colleague Dave Zimmer noted ofthe recent gunfight at the homecoming football game in Eden Prairie, it is alleged that Adam Abdihakeem Adam:
- ...intentionally fired a handgun at a group of people in a busy parking lot of a high school, striking two. He could have easily killed several...
- Adam was charged with two counts of 2nd degree assault (as well as a lesser count of "riot") and held on $100,000 bail.
- Earlier this year an ICE agent brandished his firearm during an incident on a freeway during which he believed he was being boxed in by a protestor. The agent did not shoot the firearm or injure anyone during the incident. When a State Trooper interviewed him, the agent fully cooperated and gave a statement about what led to the incident.
- Morgan Kunz charged that ICE agent with two counts of 2nd degree assault and held him on $100,000 bail.
Adam could and should have been charged with attempted murder for allegedly firing a gun into a crowd of people, but the DFL endorsed Hennepin County Attorney, Mary Moriarty, chose to hit him with 2nd degree assault instead.
Today, Dave has another tale of local violence:
- One December 3rd, 2025, at 10:32 pm, Joshua Rocha (21) of Savage, was driving the wrong direction in a lane of traffic near the Mall of America. Bloomington police officers attempted to stop Rocha but he refused for some time.
- After finally getting Rocha to stop, Rocha refused to show his hands and was then observed handling a large rifle. Shortly thereafter, Rocha turned towards three officers who had taken cover behind a police car and fired multiple rounds at the officers, striking the squad car by fortunately missing the officers. Officers returned fire, striking Rocha in the hands, and were able to successfully take him into custody.
Dave reports that "The Hennepin County Attorney's Office initially charged Rocha appropriately with three counts of attempted murder (with intent), and three counts of first-degree assault - use of deadly force against a police officer," but that, during a plea hearing on August 12th, "the Hennepin County Attorney offered to dismiss the three attempted murder charges in exchange for a guilty plea on the three first degree assault charges." The result is that Rocha, who used an "assault-style rifle," "will serve just over eight years in prison and be released back into the community before his 30th birthday."
In this vote harvesting season, the DFL has made much of its desire to impose new laws on gun ownership. One is forced to ask why, when they are so reluctant to enforce the currently existing laws on gun use?
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment. john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/why-do-democrats-want-new-gun-laws-when-they-wont-enforce-the-ones-we-already-have/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Since Metro Surge, Minnesota Has Recorded Above Average Population Growth But Below Average Employment Growth
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Since Metro Surge, Minnesota has recorded above average population growth but below average employment growth
Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026
Yesterday, in a column titled "The Great Wrecking of Minnesota still underway, 10 months later," the Star Tribune's Evan Ramstad, wrote of the economic impact of Operation Metro Surge:
Most significantly, it drove people out of a state that was barely ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Since Metro Surge, Minnesota has recorded above average population growth but below average employment growth Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026 Yesterday, in a column titled "The Great Wrecking of Minnesota still underway, 10 months later," the Star Tribune's Evan Ramstad, wrote of the economic impact of Operation Metro Surge: Most significantly, it drove people out of a state that was barelygrowing.
The people who left, who largely were Hispanic immigrants, also contributed most to the little population growth Minnesota has experienced in recent years. Their exit has shrunk the labor force, the consumer base and number of people who pay taxes and generate economic growth.
We won't see population data for 2026 until late next spring, but the effects of the exodus are already visible in Minnesota's employment data, which comes out every month.
In September, Minnesota had 64,000 fewer people working than it did in November last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a 2.1% drop in a workforce of 3 million.
And we know those people didn't just become unemployed because the same data shows the size of Minnesota's workforce declined by almost 58,000 in that period, a 1.8% drop...
But we don't, in fact, "know those people didn't just become unemployed because the...data shows the size of Minnesota's workforce declined by almost 58,000 in that period," because the same data also shows that the size of our state's "Civilian non-institutional population" increased by 22,793 in that period.
In a recent post, "Minnesota's struggling economy: Sluggish job growth," I noted that:
...we can break down the growth of the population into the growth of the number of people employed and the number of people not employed. The total pool of people available to work in a state is the "Civilian non-institutional population," which the Census Bureau defines as:
"All U.S. civilians not residing in institutional group quarters facilities such as correctional institutions, juvenile facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and other long-term care living arrangements."
It is not clear to me why Ramstad excluded this figure from his analysis. As Figure 1 shows, using the same BLS data he cites, Minnesota's civilian non-institutional population growth of 22,793 from December 2025 to September 2026 -- or 0.5% -- was higher than in 31 out of 50 states. In short, our pool of potential workers grew at a comparatively healthy rate over the period of Operation Metro Surge and since.
* * *Figure 1: Change in civilian non-institutional population, December 2025 to September 2026
* * *
Yet, as Ramstad correctly notes, we do have that decline in employment. As Figure 2 shows, the 2.1% fall in the number of Minnesotans employed between December 2025 and September 2026 is worse than in 43 out of 50 other states.
* * *
Figure 2: Change in employment, December 2025 to September 2026
* * *
How do we reconcile relatively healthy potential employment growth shown in Figure 1 with the relatively dismal actual employment growth shown in Figure 2?
Remember this equation:
Civilian non-institutional population = Employed + Unemployed and looking for work + Unemployed and not looking for work
The number of people both employed and unemployed but looking for work is combined by the BLS to give a number for the "Civilian labor force," or the "workforce" Ramstad correctly notes has declined by 56,961 between December 2025 and September 2026.
But this calculation completely ignores those members of the civilian non-institutional population who are unemployed and not looking for work, Minnesotans who have checked out of the labor force and employment completely. This is a significant omission, since these folks accounted for 31.7% of Minnesota's civilian non-institutional population in December 2025 and 33.3% in September 2026. Indeed, as Figure 3 shows, the growth in the number of Minnesotans not in the labor force at all between December 2025 and September 2026, 5.4%, was greater than in 44 out of 50 states.
* * *
Figure 3: Change in number of civilian non-institutional population not in the labor force, December 2025 to September 2026
* * *
The data show that Ramstad is wrong to attribute the decline in employment in Minnesota since December 2025 to federal agents enforcing federal law and chasing people out of the state. We see, to the contrary, that Minnesota has recorded a comparatively healthy growth in potential workers since Operation Metro Surge commenced -- and we are often accused of having nothing good to say about the state or its economy -- but that it has done comparatively badly at turning them into actual workers by giving them jobs as shown by the comparatively large increase in the number of Minnesotans who have dropped out of the labor force altogether.
This is nothing new in Minnesota's economy, as I showed when I looked at the data from 2014 to 2025 a couple of weeks ago. On one level, there is an element of Metro Surge becoming a convenient excuse for the current manifestations of Minnesota's longstanding economic ills.
And on another level, there is the fundamental misapprehension that what is needed for more economic growth is more inputs, primarily of people, rather than trying to make the workers we have more productive. But, as I noted when looking at the data since 2014:
...it cannot be said that our state's relatively slow employment growth is the result of relatively slow population growth. This means, in turn, that the solution to our relatively slow employment growth is not to try and boost population growth. Minnesota's labor market has problems besides the growth rate of potential workers, and it is when we look at how this population growth breaks down that a concerning picture emerges.
Exactly the same picture emerges from the data from December 2025 to September 2026. Minnesota's policymakers, and those who are candidates to be such, ought not to try and hide behind a thoroughly mistaken narrative.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment. john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/since-metro-surge-minnesota-has-recorded-above-average-population-growth-but-below-average-employment-growth/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Since Metro Surge, Minnesota has recorded above average population growth but below average employment growth
Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026
Yesterday, in a column titled "The Great Wrecking of Minnesota still underway, 10 months later," the Star Tribune's Evan Ramstad, wrote of the economic impact of Operation Metro Surge:
Most significantly, it drove people out of a state that was barely ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Since Metro Surge, Minnesota has recorded above average population growth but below average employment growth Written by John Phelan | October 29, 2026 Yesterday, in a column titled "The Great Wrecking of Minnesota still underway, 10 months later," the Star Tribune's Evan Ramstad, wrote of the economic impact of Operation Metro Surge: Most significantly, it drove people out of a state that was barelygrowing.
The people who left, who largely were Hispanic immigrants, also contributed most to the little population growth Minnesota has experienced in recent years. Their exit has shrunk the labor force, the consumer base and number of people who pay taxes and generate economic growth.
We won't see population data for 2026 until late next spring, but the effects of the exodus are already visible in Minnesota's employment data, which comes out every month.
In September, Minnesota had 64,000 fewer people working than it did in November last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a 2.1% drop in a workforce of 3 million.
And we know those people didn't just become unemployed because the same data shows the size of Minnesota's workforce declined by almost 58,000 in that period, a 1.8% drop...
But we don't, in fact, "know those people didn't just become unemployed because the...data shows the size of Minnesota's workforce declined by almost 58,000 in that period," because the same data also shows that the size of our state's "Civilian non-institutional population" increased by 22,793 in that period.
In a recent post, "Minnesota's struggling economy: Sluggish job growth," I noted that:
...we can break down the growth of the population into the growth of the number of people employed and the number of people not employed. The total pool of people available to work in a state is the "Civilian non-institutional population," which the Census Bureau defines as:
"All U.S. civilians not residing in institutional group quarters facilities such as correctional institutions, juvenile facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and other long-term care living arrangements."
It is not clear to me why Ramstad excluded this figure from his analysis. As Figure 1 shows, using the same BLS data he cites, Minnesota's civilian non-institutional population growth of 22,793 from December 2025 to September 2026 -- or 0.5% -- was higher than in 31 out of 50 states. In short, our pool of potential workers grew at a comparatively healthy rate over the period of Operation Metro Surge and since.
* * *Figure 1: Change in civilian non-institutional population, December 2025 to September 2026
* * *
Yet, as Ramstad correctly notes, we do have that decline in employment. As Figure 2 shows, the 2.1% fall in the number of Minnesotans employed between December 2025 and September 2026 is worse than in 43 out of 50 other states.
* * *
Figure 2: Change in employment, December 2025 to September 2026
* * *
How do we reconcile relatively healthy potential employment growth shown in Figure 1 with the relatively dismal actual employment growth shown in Figure 2?
Remember this equation:
Civilian non-institutional population = Employed + Unemployed and looking for work + Unemployed and not looking for work
The number of people both employed and unemployed but looking for work is combined by the BLS to give a number for the "Civilian labor force," or the "workforce" Ramstad correctly notes has declined by 56,961 between December 2025 and September 2026.
But this calculation completely ignores those members of the civilian non-institutional population who are unemployed and not looking for work, Minnesotans who have checked out of the labor force and employment completely. This is a significant omission, since these folks accounted for 31.7% of Minnesota's civilian non-institutional population in December 2025 and 33.3% in September 2026. Indeed, as Figure 3 shows, the growth in the number of Minnesotans not in the labor force at all between December 2025 and September 2026, 5.4%, was greater than in 44 out of 50 states.
* * *
Figure 3: Change in number of civilian non-institutional population not in the labor force, December 2025 to September 2026
* * *
The data show that Ramstad is wrong to attribute the decline in employment in Minnesota since December 2025 to federal agents enforcing federal law and chasing people out of the state. We see, to the contrary, that Minnesota has recorded a comparatively healthy growth in potential workers since Operation Metro Surge commenced -- and we are often accused of having nothing good to say about the state or its economy -- but that it has done comparatively badly at turning them into actual workers by giving them jobs as shown by the comparatively large increase in the number of Minnesotans who have dropped out of the labor force altogether.
This is nothing new in Minnesota's economy, as I showed when I looked at the data from 2014 to 2025 a couple of weeks ago. On one level, there is an element of Metro Surge becoming a convenient excuse for the current manifestations of Minnesota's longstanding economic ills.
And on another level, there is the fundamental misapprehension that what is needed for more economic growth is more inputs, primarily of people, rather than trying to make the workers we have more productive. But, as I noted when looking at the data since 2014:
...it cannot be said that our state's relatively slow employment growth is the result of relatively slow population growth. This means, in turn, that the solution to our relatively slow employment growth is not to try and boost population growth. Minnesota's labor market has problems besides the growth rate of potential workers, and it is when we look at how this population growth breaks down that a concerning picture emerges.
Exactly the same picture emerges from the data from December 2025 to September 2026. Minnesota's policymakers, and those who are candidates to be such, ought not to try and hide behind a thoroughly mistaken narrative.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment. john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/since-metro-surge-minnesota-has-recorded-above-average-population-growth-but-below-average-employment-growth/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Moriarty Charges Investigative Journalists Who Exposed Vouching Vulnerabilities in Recent Primary Election
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Moriarty charges investigative journalists who exposed vouching vulnerabilities in recent primary election
Written by David Zimmer | October 28, 2026
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced felony charges today against investigative journalists James O'Keefe and Cam Higby for their actions in exposing vulnerabilities in Minnesota's vouching system at election polling locations.
According to ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Moriarty charges investigative journalists who exposed vouching vulnerabilities in recent primary election Written by David Zimmer | October 28, 2026 Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced felony charges today against investigative journalists James O'Keefe and Cam Higby for their actions in exposing vulnerabilities in Minnesota's vouching system at election polling locations. According toMoriarty, both men were charged with felony counts of "unlawful voting and identity theft," and that the crimes were committed when the men verbally identified themselves as registered voters in the precinct, without the permission of those individuals. Moriarty confirmed that some of the names used were of deceased voters who remained on the voter rolls.
See Moriarty's full press conference here:
O'Keefe and Higby never signed an oath needed to obtain a ballot, never obtained a ballot, never cast a ballot, never intended to defraud Minnesota's voting system - instead they demonstrated just how vulnerable our voting system is in allowing a registered voter, without ID, to vouch for up to eight (8) additional voters, without ID's, as they complete same day registration and vote.
The video O'Keefe and Higby posted to expose this vulnerability can be viewed below. The events were recorded secretly during the primary election day in Minneapolis on August 11th, 2026.
Minnesota statute 204C.14 makes it a felony for anyone to:
"...misrepresent the individual's identity in applying for a ballot, depositing a ballot in a ballot box or attempting to vote by means of a voting machine or electronic voting system."
On it's face, it seems a very weak argument that exposing the vulnerability as O'Keefe and Higby did, constitutes "applying for a ballot" especially when they never attempted to actually receive a ballot.
Furthermore, the Minnesota Legislature added subdivision 2 to the statute. It reads:
"Signature on roster as evidence of intent. For purposes of proving a violation of this section, the signature of an individual on a polling place roster or voter signature certificate is prima facie evidence of the intent of the individual to vote at that election."
The legislature doesn't add language without a reason, and it seems clear that signing the roster is the evidence required to show the ballot application process was attempted - an action O'Keefe and Higby specifically avoided.
The exercise in charging O'Keefe and Higby with felonies is offensive in light of the many crimes Moriarty has either refused to charge or has undercharged during her four-year tenure as Hennepin County Attorney.
Both men have been summoned to appear in Hennepin County District Court for a future hearing.
* * *
David Zimmer is a Public Safety Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. David.Zimmer@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/moriarty-charges-investigative-journalists-who-exposed-vouching-vulnerabilities-in-recent-primary-election/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Moriarty charges investigative journalists who exposed vouching vulnerabilities in recent primary election
Written by David Zimmer | October 28, 2026
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced felony charges today against investigative journalists James O'Keefe and Cam Higby for their actions in exposing vulnerabilities in Minnesota's vouching system at election polling locations.
According to ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 30 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Moriarty charges investigative journalists who exposed vouching vulnerabilities in recent primary election Written by David Zimmer | October 28, 2026 Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced felony charges today against investigative journalists James O'Keefe and Cam Higby for their actions in exposing vulnerabilities in Minnesota's vouching system at election polling locations. According toMoriarty, both men were charged with felony counts of "unlawful voting and identity theft," and that the crimes were committed when the men verbally identified themselves as registered voters in the precinct, without the permission of those individuals. Moriarty confirmed that some of the names used were of deceased voters who remained on the voter rolls.
See Moriarty's full press conference here:
O'Keefe and Higby never signed an oath needed to obtain a ballot, never obtained a ballot, never cast a ballot, never intended to defraud Minnesota's voting system - instead they demonstrated just how vulnerable our voting system is in allowing a registered voter, without ID, to vouch for up to eight (8) additional voters, without ID's, as they complete same day registration and vote.
The video O'Keefe and Higby posted to expose this vulnerability can be viewed below. The events were recorded secretly during the primary election day in Minneapolis on August 11th, 2026.
Minnesota statute 204C.14 makes it a felony for anyone to:
"...misrepresent the individual's identity in applying for a ballot, depositing a ballot in a ballot box or attempting to vote by means of a voting machine or electronic voting system."
On it's face, it seems a very weak argument that exposing the vulnerability as O'Keefe and Higby did, constitutes "applying for a ballot" especially when they never attempted to actually receive a ballot.
Furthermore, the Minnesota Legislature added subdivision 2 to the statute. It reads:
"Signature on roster as evidence of intent. For purposes of proving a violation of this section, the signature of an individual on a polling place roster or voter signature certificate is prima facie evidence of the intent of the individual to vote at that election."
The legislature doesn't add language without a reason, and it seems clear that signing the roster is the evidence required to show the ballot application process was attempted - an action O'Keefe and Higby specifically avoided.
The exercise in charging O'Keefe and Higby with felonies is offensive in light of the many crimes Moriarty has either refused to charge or has undercharged during her four-year tenure as Hennepin County Attorney.
Both men have been summoned to appear in Hennepin County District Court for a future hearing.
* * *
David Zimmer is a Public Safety Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. David.Zimmer@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/moriarty-charges-investigative-journalists-who-exposed-vouching-vulnerabilities-in-recent-primary-election/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Why Europe's Violent Protests Matter for the American Interest
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following expert insights:
* * *
Why Europe's Violent Protests Matter for the American Interest
October 28, 2026
* The violent protests in Europe, particularly France and Italy, are a strategic concern of the United States.
* Transatlantic alliances and partnerships depend on shared civilizational confidence and are threatened significantly by mass migration and the breakdown of rule of law.
* The United States should support European partners working to secure borders, restore the rule of law, and resist transnational efforts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following expert insights: * * * Why Europe's Violent Protests Matter for the American Interest October 28, 2026 * The violent protests in Europe, particularly France and Italy, are a strategic concern of the United States. * Transatlantic alliances and partnerships depend on shared civilizational confidence and are threatened significantly by mass migration and the breakdown of rule of law. * The United States should support European partners working to secure borders, restore the rule of law, and resist transnational effortsto weaken Western civil society.
-
The violence that is shaking cities across Europe is, in many ways, a warning about the future of a continent whose stability, security, and civilizational trajectory remain vital to American interests. As the Trump Administration has repeatedly stated, the United States emerged from the European intellectual, religious, and political inheritance, and the strength of the transatlantic alliance depends on European nations retaining the capacity and the will to govern themselves.
Over the last decade, much of Europe's political establishment has pursued mass immigration while neglecting the concerns of its own citizens. Housing has become less affordable, public services have struggled to keep pace with demand, and trust in political institutions has deteriorated. The recent demonstrations in France and Italy over economic pressures and public services have given way to episodes of arson, looting, and attacks on police and public buildings. Over the weekend of October 16-18, 1,000 police officers were injured, and several hundred shops were damaged in France. Immigrants, Islamist groups, and radical-left networks have exploited disorder and encouraged violence; the town hall of Limoges was attacked and burned down, and over 50 Carrefour shops were damaged throughout the country.
These consequences extend beyond European streets. Allies beset by serious violence and conflict are less reliable as strategic partners, more vulnerable to pressure from hostile powers, and weaker markets for American goods and investment. As the President and his administration have stated, the United States cannot indefinitely compensate for the security weaknesses of its allies. The political response to the unrest raises an equally serious concern: the lack of accountability at the highest levels of government. In a nationally televised address, President Emmanuel Macron condemned the violence but offered no clear plan for confronting it or restoring public confidence. For the U.S., this kind of political paralysis matters because allies cannot be counted on to maintain stability, meet security commitments, or resist external pressure if their governments are unwilling or unable to address serious domestic failures.
But there is a deeper reason that Europe's fate matters to America. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio observed in Athens on October 7, 2026, the founders of the United States were fascinated by the heritage inherited from Greece. That inheritance also runs through Rome, Jerusalem, medieval Christendom, and the English constitutional tradition. Greek political philosophy, Roman law, Christianity's understanding of the human person, and the traditions of representative government helped shape the institutions and principles on which the American republic rests. Thus, the transatlantic alliance is a real partnership and friendship found in similar identity and cultural proximity. It has borne fruit time and again in the shared fights for freedom and liberty between our two lands.
Drawing on the ancient Greek concept of thumos, Secretary Rubio's remarks in Athens also described the "fire of passion, strength, courage, pride" as the heart of great civilization. He said, "Without it, nations lose their will to fight, the will to strive, the will to survive." This spiritedness is indeed important to the survival of the transatlantic alliance. Europe's history once demonstrated the power of people willing to sacrifice and fight for their faith, their nations, and for posterity. Those in Europe who hate their own inheritance risk losing the very qualities that made it a source of strength for the United States.
This is the context in which the Trump Administration's emphasis on Europe's renewal should be understood. The 2025 National Security Strategy raised concern over Europe's declining birthrates, mass migration, hyper-secularization, economic stagnation, restrictions on free speech, and growing hostility toward its own historical inheritance. These trends bear directly on whether European nations will remain prosperous, sovereign, and capable of defending their interests alongside the United States. But the United States cannot restore European confidence on Europe's behalf. American concern about uncontrolled migration or the suppression of dissent is not hostility toward Europe, though it is often interpreted that way. As Secretary Rubio stated, the United States and Europe share an ambition to secure Europe's borders from the threats of mass migration.
That objective requires solidarity and cooperation. For the United States, the choice is not between rescuing Europe and abandoning it. Washington should support European partners that are prepared to strengthen their own nations through diplomacy, trade, security cooperation, and engagement with the civil society institutions that sustain free societies. But America cannot restore Europe's faith, rebuild its families, or supply the civic confidence its people must recover for themselves. The purpose of the alliance should be a Europe able to stand beside the United States, not one dependent on American power to compensate indefinitely for its internal decline.
From the beginning, the Trump Administration's position on European civilization has focused on the spirit of renewal and unity. Speaking in 2017 in Warsaw, President Trump stated that "the ties that unite our civilization are no less vital, and demand no less defense, than that bare shred of land on which the hope of Poland once totally rested. Our freedom, our civilization, and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory." Thus, the United States has a clear interest in a Europe that is secure, sovereign, and confident in these bonds. American and European liberties are linked by history and practice, but the opposite is also true for the revolutionary, leftist impulses that erode civil society, suppress speech, and perpetuate mass migration, all of which threaten the native cultures and mores of the nation. Partnerships for repression between European and American media, academia, and governing classes (along with funding streams from leftist networks and former government aid in America) have devastated European civil society focused on renewal. In order to reverse this, the United States should support European partners working toward the opposite objective: defending national sovereignty, restoring the rule of law, protecting freedom of speech and religion, and renewing confidence in the shared Western inheritance that binds our nations together.
* * *
Author
Kristen Ziccarelli
Fellow, Civilizational Action
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/why-europes-violent-protests-matter-for-the-american-interest/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Why Europe's Violent Protests Matter for the American Interest
October 28, 2026
* The violent protests in Europe, particularly France and Italy, are a strategic concern of the United States.
* Transatlantic alliances and partnerships depend on shared civilizational confidence and are threatened significantly by mass migration and the breakdown of rule of law.
* The United States should support European partners working to secure borders, restore the rule of law, and resist transnational efforts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following expert insights: * * * Why Europe's Violent Protests Matter for the American Interest October 28, 2026 * The violent protests in Europe, particularly France and Italy, are a strategic concern of the United States. * Transatlantic alliances and partnerships depend on shared civilizational confidence and are threatened significantly by mass migration and the breakdown of rule of law. * The United States should support European partners working to secure borders, restore the rule of law, and resist transnational effortsto weaken Western civil society.
-
The violence that is shaking cities across Europe is, in many ways, a warning about the future of a continent whose stability, security, and civilizational trajectory remain vital to American interests. As the Trump Administration has repeatedly stated, the United States emerged from the European intellectual, religious, and political inheritance, and the strength of the transatlantic alliance depends on European nations retaining the capacity and the will to govern themselves.
Over the last decade, much of Europe's political establishment has pursued mass immigration while neglecting the concerns of its own citizens. Housing has become less affordable, public services have struggled to keep pace with demand, and trust in political institutions has deteriorated. The recent demonstrations in France and Italy over economic pressures and public services have given way to episodes of arson, looting, and attacks on police and public buildings. Over the weekend of October 16-18, 1,000 police officers were injured, and several hundred shops were damaged in France. Immigrants, Islamist groups, and radical-left networks have exploited disorder and encouraged violence; the town hall of Limoges was attacked and burned down, and over 50 Carrefour shops were damaged throughout the country.
These consequences extend beyond European streets. Allies beset by serious violence and conflict are less reliable as strategic partners, more vulnerable to pressure from hostile powers, and weaker markets for American goods and investment. As the President and his administration have stated, the United States cannot indefinitely compensate for the security weaknesses of its allies. The political response to the unrest raises an equally serious concern: the lack of accountability at the highest levels of government. In a nationally televised address, President Emmanuel Macron condemned the violence but offered no clear plan for confronting it or restoring public confidence. For the U.S., this kind of political paralysis matters because allies cannot be counted on to maintain stability, meet security commitments, or resist external pressure if their governments are unwilling or unable to address serious domestic failures.
But there is a deeper reason that Europe's fate matters to America. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio observed in Athens on October 7, 2026, the founders of the United States were fascinated by the heritage inherited from Greece. That inheritance also runs through Rome, Jerusalem, medieval Christendom, and the English constitutional tradition. Greek political philosophy, Roman law, Christianity's understanding of the human person, and the traditions of representative government helped shape the institutions and principles on which the American republic rests. Thus, the transatlantic alliance is a real partnership and friendship found in similar identity and cultural proximity. It has borne fruit time and again in the shared fights for freedom and liberty between our two lands.
Drawing on the ancient Greek concept of thumos, Secretary Rubio's remarks in Athens also described the "fire of passion, strength, courage, pride" as the heart of great civilization. He said, "Without it, nations lose their will to fight, the will to strive, the will to survive." This spiritedness is indeed important to the survival of the transatlantic alliance. Europe's history once demonstrated the power of people willing to sacrifice and fight for their faith, their nations, and for posterity. Those in Europe who hate their own inheritance risk losing the very qualities that made it a source of strength for the United States.
This is the context in which the Trump Administration's emphasis on Europe's renewal should be understood. The 2025 National Security Strategy raised concern over Europe's declining birthrates, mass migration, hyper-secularization, economic stagnation, restrictions on free speech, and growing hostility toward its own historical inheritance. These trends bear directly on whether European nations will remain prosperous, sovereign, and capable of defending their interests alongside the United States. But the United States cannot restore European confidence on Europe's behalf. American concern about uncontrolled migration or the suppression of dissent is not hostility toward Europe, though it is often interpreted that way. As Secretary Rubio stated, the United States and Europe share an ambition to secure Europe's borders from the threats of mass migration.
That objective requires solidarity and cooperation. For the United States, the choice is not between rescuing Europe and abandoning it. Washington should support European partners that are prepared to strengthen their own nations through diplomacy, trade, security cooperation, and engagement with the civil society institutions that sustain free societies. But America cannot restore Europe's faith, rebuild its families, or supply the civic confidence its people must recover for themselves. The purpose of the alliance should be a Europe able to stand beside the United States, not one dependent on American power to compensate indefinitely for its internal decline.
From the beginning, the Trump Administration's position on European civilization has focused on the spirit of renewal and unity. Speaking in 2017 in Warsaw, President Trump stated that "the ties that unite our civilization are no less vital, and demand no less defense, than that bare shred of land on which the hope of Poland once totally rested. Our freedom, our civilization, and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory." Thus, the United States has a clear interest in a Europe that is secure, sovereign, and confident in these bonds. American and European liberties are linked by history and practice, but the opposite is also true for the revolutionary, leftist impulses that erode civil society, suppress speech, and perpetuate mass migration, all of which threaten the native cultures and mores of the nation. Partnerships for repression between European and American media, academia, and governing classes (along with funding streams from leftist networks and former government aid in America) have devastated European civil society focused on renewal. In order to reverse this, the United States should support European partners working toward the opposite objective: defending national sovereignty, restoring the rule of law, protecting freedom of speech and religion, and renewing confidence in the shared Western inheritance that binds our nations together.
* * *
Author
Kristen Ziccarelli
Fellow, Civilizational Action
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/why-europes-violent-protests-matter-for-the-american-interest/
[Category: ThinkTank]