Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
America First Policy Institute Issues Letter to Wash. State Ecology Dept.
WASHINGTON, July 20 (TNSletter) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following letter to the Washington State Department of Ecology:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
July 1, 2026
Casey Sixkiller, Director
Washington State Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive SE
Lacey, WA 98503
casey.sixkiller@ecy.wa.gov
Re: Request for Corrective Action Regarding Ecology's Race- and Ethnicity-Conscious Environmental Justice, Community Compensation, Grantmaking, and Enforcement Practices
Dear Director Sixkiller:
The Washington Department of Ecology's (the "Department") current environmental ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 20 (TNSletter) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following letter to the Washington State Department of Ecology: * * * Here is the text of the letter: July 1, 2026 Casey Sixkiller, Director Washington State Department of Ecology 300 Desmond Drive SE Lacey, WA 98503 casey.sixkiller@ecy.wa.gov Re: Request for Corrective Action Regarding Ecology's Race- and Ethnicity-Conscious Environmental Justice, Community Compensation, Grantmaking, and Enforcement Practices Dear Director Sixkiller: The Washington Department of Ecology's (the "Department") current environmentaljustice and community compensation programs appear to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, and/or national origin. The Department receives significant financial assistance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), thereby creating a legal obligation on the part of the Department to comply with federal civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and EPA's implementing regulations. Additionally, state agencies like the Department are government actors, and are therefore bound by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Discriminatory treatment on the part of the Department, as outlined herein, violates Title VI, the EPA's regulations, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The America First Policy Institute ("AFPI") is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute dedicated to putting the American worker and family first. Our guiding principles include liberty, free enterprise, and the primacy of American workers, families, and communities in all we do. The Department's current programs and policies are deeply concerning because they appear to provide benefits, access, and influence to only certain individuals and organizations based on race-, ethnicity-, color-, national-origin-, and other identity-conscious criteria. While the Department seeks to interact with the public and consider the interests of Washingtonians in making environmental decisions--a commendable priority--the Department appears to have designed an elaborate scheme that delivers, and operates on the basis of, a singular, radical viewpoint as representative of all Washingtonians.
The Department's programs and policies have created a compensation and engagement system that provides benefits and preferred access to individuals and groups with certain characteristics--such as membership in an "overburdened community," status as a "vulnerable population," "lived experience," affiliation with "historically excluded" or "historically underrepresented" communities, or representation through a "for and by" organization--while failing to provide the same benefits and access to other Washingtonians who are directly affected by the Department's programs, policies, and enforcement decisions.
That framework is fundamentally unfair and is legally vulnerable.
I. The Department of Ecology receives federal financial assistance from EPA, which subjects its programs to Title VI The Department receives financial assistance from EPA for its Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction programs. Ecology's Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement with EPA identifies Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction as the three primary Department programs receiving EPA grant funds and lists estimated two-year EPA grant amounts of $7,535,000 for Air Grants, $11,430,990 for Water Grants, and $3,400,000 for Hazardous Waste/RCRA.1
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States may, "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," be "excluded from participation in," "denied the benefits of," or "subjected to discrimination under" any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.2 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits state agencies from discriminating on the same bases.3 Similarly, EPA's implementing regulations prohibit a recipient of EPA assistance, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, from taking actions on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex that include denying benefits, providing different benefits, restricting the enjoyment of benefits, subjecting a person to separate treatment, or denying any person or group the opportunity to participate as members of a planning or advisory body that is an integral part of the federally assisted program.4 EPA's regulations further prohibit a recipient from using criteria or methods of administering its program or activity that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of race, color, national origin, or sex, or that substantially impair the objectives of the program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex.5
The Department's current framework for providing benefits, compensation, and preferred access to certain members of the public and community groups appears to violate these provisions.
II. Washington's HEAL Act and CCA implementation incorporate race and ethnicity into environmental management programs
Washington's Healthy Environment for All Act ("HEAL Act") requires covered agencies, including the Department, to incorporate environmental justice into agency decision-making.6 The HEAL Act defines "environmental justice" as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income" with respect to environmental laws, rules, and policies. But the statute further provides that environmental justice includes addressing disproportionate environmental and health impacts by prioritizing "vulnerable populations" and "overburdened communities."7
The HEAL Act's definitions expressly incorporate race and ethnicity. "Overburdened community" means "a geographic area where vulnerable populations face combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts," and includes, but is not limited to, highly impacted communities.8 "Vulnerable populations" expressly includes "racial or ethnic minorities," "low-income populations," "populations disproportionately impacted by environmental harms," and "populations of workers experiencing environmental harms."9
The Climate Commitment Act ("CCA") likewise embeds the same framework into funding and program administration. For relevant accounts and programs, the CCA requires agencies to conduct environmental justice assessments and establish a minimum of not less than 35 percent-- and a goal of 40 percent--of total investments that provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities.10 The CCA further provides that benefits and programs should be directed to areas and targeted to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities to reduce statewide disparities, and that efforts should contribute to reducing disparities that exist based on "race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other factors."11
Pulling from the terminology set forth in the HEAL Act and the CCA, the Department has pursued implementation plans that place race and ethnicity at the center of program design, investment priorities, community engagement, grantmaking, and policy development. This is unconstitutional.
The Department's Community Engagement Plan (the "Plan") states that it fulfills its HEAL Act obligation to create and adopt a community engagement plan describing how the Department will engage with overburdened communities and vulnerable populations as it evaluates new and existing activities and programs.12 The Plan is not limited to a single Department program; instead, it states that the Department's environmental programs are responsible for implementing the Community Engagement Plan at both the programmatic and project levels.13
The Plan applies broadly to the Department's work, and identifies engagement in connection with public comment periods, meetings, hearings, advisory groups and workgroups, grant and loan program administration, spills prevention and response, environmental monitoring and data collection, environmental education and outreach campaigns, water rights adjudications, and other activities.14
The Plan also identifies compensation for community engagement as a barrier-reduction strategy. It directs the Department's project teams to "compensate community member time and expertise" under the Department's Lived Experience Compensation Guidelines.15 Accordingly, the Department's framework is not merely about general outreach. It appears designed to influence agency planning, grantmaking, monitoring, data collection, advisory processes, rulemaking, policymaking, and enforcement-adjacent priorities across the Department's programs, including EPA-funded programs. All of this is done through a lens that prioritizes certain races, skin colors, and ethnicities by affording uneven access and influence on those bases.
III. The Department of Ecology's compensation guidelines target only certain individuals for paid participation in planning and advisory processes
Washington's Community Compensation Guidelines authorize agencies to provide stipends and allowances to individuals for participating in agency workgroups if they are low-income or have "lived experience" with the issues addressed by those workgroups.16
The Guidelines define "lived experience" as "direct personal experience in the subject matter being addressed by the board, commission, council, committee, or other similar group." But the Guidelines then state that workgroups should partner with people who are part of "historically excluded communities" and those "disproportionately impacted by policies, processes, and systems" that the workgroup seeks to address.17 This alternative framework delineating who is eligible for compensation results in a system that requires a heightened burden for participation on the part of Washingtonians who are not members of "historically excluded communities." If you are a member of a "historically excluded community," then you are eligible for compensation under the guidelines. However, if you are not, then you must also be "low income" in order to qualify for compensation. This is textbook preferential treatment, which constitutes unlawful discrimination.
The Guidelines further instruct agencies to work with organizations that have developed trusting relationships with "historically underrepresented communities." When seeking to partner with specific demographics, the Guidelines instruct agencies to seek "for and by organizations"-- meaning organizations "established for the people and by the people most impacted."18 The Guidelines also require agencies to track and report demographic and fiscal information related to community compensation. The demographic information must include, at minimum, the most recent calendar year in which the person participated in a group, race, ethnicity, income, and county. The Guidelines further require fiscal tracking of "Stipends - lived experience" and "Other allowances - lived experience."19
The activities eligible for compensation are broad and substantive. They include attending official meetings, community feedback sessions, travel time, reviewing and commenting on plans, producing or reviewing written content such as research or reports, meeting preparation, outreach meetings, conferences, trainings, and other one-time events.20 Agencies may also compensate onetime engagement activities such as surveys, interviews, written feedback requests, and other lowbarrier engagement opportunities.21 This structure creates serious legal concerns. The Department is not merely removing neutral barriers to participation. The Department appears to be selecting and compensating certain participants based on identity-conscious criteria, tracking the race and ethnicity of compensated participants, and then using those compensated participants' views, experiences, recommendations, survey responses, written feedback, and advisory input to shape public policy.
Not everyone is asked to weigh in or paid to weigh in. Not everyone is given the same opportunity to shape the Department's decisions. The system is designed to elevate some voices while excluding others, all on the basis of constitutionally protected characteristics.
IV. The Department of Ecology's framework appears to exclude certain groups of Washingtonians from equal access and equal influence
The Department makes decisions that affect Washingtonians across the state. Those affected include farmers, ranchers, landowners, workers, small businesses, and regulated entities. The Department's programs and enforcement decisions can affect standards relating to water quality, nonpoint-source pollution, wetlands, buffers, air quality, hazardous waste, toxics reduction, climate investments, and other matters central to the livelihoods of Washington families and businesses.
The broad impact of the Department's framework makes it all the more concerning that the provision of benefits, compensation, and preferred opportunities for engagement and policy deliberations are made to individuals and organizations based on the possession of specific characteristics--such as race, ethnicity, color, national origin, membership in an overburdened community, status as a vulnerable population, affiliation with a "for and by" organization, "lived experience" in certain environmental topics, or association with historically excluded or historically underrepresented communities. At the same time, the Department's framework does not provide comparable paid participation opportunities to Washingtonians who do not meet the same race- and ethnicity-based criteria, but whose livelihoods are nonetheless directly affected by the Department's decisions.
That structure is both fundamentally unfair and legally suspect. It creates a system in which the Department pays selected participants to help shape agency priorities, while other affected Washingtonians are left outside the compensated advisory and policy-setting structure, having had no opportunity or a much more limited opportunity to influence the system. In practice, this structure creates an activist enforcement pipeline in which selected groups are funded, elevated, and invited to influence monitoring, policy, grantmaking, and enforcement priorities, while other Washingtonians bear the resulting regulatory burdens without equal access to the process.
V. The Department of Ecology should take corrective action
In light of these concerns, we request that the Department take corrective action to ensure that its programs are established and administered in a manner that does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. To accomplish that goal, the Department should:
1. Ensure that no participant in any Department program, engagement process, workgroup, advisory body, grant program, monitoring process, policy process, or enforcement-adjacent process is selected, compensated, preferred, or provided benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, national origin, status as a member of an overburdened community, status as a member of a vulnerable population, status as a member of a historically excluded or historically underrepresented community, status as a "for and by" organization, or similar identity-conscious criteria;
2. Revise all Department plans, guidelines, policies, and management structures that provide for the selection or compensation of members of these groups to ensure that all Washingtonians affected by the Department's programs have an equal opportunity to participate in Department decisions, plans, programs, initiatives, and workgroups;
3. Ensure that any guidelines for community compensation use neutral, nondiscriminatory eligibility criteria and do not use race-, ethnicity-, color-, or national-origin-conscious criteria for providing benefits, compensation, or opportunities;
4. Prohibit the Department's contractors, grantees, subgrantees, nonprofits, community-based organizations, fiscal intermediaries, third-party administrators, and other partners from using race-, ethnicity-, color-, or national-origin-conscious criteria for selecting, inviting, prioritizing, screening, or compensating participants in Department initiatives, programs, plans, decisions, surveys, interviews, written-feedback processes, and workgroups;
5. Review all Department grant programs, including HEAL Act, CCA-funded, and EPAassisted programs, to ensure that eligibility criteria, scoring criteria, award decisions, community-benefit requirements, environmental justice assessments, and reporting requirements do not use race- or ethnicity-conscious criteria in a manner that provides unequal benefits or opportunities;
6. Review all workgroups, advisory groups, environmental justice assessments, public surveys, interviews, one-time engagement activities, environmental impact assessments, and other initiatives undertaken by the Department to determine whether any individual or group has been denied equal benefits or equal opportunity to participate;
7. Make publicly available records sufficient to allow review of whether the Department has complied with its responsibilities to all Washingtonians, including records concerning community compensation, lived-experience compensation, gift cards, prepaid cards, Z460/Z461 accounting codes, demographic tracking, participant-selection criteria, engagement plans, environmental justice assessments, grant-scoring rubrics, third-party administrators, and community-based organization partners;
8. Provide written assurance that the Department will not create, implement, or administer any program, initiative, grant, engagement process, or compensation system based on race, ethnicity-, color-, or national-origin-conscious criteria.
We request that the Department provide a written response within thirty days and preserve all records relating to the subject matter of the requests set forth in this letter.
The Department's mission is to preserve and protect Washington's environment for all Washingtonians. That mission is not advanced by establishing benefits, opportunities, and compensation for only some Washingtonians while excluding others from equal participation in the Department's decisions.
Respectfully,
Leigh Ann O'Neill, Chief Legal Affairs Officer, America First Policy Institute
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Letter_to_Sixkiller_re_Discrimination_in_Ecology_programs_%281%29.pdf
News Release here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-calls-on-washington-department-of-ecology-to-end-discriminatory-environmental-programs
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
July 1, 2026
Casey Sixkiller, Director
Washington State Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive SE
Lacey, WA 98503
casey.sixkiller@ecy.wa.gov
Re: Request for Corrective Action Regarding Ecology's Race- and Ethnicity-Conscious Environmental Justice, Community Compensation, Grantmaking, and Enforcement Practices
Dear Director Sixkiller:
The Washington Department of Ecology's (the "Department") current environmental ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 20 (TNSletter) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following letter to the Washington State Department of Ecology: * * * Here is the text of the letter: July 1, 2026 Casey Sixkiller, Director Washington State Department of Ecology 300 Desmond Drive SE Lacey, WA 98503 casey.sixkiller@ecy.wa.gov Re: Request for Corrective Action Regarding Ecology's Race- and Ethnicity-Conscious Environmental Justice, Community Compensation, Grantmaking, and Enforcement Practices Dear Director Sixkiller: The Washington Department of Ecology's (the "Department") current environmentaljustice and community compensation programs appear to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, and/or national origin. The Department receives significant financial assistance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), thereby creating a legal obligation on the part of the Department to comply with federal civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and EPA's implementing regulations. Additionally, state agencies like the Department are government actors, and are therefore bound by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Discriminatory treatment on the part of the Department, as outlined herein, violates Title VI, the EPA's regulations, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The America First Policy Institute ("AFPI") is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute dedicated to putting the American worker and family first. Our guiding principles include liberty, free enterprise, and the primacy of American workers, families, and communities in all we do. The Department's current programs and policies are deeply concerning because they appear to provide benefits, access, and influence to only certain individuals and organizations based on race-, ethnicity-, color-, national-origin-, and other identity-conscious criteria. While the Department seeks to interact with the public and consider the interests of Washingtonians in making environmental decisions--a commendable priority--the Department appears to have designed an elaborate scheme that delivers, and operates on the basis of, a singular, radical viewpoint as representative of all Washingtonians.
The Department's programs and policies have created a compensation and engagement system that provides benefits and preferred access to individuals and groups with certain characteristics--such as membership in an "overburdened community," status as a "vulnerable population," "lived experience," affiliation with "historically excluded" or "historically underrepresented" communities, or representation through a "for and by" organization--while failing to provide the same benefits and access to other Washingtonians who are directly affected by the Department's programs, policies, and enforcement decisions.
That framework is fundamentally unfair and is legally vulnerable.
I. The Department of Ecology receives federal financial assistance from EPA, which subjects its programs to Title VI The Department receives financial assistance from EPA for its Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction programs. Ecology's Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement with EPA identifies Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction as the three primary Department programs receiving EPA grant funds and lists estimated two-year EPA grant amounts of $7,535,000 for Air Grants, $11,430,990 for Water Grants, and $3,400,000 for Hazardous Waste/RCRA.1
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States may, "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," be "excluded from participation in," "denied the benefits of," or "subjected to discrimination under" any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.2 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits state agencies from discriminating on the same bases.3 Similarly, EPA's implementing regulations prohibit a recipient of EPA assistance, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, from taking actions on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex that include denying benefits, providing different benefits, restricting the enjoyment of benefits, subjecting a person to separate treatment, or denying any person or group the opportunity to participate as members of a planning or advisory body that is an integral part of the federally assisted program.4 EPA's regulations further prohibit a recipient from using criteria or methods of administering its program or activity that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of race, color, national origin, or sex, or that substantially impair the objectives of the program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex.5
The Department's current framework for providing benefits, compensation, and preferred access to certain members of the public and community groups appears to violate these provisions.
II. Washington's HEAL Act and CCA implementation incorporate race and ethnicity into environmental management programs
Washington's Healthy Environment for All Act ("HEAL Act") requires covered agencies, including the Department, to incorporate environmental justice into agency decision-making.6 The HEAL Act defines "environmental justice" as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income" with respect to environmental laws, rules, and policies. But the statute further provides that environmental justice includes addressing disproportionate environmental and health impacts by prioritizing "vulnerable populations" and "overburdened communities."7
The HEAL Act's definitions expressly incorporate race and ethnicity. "Overburdened community" means "a geographic area where vulnerable populations face combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts," and includes, but is not limited to, highly impacted communities.8 "Vulnerable populations" expressly includes "racial or ethnic minorities," "low-income populations," "populations disproportionately impacted by environmental harms," and "populations of workers experiencing environmental harms."9
The Climate Commitment Act ("CCA") likewise embeds the same framework into funding and program administration. For relevant accounts and programs, the CCA requires agencies to conduct environmental justice assessments and establish a minimum of not less than 35 percent-- and a goal of 40 percent--of total investments that provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities.10 The CCA further provides that benefits and programs should be directed to areas and targeted to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities to reduce statewide disparities, and that efforts should contribute to reducing disparities that exist based on "race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other factors."11
Pulling from the terminology set forth in the HEAL Act and the CCA, the Department has pursued implementation plans that place race and ethnicity at the center of program design, investment priorities, community engagement, grantmaking, and policy development. This is unconstitutional.
The Department's Community Engagement Plan (the "Plan") states that it fulfills its HEAL Act obligation to create and adopt a community engagement plan describing how the Department will engage with overburdened communities and vulnerable populations as it evaluates new and existing activities and programs.12 The Plan is not limited to a single Department program; instead, it states that the Department's environmental programs are responsible for implementing the Community Engagement Plan at both the programmatic and project levels.13
The Plan applies broadly to the Department's work, and identifies engagement in connection with public comment periods, meetings, hearings, advisory groups and workgroups, grant and loan program administration, spills prevention and response, environmental monitoring and data collection, environmental education and outreach campaigns, water rights adjudications, and other activities.14
The Plan also identifies compensation for community engagement as a barrier-reduction strategy. It directs the Department's project teams to "compensate community member time and expertise" under the Department's Lived Experience Compensation Guidelines.15 Accordingly, the Department's framework is not merely about general outreach. It appears designed to influence agency planning, grantmaking, monitoring, data collection, advisory processes, rulemaking, policymaking, and enforcement-adjacent priorities across the Department's programs, including EPA-funded programs. All of this is done through a lens that prioritizes certain races, skin colors, and ethnicities by affording uneven access and influence on those bases.
III. The Department of Ecology's compensation guidelines target only certain individuals for paid participation in planning and advisory processes
Washington's Community Compensation Guidelines authorize agencies to provide stipends and allowances to individuals for participating in agency workgroups if they are low-income or have "lived experience" with the issues addressed by those workgroups.16
The Guidelines define "lived experience" as "direct personal experience in the subject matter being addressed by the board, commission, council, committee, or other similar group." But the Guidelines then state that workgroups should partner with people who are part of "historically excluded communities" and those "disproportionately impacted by policies, processes, and systems" that the workgroup seeks to address.17 This alternative framework delineating who is eligible for compensation results in a system that requires a heightened burden for participation on the part of Washingtonians who are not members of "historically excluded communities." If you are a member of a "historically excluded community," then you are eligible for compensation under the guidelines. However, if you are not, then you must also be "low income" in order to qualify for compensation. This is textbook preferential treatment, which constitutes unlawful discrimination.
The Guidelines further instruct agencies to work with organizations that have developed trusting relationships with "historically underrepresented communities." When seeking to partner with specific demographics, the Guidelines instruct agencies to seek "for and by organizations"-- meaning organizations "established for the people and by the people most impacted."18 The Guidelines also require agencies to track and report demographic and fiscal information related to community compensation. The demographic information must include, at minimum, the most recent calendar year in which the person participated in a group, race, ethnicity, income, and county. The Guidelines further require fiscal tracking of "Stipends - lived experience" and "Other allowances - lived experience."19
The activities eligible for compensation are broad and substantive. They include attending official meetings, community feedback sessions, travel time, reviewing and commenting on plans, producing or reviewing written content such as research or reports, meeting preparation, outreach meetings, conferences, trainings, and other one-time events.20 Agencies may also compensate onetime engagement activities such as surveys, interviews, written feedback requests, and other lowbarrier engagement opportunities.21 This structure creates serious legal concerns. The Department is not merely removing neutral barriers to participation. The Department appears to be selecting and compensating certain participants based on identity-conscious criteria, tracking the race and ethnicity of compensated participants, and then using those compensated participants' views, experiences, recommendations, survey responses, written feedback, and advisory input to shape public policy.
Not everyone is asked to weigh in or paid to weigh in. Not everyone is given the same opportunity to shape the Department's decisions. The system is designed to elevate some voices while excluding others, all on the basis of constitutionally protected characteristics.
IV. The Department of Ecology's framework appears to exclude certain groups of Washingtonians from equal access and equal influence
The Department makes decisions that affect Washingtonians across the state. Those affected include farmers, ranchers, landowners, workers, small businesses, and regulated entities. The Department's programs and enforcement decisions can affect standards relating to water quality, nonpoint-source pollution, wetlands, buffers, air quality, hazardous waste, toxics reduction, climate investments, and other matters central to the livelihoods of Washington families and businesses.
The broad impact of the Department's framework makes it all the more concerning that the provision of benefits, compensation, and preferred opportunities for engagement and policy deliberations are made to individuals and organizations based on the possession of specific characteristics--such as race, ethnicity, color, national origin, membership in an overburdened community, status as a vulnerable population, affiliation with a "for and by" organization, "lived experience" in certain environmental topics, or association with historically excluded or historically underrepresented communities. At the same time, the Department's framework does not provide comparable paid participation opportunities to Washingtonians who do not meet the same race- and ethnicity-based criteria, but whose livelihoods are nonetheless directly affected by the Department's decisions.
That structure is both fundamentally unfair and legally suspect. It creates a system in which the Department pays selected participants to help shape agency priorities, while other affected Washingtonians are left outside the compensated advisory and policy-setting structure, having had no opportunity or a much more limited opportunity to influence the system. In practice, this structure creates an activist enforcement pipeline in which selected groups are funded, elevated, and invited to influence monitoring, policy, grantmaking, and enforcement priorities, while other Washingtonians bear the resulting regulatory burdens without equal access to the process.
V. The Department of Ecology should take corrective action
In light of these concerns, we request that the Department take corrective action to ensure that its programs are established and administered in a manner that does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. To accomplish that goal, the Department should:
1. Ensure that no participant in any Department program, engagement process, workgroup, advisory body, grant program, monitoring process, policy process, or enforcement-adjacent process is selected, compensated, preferred, or provided benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, national origin, status as a member of an overburdened community, status as a member of a vulnerable population, status as a member of a historically excluded or historically underrepresented community, status as a "for and by" organization, or similar identity-conscious criteria;
2. Revise all Department plans, guidelines, policies, and management structures that provide for the selection or compensation of members of these groups to ensure that all Washingtonians affected by the Department's programs have an equal opportunity to participate in Department decisions, plans, programs, initiatives, and workgroups;
3. Ensure that any guidelines for community compensation use neutral, nondiscriminatory eligibility criteria and do not use race-, ethnicity-, color-, or national-origin-conscious criteria for providing benefits, compensation, or opportunities;
4. Prohibit the Department's contractors, grantees, subgrantees, nonprofits, community-based organizations, fiscal intermediaries, third-party administrators, and other partners from using race-, ethnicity-, color-, or national-origin-conscious criteria for selecting, inviting, prioritizing, screening, or compensating participants in Department initiatives, programs, plans, decisions, surveys, interviews, written-feedback processes, and workgroups;
5. Review all Department grant programs, including HEAL Act, CCA-funded, and EPAassisted programs, to ensure that eligibility criteria, scoring criteria, award decisions, community-benefit requirements, environmental justice assessments, and reporting requirements do not use race- or ethnicity-conscious criteria in a manner that provides unequal benefits or opportunities;
6. Review all workgroups, advisory groups, environmental justice assessments, public surveys, interviews, one-time engagement activities, environmental impact assessments, and other initiatives undertaken by the Department to determine whether any individual or group has been denied equal benefits or equal opportunity to participate;
7. Make publicly available records sufficient to allow review of whether the Department has complied with its responsibilities to all Washingtonians, including records concerning community compensation, lived-experience compensation, gift cards, prepaid cards, Z460/Z461 accounting codes, demographic tracking, participant-selection criteria, engagement plans, environmental justice assessments, grant-scoring rubrics, third-party administrators, and community-based organization partners;
8. Provide written assurance that the Department will not create, implement, or administer any program, initiative, grant, engagement process, or compensation system based on race, ethnicity-, color-, or national-origin-conscious criteria.
We request that the Department provide a written response within thirty days and preserve all records relating to the subject matter of the requests set forth in this letter.
The Department's mission is to preserve and protect Washington's environment for all Washingtonians. That mission is not advanced by establishing benefits, opportunities, and compensation for only some Washingtonians while excluding others from equal participation in the Department's decisions.
Respectfully,
Leigh Ann O'Neill, Chief Legal Affairs Officer, America First Policy Institute
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Letter_to_Sixkiller_re_Discrimination_in_Ecology_programs_%281%29.pdf
News Release here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-calls-on-washington-department-of-ecology-to-end-discriminatory-environmental-programs
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: No Political Charges as Ma Xingrui Expelled From Politburo
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 17, 2026, by non-resident fellow Christopher Nye in the foundation's China Brief:
* * *
No Political Charges as Ma Xingrui Expelled From Politburo
Executive Summary:
* On July 14, the Party announced the expulsion of Politburo member Ma Xingrui and referred him for prosecution on bribery charges.
* Ma's notice contains no specific political accusations. This is a departure from historical practice. Every other Politburo-level official felled under Xi Jinping has been charged with political crimes, such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 17, 2026, by non-resident fellow Christopher Nye in the foundation's China Brief: * * * No Political Charges as Ma Xingrui Expelled From Politburo Executive Summary: * On July 14, the Party announced the expulsion of Politburo member Ma Xingrui and referred him for prosecution on bribery charges. * Ma's notice contains no specific political accusations. This is a departure from historical practice. Every other Politburo-level official felled under Xi Jinping has been charged with political crimes, suchas disloyalty, factionalism, ambition, or undermining the Central Military Commission chairman responsibility system.
* The omission suggests removing a top official no longer requires a political narrative. Framing the case as ordinary corruption shields Xi from the embarrassment of purging his own appointees.
Given that nearly all senior officials are vulnerable to accusations of economic corruption, the lower threshold that Ma's case suggests turns ordinary graft into a weapon and raises the risk of intensified elite infighting before the 21st Party Congress.
-
The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) expelled Ma Xingrui, a sitting Politburo member and former Xinjiang Party secretary, on June 30. The official notice referred him for prosecution on bribery charges (Xinhua, July 14). The announcement is notable for what it lacks. Unlike the disciplinary notices of other Politburo-level officials felled during General Secretary Xi Jinping's tenure, Ma's charge sheet contains no specific political accusations. The text omits established disciplinary formulas regarding factionalism, disloyalty, or inflated political ambition. Instead, the CCP removed a top civilian leader just for ordinary corruption and supervision failures.
This divergence marks a significant shift in elite politics. It indicates that the leadership may no longer feel compelled to construct a grand political narrative to justify felling a Politburo member. Xi Jinping now exercises complete discretion over the public framing of top-level purges.
Charge Sheet Against Ma Focuses on Venal Corruption
Ma Xingrui entered the Politburo at the 20th Party Congress in October 2022. He was known as a renowned aerospace engineer who once served as general manager of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC). Within the Party, he had ascended the hierarchy by serving as Shenzhen Party secretary, Guangdong governor, and Xinjiang Party secretary. The Party abruptly relieved him of his Xinjiang post in July 2025 for an unspecified other appointment (Xinhua, July 1, 2025). Then, in April 2026, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection announced an investigation into Ma (Xinhua, April 3). Three months later, the leadership published the final disciplinary results.
The notice outlines a massive corruption scandal without mentioning political disloyalty. The document groups his offenses into four distinct disciplinary failures. First, Ma failed to fulfill his supervisory responsibility for party governance by indulging aides involved in suspected crimes. Second, he violated organizational discipline by answering official inquiries dishonestly and trading favors in personnel arrangements. Third, the commission cites severe integrity breaches. These include the acceptance of illicit gifts, instances in which Ma "traded power and money for sex", and a broader pattern of "large-scale family corruption". Fourth, the text accuses the former secretary of weaponizing public power for private profit. He is charged with leveraging his office to secure business contracts and job promotions for others in exchange for enormous financial bribes paid to himself and his "specific related persons", a legal term covering close relatives and associates.[1]
This severe document stands out specifically for what it omits. All other Politburo-rank officials disciplined under Xi Jinping ultimately received at least one political charge. Civilian peers like Zhou Yongkang and Sun Zhengcai faced accusations of leaking secrets or harboring inflated political ambition (Supreme People's Procuratorate, December 6, 2014; Xinhua, September 29, 2017, October 29, 2017). Recent military purges involving Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairmen He Weidong (and Zhang Youxia) escalated to charges of undermining and trampling the "CMC chairman responsibility system", respectively (Xinhua, October 18, 2025; PLA Daily, January 25). As in Ma's case, nearly all of these other high-level disciplinary actions include accusations of financial crimes and nepotism. The difference with Ma's notice, however, is that it relies entirely on these economic offenses.
Previous Elite Purges Required Political Charges
In the post-Tiananmen era before Xi Jinping took power, the CCP rarely removed Politburo members. The Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao decades saw only three such dismissals in 23 years. Chen Xitong, Chen Liangyu, and Bo Xilai all lost their positions during this period. In each of these historical cases, the underlying conflict involved a challenge to the sitting leadership. Chen Xitong's Beijing municipal machine contested Jiang Zemin's authority (Radio Free Asia, June 23, 2017). Chen Liangyu resisted the macroeconomic policies of the Hu Jintao leadership (VOA, April 11, 2008). Bo Xilai faced expulsion after his abuse of power in the Wang Lijun incident (China Brief, March 2, 2012, March 30, 2012; Xinhua, September 28, 2012). All three men were ousted for economic crimes. Their underlying offense, however, was challenging central authority. The Party did not purge its highest ranks simply for financial crimes.
Xi Jinping lowered this historical threshold in his first term. Defying the core leadership was no longer the required trigger for a purge. Instead, merely possessing a severe political problem became sufficient to bring down a Politburo member. The notice announcing Zhou Yongkang's expulsion from the Party carried heavy political accusations, including charges of leaking Party and state secrets, alongside massive abuses of power (Supreme People's Procuratorate, December 6, 2014). Sun Zhengcai faced a slightly different formulation in 2017. His expulsion notice heavily emphasized bribery, though it still included a distinct political charge by citing the leaking of organizational secrets (Xinhua, September 29, 2017). The CCP subsequently formalized the political framing of these elite purges. The work report of the 18th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection explicitly grouped Zhou and Sun with former director of the General Office of the CCP Central Committee Ling Jihua as "careerists and conspirators" (Xinhua, October 29, 2017). A discipline official summarized this norm at a press conference after the Party Congress that year, saying that for the great majority of felled senior officials "political problems and economic corruption were intertwined" (Xinhua, October 26, 2017). Ordinary graft alone was insufficient to underpin the removal of a top leader.
The purge of top military commanders following the 20th Party Congress in 2022 demonstrates how this requirement for high-level officials to be accused of political crimes in order to be removed from their positions operates. The disciplinary apparatus now delivers severe political indictments almost simultaneously with criminal charges. When the Party expelled He Weidong in October 2025, the initial announcement focused purely on "job-related crimes" and massive bribes. The political verdict arrived the very next day, in a PLA Daily editorial that accused him of losing his faith and seriously undermining the CMC chairman responsibility system (Ministry of National Defense; China Brief, October 17, 2025; PLA Daily, October 18, 2025). The rhetoric escalated further when Zhang Youxia fell several months later. Given Zhang's established prestige within the military and his family's generational ties with that of Xi Jinping, his purge demanded the most severe political indictment. The ensuing editorial accused him of "seriously trampling on and damaging" the chairman responsibility system and "endangering the governing foundation of the CCP" (PLA Daily, January 25; China Brief, January 26). As in He Weidong's case, a brief announcement of a criminal investigation was instantly followed by a coordinated, media-driven political condemnation to legitimize the decision to purge Zhang.
* * *
Table 1: Comparison of Disciplinary Charges Against Politburo-Level Officials Under Xi Jinping [2]
* * *
Omitting Political Charges Signals a Change in Elite Management
The handling of Ma Xingrui signals another shift in the treament of senior leaders. Political charges are apparently no longer necessary to remove a member of the Politburo. Xi Jinping has further dismantled the unwritten rule that historically shielded the highest echelons from severe punishment. This case serves as a stark warning to the inner circle. Core officials must now maintain strict personal integrity rather than relying on political loyalty alone. At a minimum, they must keep their own relatives and personal aides in check. Unlike ordinary anti-corruption cases, this purge carries deep structural significance. It directly targets the Politburo level and raises the baseline disciplinary standard for the entire elite class.
This new dynamic reflects Xi Jinping's fully consolidated power. He is no longer bound by past unwritten rules. He does not need to provide the broader Party with a political explanation to maintain his governing legitimacy. More importantly, issuing excessive political charges now actively harms his own authority. The current central leadership consists almost entirely of officials Xi personally promoted. Accusing these handpicked loyalists of forming cliques, harboring political ambition, or acting with disloyalty creates a glaring contradiction, by implying that the paramount leader routinely elevates treacherous officials.[3] The post-20th Party Congress purges of newly appointed ministers like former foreign minister Qin Gangand former defense minister Li Shangfu already invited questions about Xi's personnel management (China Brief, September 20, 2023, April 23, 2025). Sweeping military purges amplified the skepticism. Framing Ma's downfall purely around common corruption could insulate the core leadership from this political risk.
The preceding analysis carries a caveat regarding timing. This assessment relies strictly on the official notices published to date. The Central Committee could still append political charges to Ma's file in the future. The historical cases of Xu Caihou, Guo Boxiong, and Sun Zhengcai provide precedents for this delayed tactic. Sun offers the most direct comparison. Aside from a charge of leaking secrets, his expulsion notice closely mirrored Ma's current charge sheet. The Party subsequently escalated Sun's case through internal circulars (The Paper, February 14, 2018). It even utilized state-guided peripheral media to leak that a close associate (a "specific related person" under the legal definition referenced above) had gifted Sun a dragon robe--a garment traditionally reserved for emperors--after a fortune teller predicted his ascent to higher office (Caixin Weekly, February 2, 2018). This bizarre detail served to publicly validate accusations of his extreme political ambition and personal greed. A similar retroactive escalation for Ma cannot be ruled out in the future.
Conclusion
The unprecedented decision to expel Politburo member Ma Xingrui solely on corruption charges without the customary political indictments marks a shift in elite management under Xi Jinping. It suggests that the core leadership can now remove top officials without constructing the severe political narratives required in previous years. This strategic omission may protect the paramount leader from the political embarrassment of repeatedly purging his own handpicked loyalists. The ultimate decision rests entirely with Xi Jinping. Because nearly all senior officials harbor similar corruption vulnerabilities, however, this lowered threshold for removal turns ordinary graft into a readily available weapon. Competitors jockeying for position ahead of the 21st Party Congress now possess a streamlined blueprint to strike rivals. As a result, this new dynamic threatens to intensify elite infighting.
* * *
Christopher Nye is a Non-Resident Fellow at The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/no-political-charges-as-ma-xingrui-expelled-from-politburo/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
No Political Charges as Ma Xingrui Expelled From Politburo
Executive Summary:
* On July 14, the Party announced the expulsion of Politburo member Ma Xingrui and referred him for prosecution on bribery charges.
* Ma's notice contains no specific political accusations. This is a departure from historical practice. Every other Politburo-level official felled under Xi Jinping has been charged with political crimes, such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 17, 2026, by non-resident fellow Christopher Nye in the foundation's China Brief: * * * No Political Charges as Ma Xingrui Expelled From Politburo Executive Summary: * On July 14, the Party announced the expulsion of Politburo member Ma Xingrui and referred him for prosecution on bribery charges. * Ma's notice contains no specific political accusations. This is a departure from historical practice. Every other Politburo-level official felled under Xi Jinping has been charged with political crimes, suchas disloyalty, factionalism, ambition, or undermining the Central Military Commission chairman responsibility system.
* The omission suggests removing a top official no longer requires a political narrative. Framing the case as ordinary corruption shields Xi from the embarrassment of purging his own appointees.
Given that nearly all senior officials are vulnerable to accusations of economic corruption, the lower threshold that Ma's case suggests turns ordinary graft into a weapon and raises the risk of intensified elite infighting before the 21st Party Congress.
-
The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) expelled Ma Xingrui, a sitting Politburo member and former Xinjiang Party secretary, on June 30. The official notice referred him for prosecution on bribery charges (Xinhua, July 14). The announcement is notable for what it lacks. Unlike the disciplinary notices of other Politburo-level officials felled during General Secretary Xi Jinping's tenure, Ma's charge sheet contains no specific political accusations. The text omits established disciplinary formulas regarding factionalism, disloyalty, or inflated political ambition. Instead, the CCP removed a top civilian leader just for ordinary corruption and supervision failures.
This divergence marks a significant shift in elite politics. It indicates that the leadership may no longer feel compelled to construct a grand political narrative to justify felling a Politburo member. Xi Jinping now exercises complete discretion over the public framing of top-level purges.
Charge Sheet Against Ma Focuses on Venal Corruption
Ma Xingrui entered the Politburo at the 20th Party Congress in October 2022. He was known as a renowned aerospace engineer who once served as general manager of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC). Within the Party, he had ascended the hierarchy by serving as Shenzhen Party secretary, Guangdong governor, and Xinjiang Party secretary. The Party abruptly relieved him of his Xinjiang post in July 2025 for an unspecified other appointment (Xinhua, July 1, 2025). Then, in April 2026, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection announced an investigation into Ma (Xinhua, April 3). Three months later, the leadership published the final disciplinary results.
The notice outlines a massive corruption scandal without mentioning political disloyalty. The document groups his offenses into four distinct disciplinary failures. First, Ma failed to fulfill his supervisory responsibility for party governance by indulging aides involved in suspected crimes. Second, he violated organizational discipline by answering official inquiries dishonestly and trading favors in personnel arrangements. Third, the commission cites severe integrity breaches. These include the acceptance of illicit gifts, instances in which Ma "traded power and money for sex", and a broader pattern of "large-scale family corruption". Fourth, the text accuses the former secretary of weaponizing public power for private profit. He is charged with leveraging his office to secure business contracts and job promotions for others in exchange for enormous financial bribes paid to himself and his "specific related persons", a legal term covering close relatives and associates.[1]
This severe document stands out specifically for what it omits. All other Politburo-rank officials disciplined under Xi Jinping ultimately received at least one political charge. Civilian peers like Zhou Yongkang and Sun Zhengcai faced accusations of leaking secrets or harboring inflated political ambition (Supreme People's Procuratorate, December 6, 2014; Xinhua, September 29, 2017, October 29, 2017). Recent military purges involving Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairmen He Weidong (and Zhang Youxia) escalated to charges of undermining and trampling the "CMC chairman responsibility system", respectively (Xinhua, October 18, 2025; PLA Daily, January 25). As in Ma's case, nearly all of these other high-level disciplinary actions include accusations of financial crimes and nepotism. The difference with Ma's notice, however, is that it relies entirely on these economic offenses.
Previous Elite Purges Required Political Charges
In the post-Tiananmen era before Xi Jinping took power, the CCP rarely removed Politburo members. The Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao decades saw only three such dismissals in 23 years. Chen Xitong, Chen Liangyu, and Bo Xilai all lost their positions during this period. In each of these historical cases, the underlying conflict involved a challenge to the sitting leadership. Chen Xitong's Beijing municipal machine contested Jiang Zemin's authority (Radio Free Asia, June 23, 2017). Chen Liangyu resisted the macroeconomic policies of the Hu Jintao leadership (VOA, April 11, 2008). Bo Xilai faced expulsion after his abuse of power in the Wang Lijun incident (China Brief, March 2, 2012, March 30, 2012; Xinhua, September 28, 2012). All three men were ousted for economic crimes. Their underlying offense, however, was challenging central authority. The Party did not purge its highest ranks simply for financial crimes.
Xi Jinping lowered this historical threshold in his first term. Defying the core leadership was no longer the required trigger for a purge. Instead, merely possessing a severe political problem became sufficient to bring down a Politburo member. The notice announcing Zhou Yongkang's expulsion from the Party carried heavy political accusations, including charges of leaking Party and state secrets, alongside massive abuses of power (Supreme People's Procuratorate, December 6, 2014). Sun Zhengcai faced a slightly different formulation in 2017. His expulsion notice heavily emphasized bribery, though it still included a distinct political charge by citing the leaking of organizational secrets (Xinhua, September 29, 2017). The CCP subsequently formalized the political framing of these elite purges. The work report of the 18th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection explicitly grouped Zhou and Sun with former director of the General Office of the CCP Central Committee Ling Jihua as "careerists and conspirators" (Xinhua, October 29, 2017). A discipline official summarized this norm at a press conference after the Party Congress that year, saying that for the great majority of felled senior officials "political problems and economic corruption were intertwined" (Xinhua, October 26, 2017). Ordinary graft alone was insufficient to underpin the removal of a top leader.
The purge of top military commanders following the 20th Party Congress in 2022 demonstrates how this requirement for high-level officials to be accused of political crimes in order to be removed from their positions operates. The disciplinary apparatus now delivers severe political indictments almost simultaneously with criminal charges. When the Party expelled He Weidong in October 2025, the initial announcement focused purely on "job-related crimes" and massive bribes. The political verdict arrived the very next day, in a PLA Daily editorial that accused him of losing his faith and seriously undermining the CMC chairman responsibility system (Ministry of National Defense; China Brief, October 17, 2025; PLA Daily, October 18, 2025). The rhetoric escalated further when Zhang Youxia fell several months later. Given Zhang's established prestige within the military and his family's generational ties with that of Xi Jinping, his purge demanded the most severe political indictment. The ensuing editorial accused him of "seriously trampling on and damaging" the chairman responsibility system and "endangering the governing foundation of the CCP" (PLA Daily, January 25; China Brief, January 26). As in He Weidong's case, a brief announcement of a criminal investigation was instantly followed by a coordinated, media-driven political condemnation to legitimize the decision to purge Zhang.
* * *
Table 1: Comparison of Disciplinary Charges Against Politburo-Level Officials Under Xi Jinping [2]
* * *
Omitting Political Charges Signals a Change in Elite Management
The handling of Ma Xingrui signals another shift in the treament of senior leaders. Political charges are apparently no longer necessary to remove a member of the Politburo. Xi Jinping has further dismantled the unwritten rule that historically shielded the highest echelons from severe punishment. This case serves as a stark warning to the inner circle. Core officials must now maintain strict personal integrity rather than relying on political loyalty alone. At a minimum, they must keep their own relatives and personal aides in check. Unlike ordinary anti-corruption cases, this purge carries deep structural significance. It directly targets the Politburo level and raises the baseline disciplinary standard for the entire elite class.
This new dynamic reflects Xi Jinping's fully consolidated power. He is no longer bound by past unwritten rules. He does not need to provide the broader Party with a political explanation to maintain his governing legitimacy. More importantly, issuing excessive political charges now actively harms his own authority. The current central leadership consists almost entirely of officials Xi personally promoted. Accusing these handpicked loyalists of forming cliques, harboring political ambition, or acting with disloyalty creates a glaring contradiction, by implying that the paramount leader routinely elevates treacherous officials.[3] The post-20th Party Congress purges of newly appointed ministers like former foreign minister Qin Gangand former defense minister Li Shangfu already invited questions about Xi's personnel management (China Brief, September 20, 2023, April 23, 2025). Sweeping military purges amplified the skepticism. Framing Ma's downfall purely around common corruption could insulate the core leadership from this political risk.
The preceding analysis carries a caveat regarding timing. This assessment relies strictly on the official notices published to date. The Central Committee could still append political charges to Ma's file in the future. The historical cases of Xu Caihou, Guo Boxiong, and Sun Zhengcai provide precedents for this delayed tactic. Sun offers the most direct comparison. Aside from a charge of leaking secrets, his expulsion notice closely mirrored Ma's current charge sheet. The Party subsequently escalated Sun's case through internal circulars (The Paper, February 14, 2018). It even utilized state-guided peripheral media to leak that a close associate (a "specific related person" under the legal definition referenced above) had gifted Sun a dragon robe--a garment traditionally reserved for emperors--after a fortune teller predicted his ascent to higher office (Caixin Weekly, February 2, 2018). This bizarre detail served to publicly validate accusations of his extreme political ambition and personal greed. A similar retroactive escalation for Ma cannot be ruled out in the future.
Conclusion
The unprecedented decision to expel Politburo member Ma Xingrui solely on corruption charges without the customary political indictments marks a shift in elite management under Xi Jinping. It suggests that the core leadership can now remove top officials without constructing the severe political narratives required in previous years. This strategic omission may protect the paramount leader from the political embarrassment of repeatedly purging his own handpicked loyalists. The ultimate decision rests entirely with Xi Jinping. Because nearly all senior officials harbor similar corruption vulnerabilities, however, this lowered threshold for removal turns ordinary graft into a readily available weapon. Competitors jockeying for position ahead of the 21st Party Congress now possess a streamlined blueprint to strike rivals. As a result, this new dynamic threatens to intensify elite infighting.
* * *
Christopher Nye is a Non-Resident Fellow at The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/no-political-charges-as-ma-xingrui-expelled-from-politburo/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Sentiment in Germany's Travel Industry Deteriorates Slightly
MUNICH, Germany, July 18 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 17, 2026:
* * *
Sentiment in Germany's Travel Industry Deteriorates Slightly
The business climate for travel agencies and tour operators in Germany deteriorated somewhat in June. The ifo Institute index fell in June to -32.0 points, down from -30.3 points* in May. Before the escalation in the Middle East in February, the figure still stood at -15.6 points*. "Many travelers were uncertain about their vacation plans, especially at the start of the Iran conflict," says ifo industry expert Patrick Hoppner.
This ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, July 18 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 17, 2026: * * * Sentiment in Germany's Travel Industry Deteriorates Slightly The business climate for travel agencies and tour operators in Germany deteriorated somewhat in June. The ifo Institute index fell in June to -32.0 points, down from -30.3 points* in May. Before the escalation in the Middle East in February, the figure still stood at -15.6 points*. "Many travelers were uncertain about their vacation plans, especially at the start of the Iran conflict," says ifo industry expert Patrick Hoppner. Thiscould lead to catch-up effects: "Travelers who postponed booking their vacation in the spring may still decide to make a last-minute booking or take a last-minute vacation during the peak summer travel season."
Demand for many European and non-European destinations in the Mediterranean region is stable or on the rise. The number of air passengers departing from a major airport in Germany on a trip to Italy rose by 1.0% from January through May 2026 compared with the same period the previous year. The number of passengers traveling to Spain remained roughly constant.
That's according to the air traffic statistics of the German Federal Statistical Office. The number of passengers flying to Greece rose by 3.6%, to Croatia by 4.2%, and to Turkey by 2.7%. Overall, the number of air travelers declined by 0.2%. "Unlike the Mediterranean region, many long-haul destinations are currently losing their appeal," says Hoppner.
The share of travel companies expecting rising prices in the coming months declined noticeably in June. As a result, the ifo price expectations for the industry fell considerably. "One major reason for this is the significant drop in jet fuel prices in May and June," says Hoppner.
"However, the price level remains higher than before the escalation of the Iran conflict at the end of February." According to the consumer price statistics of the German Federal Statistical Office, the cost of flights to other European countries rose by 11.5% in the first half of 2026 compared with the same period the previous year.
* Seasonally adjusted
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-17/sentiment-germanys-travel-industry-deteriorates-slightly)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-17/sentiment-germanys-travel-industry-deteriorates-slightly
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Sentiment in Germany's Travel Industry Deteriorates Slightly
The business climate for travel agencies and tour operators in Germany deteriorated somewhat in June. The ifo Institute index fell in June to -32.0 points, down from -30.3 points* in May. Before the escalation in the Middle East in February, the figure still stood at -15.6 points*. "Many travelers were uncertain about their vacation plans, especially at the start of the Iran conflict," says ifo industry expert Patrick Hoppner.
This ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, July 18 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 17, 2026: * * * Sentiment in Germany's Travel Industry Deteriorates Slightly The business climate for travel agencies and tour operators in Germany deteriorated somewhat in June. The ifo Institute index fell in June to -32.0 points, down from -30.3 points* in May. Before the escalation in the Middle East in February, the figure still stood at -15.6 points*. "Many travelers were uncertain about their vacation plans, especially at the start of the Iran conflict," says ifo industry expert Patrick Hoppner. Thiscould lead to catch-up effects: "Travelers who postponed booking their vacation in the spring may still decide to make a last-minute booking or take a last-minute vacation during the peak summer travel season."
Demand for many European and non-European destinations in the Mediterranean region is stable or on the rise. The number of air passengers departing from a major airport in Germany on a trip to Italy rose by 1.0% from January through May 2026 compared with the same period the previous year. The number of passengers traveling to Spain remained roughly constant.
That's according to the air traffic statistics of the German Federal Statistical Office. The number of passengers flying to Greece rose by 3.6%, to Croatia by 4.2%, and to Turkey by 2.7%. Overall, the number of air travelers declined by 0.2%. "Unlike the Mediterranean region, many long-haul destinations are currently losing their appeal," says Hoppner.
The share of travel companies expecting rising prices in the coming months declined noticeably in June. As a result, the ifo price expectations for the industry fell considerably. "One major reason for this is the significant drop in jet fuel prices in May and June," says Hoppner.
"However, the price level remains higher than before the escalation of the Iran conflict at the end of February." According to the consumer price statistics of the German Federal Statistical Office, the cost of flights to other European countries rose by 11.5% in the first half of 2026 compared with the same period the previous year.
* Seasonally adjusted
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-17/sentiment-germanys-travel-industry-deteriorates-slightly)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-17/sentiment-germanys-travel-industry-deteriorates-slightly
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Providence: Update on the U.S. War With Iran
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 16, 2026, by Keystone Defense Initiative Director Rebeccah L. Heinrichs to Providence:
* * *
An Update on the U.S. War with Iran
Tonight, President Trump will address the nation. It would be wise to take this opportunity to explain to the American people how Iran threatens America's interests and his plan to counter them. The president wanted this conflict behind him as the midterms approached, but following Iran's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 16, 2026, by Keystone Defense Initiative Director Rebeccah L. Heinrichs to Providence: * * * An Update on the U.S. War with Iran Tonight, President Trump will address the nation. It would be wise to take this opportunity to explain to the American people how Iran threatens America's interests and his plan to counter them. The president wanted this conflict behind him as the midterms approached, but following Iran'sviolations of the Memorandum of Understanding, the U.S. has had to reinstate its blockade of Iranian vessels, reimpose sanctions, and resume its punishing bombing campaign. Leveling with the American people and establishing the facts now will ease concerns and inspire confidence that there remains an actionable path to success.
President Trump laid out the following objectives for Operation Epic Fury: "First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities. . . and their capacity to produce brand new ones. . . . Second, we're annihilating their navy. . . Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. . . And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders."
In Operation Epic Fury, the United States Armed Forces, with the Israel Defense Forces, achieved great success in a sophisticated operation with clearly defined military aims. The Israelis used their world-class intelligence services to locate and eliminate key military leadership, as well as scientists indispensable to Iran's dangerous and still-active nuclear weapons program.
Now the battle of Hormuz is underway, and the United States is winning. It is a separate fight, and one of immense consequence. Iran has been able to sustain terrorist attacks--and that is what they are--against civilians in the strait. This is unacceptable for the United States and its allies. Only China backs Iran's claim to managing the strait.
The United States has the requisite military forces and munitions on hand to carry out this operation, and the U.S. should not hold back. The types of munitions that will be required for this mission are not in short supply. The U.S. Navy is available to escort ships through the strait along the Omani corridor. On the diplomatic front, US focus should shift focus away from the Iranians and towards European allies. The French and the Brits have the capability and desire to help clear the center pathway in the strait of mines, and to assist the United States in its naval escort mission. The United States should push for this and welcome the cooperation enthusiastically. The Europeans desire Iranian acquiescence to their participation, but they won't get it. The United States should look for ways to get the cooperation it needs anyway. This may require the United States to grant assurances that our Allies seek on other issues that have caused friction.
It's important to remember that time is on our side. The Gulf States are already busy working to diminish the value of the Strait by expanding overland routes. The UAE's new pipeline, which will begin operating by the end of 2027, will reduce the amount of oil that needs to cross Hormuz to about 10.5 million barrels per day. The UAE is also considering building another pipeline that would facilitate 9 million barrels a day. The Saudis are expanding their vast East-West pipeline and its two oil terminals along the Red Sea. The Strait is already far less valuable than it was a few months ago, and in a year, it will be even less, and in three, negligible.
Lastly, even as the U.S. and Israel have significantly degraded Iran's nuclear program, there are still decisions to be made about the "nuclear dust." President Trump can continue to expand strikes inside Iran to weaken it before directing a ground raid to dismantle and remove Iran's centrifuges. A complex operation like this should be done alongside the Israelis, who know exactly what to do. Or, he can further entomb their nuclear facilities through bombing, rendering them effectively inaccessible. If he chooses the latter, Israel will likely need to continue periodic airstrikes when the Iranians resume nuclear weapons activity.
The president has a good report to provide to the American people. As we continue to celebrate 250 years of freedom, the Iranian people are closer now to achieving theirs than in decades. The United States with Israel has crushed the Iranian military, and, with its European allies, Washington has imposed crushing sanctions on Iran to deprive the regime of its lucrative oil business. Syria and Iraq have made significant progress in extricating themselves from Iran's control and are moving closer to cooperation with the United States. Regimes can change, and the Iranian people can wrest their own future from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its clerics. With additional strikes to take out IRGC leadership and infrastructure, combined with an economy in shambles, the time will soon come for the people of Iran to rise up.
In the meantime, the United States has its work cut out to turn its military successes into lasting political victories. And with the right plan and execution, it is eminently possible.
Read in Providence (https://providencemag.com/2026/07/an-update-on-the-u-s-war-with-iran/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Rebeccah L. Heinrichs is a senior fellow and director of the Keystone Defense Initiative. She specializes in US national defense policy with a focus on strategic deterrence.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/update-us-war-iran-rebeccah-heinrichs
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
An Update on the U.S. War with Iran
Tonight, President Trump will address the nation. It would be wise to take this opportunity to explain to the American people how Iran threatens America's interests and his plan to counter them. The president wanted this conflict behind him as the midterms approached, but following Iran's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 16, 2026, by Keystone Defense Initiative Director Rebeccah L. Heinrichs to Providence: * * * An Update on the U.S. War with Iran Tonight, President Trump will address the nation. It would be wise to take this opportunity to explain to the American people how Iran threatens America's interests and his plan to counter them. The president wanted this conflict behind him as the midterms approached, but following Iran'sviolations of the Memorandum of Understanding, the U.S. has had to reinstate its blockade of Iranian vessels, reimpose sanctions, and resume its punishing bombing campaign. Leveling with the American people and establishing the facts now will ease concerns and inspire confidence that there remains an actionable path to success.
President Trump laid out the following objectives for Operation Epic Fury: "First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities. . . and their capacity to produce brand new ones. . . . Second, we're annihilating their navy. . . Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. . . And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders."
In Operation Epic Fury, the United States Armed Forces, with the Israel Defense Forces, achieved great success in a sophisticated operation with clearly defined military aims. The Israelis used their world-class intelligence services to locate and eliminate key military leadership, as well as scientists indispensable to Iran's dangerous and still-active nuclear weapons program.
Now the battle of Hormuz is underway, and the United States is winning. It is a separate fight, and one of immense consequence. Iran has been able to sustain terrorist attacks--and that is what they are--against civilians in the strait. This is unacceptable for the United States and its allies. Only China backs Iran's claim to managing the strait.
The United States has the requisite military forces and munitions on hand to carry out this operation, and the U.S. should not hold back. The types of munitions that will be required for this mission are not in short supply. The U.S. Navy is available to escort ships through the strait along the Omani corridor. On the diplomatic front, US focus should shift focus away from the Iranians and towards European allies. The French and the Brits have the capability and desire to help clear the center pathway in the strait of mines, and to assist the United States in its naval escort mission. The United States should push for this and welcome the cooperation enthusiastically. The Europeans desire Iranian acquiescence to their participation, but they won't get it. The United States should look for ways to get the cooperation it needs anyway. This may require the United States to grant assurances that our Allies seek on other issues that have caused friction.
It's important to remember that time is on our side. The Gulf States are already busy working to diminish the value of the Strait by expanding overland routes. The UAE's new pipeline, which will begin operating by the end of 2027, will reduce the amount of oil that needs to cross Hormuz to about 10.5 million barrels per day. The UAE is also considering building another pipeline that would facilitate 9 million barrels a day. The Saudis are expanding their vast East-West pipeline and its two oil terminals along the Red Sea. The Strait is already far less valuable than it was a few months ago, and in a year, it will be even less, and in three, negligible.
Lastly, even as the U.S. and Israel have significantly degraded Iran's nuclear program, there are still decisions to be made about the "nuclear dust." President Trump can continue to expand strikes inside Iran to weaken it before directing a ground raid to dismantle and remove Iran's centrifuges. A complex operation like this should be done alongside the Israelis, who know exactly what to do. Or, he can further entomb their nuclear facilities through bombing, rendering them effectively inaccessible. If he chooses the latter, Israel will likely need to continue periodic airstrikes when the Iranians resume nuclear weapons activity.
The president has a good report to provide to the American people. As we continue to celebrate 250 years of freedom, the Iranian people are closer now to achieving theirs than in decades. The United States with Israel has crushed the Iranian military, and, with its European allies, Washington has imposed crushing sanctions on Iran to deprive the regime of its lucrative oil business. Syria and Iraq have made significant progress in extricating themselves from Iran's control and are moving closer to cooperation with the United States. Regimes can change, and the Iranian people can wrest their own future from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its clerics. With additional strikes to take out IRGC leadership and infrastructure, combined with an economy in shambles, the time will soon come for the people of Iran to rise up.
In the meantime, the United States has its work cut out to turn its military successes into lasting political victories. And with the right plan and execution, it is eminently possible.
Read in Providence (https://providencemag.com/2026/07/an-update-on-the-u-s-war-with-iran/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Rebeccah L. Heinrichs is a senior fellow and director of the Keystone Defense Initiative. She specializes in US national defense policy with a focus on strategic deterrence.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/update-us-war-iran-rebeccah-heinrichs
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Trump Dredges Up Debunked Election Conspiracy Claims To Distract Voters
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on July 16, 2026:
* * *
Trump Dredges Up Debunked Election Conspiracy Claims To Distract Voters
Today, President Donald Trump made remarks asserting that China and other foreign nations attempted to meddle in the 2020 election. In response, Michael Sozan, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement:
Yet again, President Trump is dredging up debunked election conspiracy theories in a desperate effort to rewrite the past and subvert the upcoming midterm elections. He is ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on July 16, 2026: * * * Trump Dredges Up Debunked Election Conspiracy Claims To Distract Voters Today, President Donald Trump made remarks asserting that China and other foreign nations attempted to meddle in the 2020 election. In response, Michael Sozan, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: Yet again, President Trump is dredging up debunked election conspiracy theories in a desperate effort to rewrite the past and subvert the upcoming midterm elections. He isresurrecting the same old, tired playbook to make Americans doubt the legitimacy of their electoral process.
Apparently, Trump will never be willing to accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election, and that state and local officials continue to conduct free and fair elections.
This is just another attempt by him to distract voters from his plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the rising cost of living, rampant inflation, and continuing war with Iran are affecting the lives of all Americans.
For more information, or to talk to an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-trump-dredges-up-debunked-election-conspiracy-claims-to-distract-voters/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Trump Dredges Up Debunked Election Conspiracy Claims To Distract Voters
Today, President Donald Trump made remarks asserting that China and other foreign nations attempted to meddle in the 2020 election. In response, Michael Sozan, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement:
Yet again, President Trump is dredging up debunked election conspiracy theories in a desperate effort to rewrite the past and subvert the upcoming midterm elections. He is ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on July 16, 2026: * * * Trump Dredges Up Debunked Election Conspiracy Claims To Distract Voters Today, President Donald Trump made remarks asserting that China and other foreign nations attempted to meddle in the 2020 election. In response, Michael Sozan, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: Yet again, President Trump is dredging up debunked election conspiracy theories in a desperate effort to rewrite the past and subvert the upcoming midterm elections. He isresurrecting the same old, tired playbook to make Americans doubt the legitimacy of their electoral process.
Apparently, Trump will never be willing to accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election, and that state and local officials continue to conduct free and fair elections.
This is just another attempt by him to distract voters from his plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the rising cost of living, rampant inflation, and continuing war with Iran are affecting the lives of all Americans.
For more information, or to talk to an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-trump-dredges-up-debunked-election-conspiracy-claims-to-distract-voters/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Cruelty Must End - Better Immigration Policies for a Stronger America
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on July 17, 2026:
* * *
Event Advisory: The Cruelty Must End: Better Immigration Policies for a Stronger America
America's immigration system has been broken for far too long. Congressional inaction has resulted in an antiquated legal framework that has failed to keep pace with our economic needs and changing global trends. Instead of implementing sensible policies, the Trump administration is systematically pursuing a cruel and reckless agenda, gutting legal immigration pathways, and deploying indiscriminate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on July 17, 2026: * * * Event Advisory: The Cruelty Must End: Better Immigration Policies for a Stronger America America's immigration system has been broken for far too long. Congressional inaction has resulted in an antiquated legal framework that has failed to keep pace with our economic needs and changing global trends. Instead of implementing sensible policies, the Trump administration is systematically pursuing a cruel and reckless agenda, gutting legal immigration pathways, and deploying indiscriminateenforcement tactics that have a total disregard for human life--as evidenced by multiple recent shootings by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And many of those most at risk under President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaigns are immigrants who have lived in this country for decades, contributing to our economy and raising their families here. These actions by the administration are bringing chaos and terror to our communities, undermining the rule of law, and hampering economic growth.
Americans deserve a modern immigration system that is consistent with our values and serves our economic needs. Please join the Center for American Progress and America's Voice to hear from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and a panel of experts on the Trump administration's cruel and reckless anti-immigration and mass deportation agenda as well as the urgent need for accountability and commonsense policies that are consistent with our values and economic needs.
WHO:
Opening remarks:
Neera Tanden, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
Keynote remarks:
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Distinguished panelists:
Stan Veuger, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus on Children
Melissa Morales, President and Founder, Somos Votantes
Moderator:
Vanessa Cardenas, Executive Director, America's Voice
Closing remarks:
Debu Gandhi, Senior Director of Immigration Policy, Center for American Progress
WHEN: Wednesday, July 29, 2026
9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. ET
WHERE: Center for American Progress
1333 H St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
RSVP: To join in person or online, please RSVP here.
For more information or to speak to an expert, contact Rafael Medina at rmedina@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/event-advisory-the-cruelty-must-end-better-immigration-policies-for-a-stronger-america/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Event Advisory: The Cruelty Must End: Better Immigration Policies for a Stronger America
America's immigration system has been broken for far too long. Congressional inaction has resulted in an antiquated legal framework that has failed to keep pace with our economic needs and changing global trends. Instead of implementing sensible policies, the Trump administration is systematically pursuing a cruel and reckless agenda, gutting legal immigration pathways, and deploying indiscriminate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on July 17, 2026: * * * Event Advisory: The Cruelty Must End: Better Immigration Policies for a Stronger America America's immigration system has been broken for far too long. Congressional inaction has resulted in an antiquated legal framework that has failed to keep pace with our economic needs and changing global trends. Instead of implementing sensible policies, the Trump administration is systematically pursuing a cruel and reckless agenda, gutting legal immigration pathways, and deploying indiscriminateenforcement tactics that have a total disregard for human life--as evidenced by multiple recent shootings by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And many of those most at risk under President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaigns are immigrants who have lived in this country for decades, contributing to our economy and raising their families here. These actions by the administration are bringing chaos and terror to our communities, undermining the rule of law, and hampering economic growth.
Americans deserve a modern immigration system that is consistent with our values and serves our economic needs. Please join the Center for American Progress and America's Voice to hear from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and a panel of experts on the Trump administration's cruel and reckless anti-immigration and mass deportation agenda as well as the urgent need for accountability and commonsense policies that are consistent with our values and economic needs.
WHO:
Opening remarks:
Neera Tanden, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
Keynote remarks:
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Distinguished panelists:
Stan Veuger, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus on Children
Melissa Morales, President and Founder, Somos Votantes
Moderator:
Vanessa Cardenas, Executive Director, America's Voice
Closing remarks:
Debu Gandhi, Senior Director of Immigration Policy, Center for American Progress
WHEN: Wednesday, July 29, 2026
9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. ET
WHERE: Center for American Progress
1333 H St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
RSVP: To join in person or online, please RSVP here.
For more information or to speak to an expert, contact Rafael Medina at rmedina@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/event-advisory-the-cruelty-must-end-better-immigration-policies-for-a-stronger-america/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on July 17, 2026
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 17, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 17, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh: * * * InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups. The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is an environmentalist advocacy group that has promoted left-of-center climate policies such as cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and reducing water usage in western U.S states by 25 percent. The WRA has received funding from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Catena Foundation, the National Philanthropic Trust, and the United States Energy Foundation. It has made grants to organizations that include American Rivers, Faith in Action Nevada, One Apia Nevada, and the River Network.
* Asian Law Caucus (ALC) is a California-based advocacy group that provides legal services for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities within the state. The ALC has received funding from the Ford Foundation, the NEO Philanthropy Action Fund, the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society. The ALC has itself made grants to Chinese for Affirmative Action, the State Power Fund, the Asian Community Development Council, and Communities United For Restorative Youth Justice.
* Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) is an environmental activist group that advocates in favor of policies to prevent the production and release of chemicals from industrial and military facilities in the state. In 2024, the group received $2 million from Yield Giving, a grantmaking organization founded by MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazonfounder and former CEO Jeff Bezos. ACAT has also received funding from the Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust, the Windward Fund, the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, and the Groundswell Fund.
* Center for an Urban Future (CUF) is a New York City-based think tank that researches and produces economic and environmental policy proposals for the city. The CUF has received funding from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation, the Robin Hood Foundation, the Tides Center, the New York Community Trust, the Tides Foundation, the Altman Foundation, the Clark Foundation, and the Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation.
* Faith in Place is a Chicago-based activist organization that works with religious and faith-based groups to promote left-of-center environmentalist policies. The group has received funding from the Lily Endowment, the Joyce Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and the Chicago Community Trust. It has made grants to the Chicago Votes Education Fund, the Illinois Environmental Council Education Fund, and Ceres, Inc..
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-07-17-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 17, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh: * * * InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups. The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is an environmentalist advocacy group that has promoted left-of-center climate policies such as cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and reducing water usage in western U.S states by 25 percent. The WRA has received funding from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Catena Foundation, the National Philanthropic Trust, and the United States Energy Foundation. It has made grants to organizations that include American Rivers, Faith in Action Nevada, One Apia Nevada, and the River Network.
* Asian Law Caucus (ALC) is a California-based advocacy group that provides legal services for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities within the state. The ALC has received funding from the Ford Foundation, the NEO Philanthropy Action Fund, the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society. The ALC has itself made grants to Chinese for Affirmative Action, the State Power Fund, the Asian Community Development Council, and Communities United For Restorative Youth Justice.
* Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) is an environmental activist group that advocates in favor of policies to prevent the production and release of chemicals from industrial and military facilities in the state. In 2024, the group received $2 million from Yield Giving, a grantmaking organization founded by MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazonfounder and former CEO Jeff Bezos. ACAT has also received funding from the Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust, the Windward Fund, the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, and the Groundswell Fund.
* Center for an Urban Future (CUF) is a New York City-based think tank that researches and produces economic and environmental policy proposals for the city. The CUF has received funding from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation, the Robin Hood Foundation, the Tides Center, the New York Community Trust, the Tides Foundation, the Altman Foundation, the Clark Foundation, and the Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation.
* Faith in Place is a Chicago-based activist organization that works with religious and faith-based groups to promote left-of-center environmentalist policies. The group has received funding from the Lily Endowment, the Joyce Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and the Chicago Community Trust. It has made grants to the Chicago Votes Education Fund, the Illinois Environmental Council Education Fund, and Ceres, Inc..
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-07-17-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]