Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Interest Rate Concerns Weigh on Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany
MUNICH, Germany, April 18 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on April 17, 2026:
* * *
Interest Rate Concerns Weigh on Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany
Sentiment in residential construction in Germany deteriorated again in March. The business climate fell from -17.7 to -19.5 points, due to noticeably more pessimistic expectations. By contrast, the current situation was assessed as somewhat better. "Concerns about renewed rises in interest rates are weighing on expectations in residential construction," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Higher
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, April 18 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on April 17, 2026:
* * *
Interest Rate Concerns Weigh on Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany
Sentiment in residential construction in Germany deteriorated again in March. The business climate fell from -17.7 to -19.5 points, due to noticeably more pessimistic expectations. By contrast, the current situation was assessed as somewhat better. "Concerns about renewed rises in interest rates are weighing on expectations in residential construction," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Higherfinancing costs would once again dampen the housebuilding ambitions of many households."
In operating business, however, initial signs of improvement can be seen, as the order situation slowly eases. The share of companies reporting too few orders fell considerably to 43.4%, the lowest level since July 2023. The reason for that is a recent increase in building permits. Cancellations also declined and stood most recently at 10.8%. "The order situation is slowly improving, but uncertainty remains high," says Wohlrabe.
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-04-17/interest-rate-concerns-weigh-business-climate-residential-construction)
ifo Podcast: A Closer Look at Distorted Rental Markets in Inner Cities (https://www.ifo.de/en/media-center/2026-02-13/ifo-podcast-mieten-wohnungsnot)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-04-17/interest-rate-concerns-weigh-business-climate-residential-construction
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Homeschool Freedom Stays Strong Under Minnesota ESA Proposal
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, April 18 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Homeschool freedom stays strong under Minnesota ESA proposal
Education freedom policies like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) continue to gain traction across the country. The flexibility they offer allows families to customize learning rather than conform to a one-size-fits-all system.
Unlike traditional public education systems, ESA programs do not prescribe a set
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, April 18 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Homeschool freedom stays strong under Minnesota ESA proposal
Education freedom policies like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) continue to gain traction across the country. The flexibility they offer allows families to customize learning rather than conform to a one-size-fits-all system.
Unlike traditional public education systems, ESA programs do not prescribe a setcurriculum or instructional method. Families are free to continue educating their children in the way that best meets their needs -- whether that is through classical education, unschooling, faith-based instruction, or another approach.
While ESA programs include accountability measures, these are focused on ensuring funds are used for legitimate educational expenses, not on controlling how children are taught.
Take the proposal in Minnesota H.F. 19, which would establish an ESA program in the state worth roughly $7,000 per participant -- less than half of the average per-pupil funding for public schools. Homeschool students, like those in other nonpublic learning environments, would be eligible to participate if they meet income requirements. Participating students would not be reclassified as public school students simply for accepting ESA funds. This is one safeguard against regulatory creep.
The bill includes additional guardrails to prevent government overreach. It specifies that an eligible nonpublic school "is autonomous and not an agent of the state or federal government," and goes on to state:
"the creation of the ESA program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, the commissioner, the department, any other government agency or officers, or any school district to impose any additional regulation of nonpublic schools or educational service providers..."
"and upon being recognized by the commissioner, an eligible school shall have the freedom to provide for the educational needs of students and be able to offer diverse learning opportunities. Upon such recognition, no additional mandates to participate in the ESA may be imposed on an eligible school that would require a change to the school's admission criteria, employment practices, pedagogy, or curriculum."
While homeschool enrollment has reached an all-time high, it still represents less than 4 percent of Minnesota's total K-12 population. ESAs would expand what is possible within the homeschooling framework without changing how families educate, making it more accessible to a wider range of families. These funds could be used for tutoring, learning co-operatives, and other curriculum resources.
Minnesota Total Homeschool Counts, 1999-2025
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
Research also suggests programs like ESAs don't lead to increased homeschool regulation. A national 2024 study by Johns Hopkins School of Education (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4954517) found that states with school choice programs have not increased homeschool regulations. And, overall, homeschool regulation has decreased over time.
It is also important to remember that every school choice program is voluntary. Families who are concerned about government involvement can simply continue homeschooling as they have been. ESAs won't be the right fit for everyone. But families who want to homeschool and currently can't (perhaps they aren't able to drop an income) shouldn't be prevented from making the decision to participate if they want to.
And regardless of ESAs, the potential for increased government regulation already exists. There is nothing stopping a state's government from passing legislation that increases mandates and regulations on nonpublic education, whether a choice program is in place or not.
At their core, ESAs and homeschooling rest on the same idea: Parents should be trusted to make the best decisions for their children's education. When designed well, ESA programs don't undermine that principle; they reinforce it.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/homeschool-freedom-stays-strong-under-minnesota-esa-proposal/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: What Comes Next for Artemis?
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on April 17, 2026, involving Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the CSIS Defense and Security Department:
* * *
What Comes Next for Artemis?
This piece is part of a commentary series called Why Go to the Moon? that analyzes the strategic, economic, scientific, and geopolitical drivers of renewed U.S. lunar exploration.
*
With the successful completion of Artemis II and safe return of its crew to Earth, NASA sets its sights
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on April 17, 2026, involving Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the CSIS Defense and Security Department:
* * *
What Comes Next for Artemis?
This piece is part of a commentary series called Why Go to the Moon? that analyzes the strategic, economic, scientific, and geopolitical drivers of renewed U.S. lunar exploration.
*
With the successful completion of Artemis II and safe return of its crew to Earth, NASA sets its sightson the next Artemis mission, Artemis III, which NASA aims to launch in mid-2027. Originally planned as the first crewed lunar landing since 1972, the Artemis III mission was revised by NASA in February 2026 as part of broader changes to the Artemis program. The amended Artemis III mission will aim to test one or both of the Human Landing Systems (HLSs), conduct rendezvous operations between the landers and the Orion spacecraft, and test new spacesuits designed for lunar operations in low Earth orbit (LEO). The crewed lunar landing will now occur as part of the Artemis IV mission, scheduled for no earlier than 2028. NASA also canceled the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), an upper-stage rocket under development for the Space Launch System (SLS), scrapped plans for building more powerful versions of the SLS rocket, and paused work on Gateway, a planned lunar space station. Instead of Gateway, NASA will build a base on the Moon's surface near the lunar south pole.
Commendably, the new plan attempts to address a risk that few have emphasized--the risk that would have come from operating complex systems (i.e., Orion and the lunar lander) together for the first time, nearly 400,000 km from Earth, during a mission to land humans on the Moon for the first time in over 50 years. But the revisions also generate new risk that could ultimately impact the schedule and cost of the Artemis program. The revised program also does not address the risk that many have been talking about for years: Will the HLS be ready in time? Additionally, the new plan does not address concerns about the development of new lunar spacesuits for the Artemis astronauts.
Q1: What does NASA hope to achieve with these changes?
A1: According to the NASA administrator, the Artemis revisions will allow NASA to "move faster, eliminate delays" and achieve its objectives by "standardizing vehicle configuration, increasing flight rate." NASA has drawn parallels between this new plan, which it calls a "logical, phased approach," and NASA's approach in the 1960s during the Apollo program. Under the old plan, the Lockheed Martin-built Orion spacecraft and HLS--either the lander developed by SpaceX or Blue Origin--would have conducted their first rendezvous and docking operations in orbit around the Moon as part of the lunar landing mission (i.e., Artemis III under the old plan). The new plan is intended to reduce the technical risks associated with these operations and with the Axiom-manufactured lunar spacesuits, which the company has announced will be tested in space in 2027, during a new mission conducted in low Earth orbit (i.e., Artemis III under the new plan), specifically designed to test out these systems working together in space.
By canceling the EUS and SLS upgrades, NASA aims to create one standardized configuration of the SLS rocket that would include the Boeing-built core stage, Northrop Grumman-built solid rocket boosters, and a to-be-developed variant of the Centaur V upper stage, which is built by United Launch Alliance (ULA) and currently used on the Vulcan rocket. The development of the EUS had been criticized for cost and schedule overruns. The modified Centaur V upper stage would replace the Boeing-built Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS), the SLS upper stage flown on both Artemis I and Artemis II. The decision to award ULA with a contract to develop a modified Centaur V--not necessarily to replace the EUS, but to create a "standardized" SLS upper stage--was based on the assumption that, according to NASA, an "award to another source would cause unacceptable delays to current launch schedules."
Canceling the EUS development also effectively doomed Gateway, as Gateway relied on the upgraded versions of the SLS rocket, including the EUS, for transportation of its components into lunar orbit. Therefore, it was not surprising that NASA, as part of its announcement of changes to the Artemis program, paused work on Gateway. NASA had already outlined a goal of establishing a nuclear-powered lunar base and had removed Gateway from the critical path for lunar missions. As part of the February 2026 announcement, the NASA administrator announced a pause on Gateway and plans to develop a new base on the Moon's surface, stating it would cost $20 billion over the next seven years to build the initial elements of the base. For comparison, NASA has already awarded contracts valued at around $4.4 billion for work on Gateway. Additionally, international partners (i.e., the European Space Agency, Japan, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates) have likely collectively spent billions of dollars on and produced hardware for their contributions to Gateway.
Q2: Will the lunar landers be ready in time?
A2: In 2023, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report raised concerns about the risk to the Artemis schedule from the development of SpaceX's Starship HLS. In a 2026 report, NASA's Office of the Inspector General raised additional concerns about the HLS development and highlighted the risk that the lander might not be ready for a 2028 lunar landing. One key observation is that SpaceX has neither tested in-space refueling nor sent the Starship HLS on an uncrewed test mission to the Moon--two key milestones in the development of an operational system. For the Starship HLS to work, SpaceX will have to conduct repeated on-orbit cryogenic fuel transfers from one Starship to another in orbit. Tests to demonstrate both of these capabilities had been planned for 2025, but were later moved to 2026. To date, SpaceX has yet to flight test Starship V3, the newest variant of Starship, which would underpin the Starship HLS. The first test of the Starship V3 has been delayed to at least May 2026.
In November 2025, NASA sought ideas from Space and Blue Origin, which had been on contract to design its own HLS, called the Blue Moon Mark 2, for future Artemis missions, on how to accelerate work on their respective lunar landers. In response, Blue Origin has accelerated work on its lander. The company has, for example, paused its sub-orbital New Shepard flights to focus resources on the Moon lander project. In early April 2026, Blue Origin announced that a Mark 1 cargo-only version of its HLS had successfully completed its most recent testing, which involved vacuum chamber tests at the Johnson Space Center.
Under the original Artemis plan, at least one of these two landers would have been needed in time for the planned 2028 crewed lunar landing. Under the new plan, one or both landers will be needed a year earlier, in 2027, to support the revised Artemis III mission in low Earth orbit. There is, however, nothing in the revised plan that specifically aims to accelerate development of the landers beyond what NASA has already done to achieve that goal. NASA will undoubtedly continue to put considerable pressure on both vendors, encouraging and assisting them in whatever way possible, so that they deliver as quickly as possible flight-ready hardware. But the risks associated with the development of the HLS landers remain as acute now as they did before NASA revamped the plan for Artemis.
Q3: What is the status of the Artemis space suits?
A3: As with the HLS lander, the GAO has raised concerns about the development of space suits for lunar missions, most recently in a 2025 report. In that report, the GAO expressed concern that Axiom's space suits might not meet "certain NASA requirements" and that, after Collins ended its work to develop lunar space suits, NASA was stuck "having one space suit provider." Axiom Space, the sole company now designing space suits for the Artemis program, was founded to build and operate a commercial space station. The destiny of this company is intrinsically tied to NASA plans for Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD), the program intended to replace the International Space Station (ISS). Since first announced by NASA about 10 years ago, CLD has faced delays and changes--it has also been chronically underfunded. NASA changed direction yet again on CLD as part of the same February 2026 announcement outline changes to Artemis, having signaled in August 2025 that it intended to accelerate work on CLD.
In March 2026, the president of a trade group representing companies involved in CLD work emphasized the need for stability and progress from NASA on its way forward for CLD. Meanwhile, NASA has yet to issue a final call for industry proposals. In addition to the lunar space suits and commercial space station, Axiom markets and sells commercial flights, operated by SpaceX, to the ISS and low Earth orbit. But fundamentally, for Axiom to survive as a business, it must secure funding from NASA for its commercial space station--this is the elephant in the middle of the room. Perhaps Axiom could get by for a time with only revenue from commercial astronaut missions. However, this would only be temporary, as the ISS will be retired in the coming years. Where will those commercial astronauts go without the ISS? Thus, the future of CLD is tied to the future of Artemis. Without proper funding and progress on CLD, leaving Axiom on a starvation diet, NASA risks jeopardizing the business viability of the only company building lunar space suits. Without these space suits, no American would have taken any steps on the Moon.
Q4: What are the new risks associated with the Artemis revisions?
A4: The revised plan introduces a number of new risks that could impact the schedule and cost of Artemis. First, NASA will need to stack and ready an SLS rocket for the revised Artemis III launch in less than a year. Boeing is already building the core stage for both Artemis III and Artemis IV and would likely have no problem delivering those components on time to meet this new schedule. The new risk arises from the plans for a new upper stage. The upper stage of the SLS, used for both Artemis missions to date, the ICPS, is needed to get the Orion spacecraft and its astronaut to the moon. The ICPS is not needed for operations in low Earth orbit. Therefore, there is no need to fly an ICPS for the revised Artemis III mission--and, besides, NASA only has one ICPS left, which presumably should be saved for the lunar landing mission. But NASA cannot simply stack the Orion spacecraft on top of the core stage; NASA would need to develop some type of filler that would go between the core stage and the Orion spacecraft. While it is tempting to write off such a system as trivial, it is still important. Designing a proper filler will be critical to ensuring the success of Artemis III. This will take time and money.
But no matter whether NASA uses the last ICPS for the revised Artemis III mission or saves it for Artemis IV, NASA still needs an upper stage for future Artemis missions. Ostensibly to save money and time, NASA has ditched the EUS in favor of the Centaur V. In its sole-source justification for awarding the contract to ULA, NASA states that the Centaur V was the only suitably available commercial option. The Centaur V was designed as the upper stage for ULA's Vulcan rocket, allowing Vulcan to place uncrewed payloads into higher orbits and other trajectories beyond low Earth orbit. But for its planned use with the SLS, the actual version of the Centaur V that will fly with the SLS will be very different from the version used with the Vulcan rocket. While ULA can no doubt make those modifications, they carry risks of impacts to the Artemis schedule. Another question is how many modified Centaur V upper stages would be needed. Beyond Artemis V, does NASA plan to continue using the SLS or would it prefer to switch to a different vehicle, like Starship? If the plan is to switch to Starship, the "standardized" SLS configuration using the modified Centaur would fly, possibly only once.
Q5: Is the Centaur V ready--technically and procedurally--for human spaceflight?
A5: The Centaur V is not rated, from a safety and certification standpoint, to carry humans into space. And it would need such a certification to launch Artemis astronauts. Additionally, the engine would need significant design changes to work as a replacement for the ICPS. In particular, the Centaur V cannot hold the weight of the Orion spacecraft and would collapse in on itself like a soda can if used with its current specifications. While these changes and others that will likely be required may appear small, they still add unknowns to the schedule and cost for Artemis. Calling this variant commercial would be equivalent to calling the U.S. Air Force KC-46A tanker a commercial because it is a derivative of a Boeing 767 commercial jetliner. It should be recalled that the tanker development was plagued by cost overruns and delays. Whether a clean-sheet aircraft would have actually been quicker and cheaper is a question whose answer can never be known.
Finally, adding a new Artemis mission before the one carrying astronauts to the lunar surface adds another complication. NASA has only one place, one parking spot, in the giant Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the Kennedy Space Center to stack SLS rockets. It takes a while to stack an SLS rocket. NASA began stacking the SLS used for Artemis II in March 2025. NASA also only has one suitable mobile launch platform on which the SLS sits before launch. As already noted, there are concerns that a lunar lander would not have been able to make NASA's original timeline of landing astronauts on the moon in 2028. But now NASA is asking for one or both lenders in 2027. If no lander is available in mid-2027, presumably, NASA will delay Artemis III until one or both of those landers are ready. That means a fully assembled SLS will likely wait in the VAB, preventing NASA from beginning the process of stacking another SLS for the Artemis IV lunar landing mission. Every day that a lunar lander is not available for the revised Artemis III will, thus, add one day's delay to the lunar landing mission.
Q7: What comes next for Artemis as NASA works to manage both old and new risks?
A7: To recap its inarguably positive aspects, the revised Artemis plan acknowledges and attempts to buy down some risk that few were talking about. No longer is NASA planning to operate together for the first time critical hardware--the Orion spacecraft and lander--in lunar orbit during the high-stakes lunar landing mission. But taking action to address this risk creates new ones. NASA should be clear-eyed about these new risks and recognize that the new plan has just as much potential, but in different areas, to affect the planned 2028 lunar landing as it did the original plan. NASA should also continue efforts to buy down risks that carry over from the old to the new plan--the risk that a lunar lander and space suits will not be ready in time. With respect to the space suits, that means recognizing the linkage between CLD and Artemis that results from Axiom's business case. For the lunar landers, that means taking proactive steps to minimize the impact of possible delays in delivery by SpaceX and Blue Origin of HLS for Artemis III to the timeline for Artemis IV. This might involve work now to allow for the simultaneous stacking of two SLS rockets at the Kennedy Space Center--a less-than-ideal outcome, but one that might allow Artemis IV to stay on track. To quote Proverbs, "do your best, prepare for the worst."
* * *
Clayton Swope is the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-comes-next-artemis
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Generation Looks to the Moon - Perspectives on Artemis
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 17, 2026, by Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the CSIS Defense and Security Department, Chantal Li and Jack Seay, former interns at the Aerospace Security Project:
* * *
A New Generation Looks to the Moon: Perspectives on Artemis
This piece is part of a commentary series called Why Go to the Moon? that analyzes the strategic, economic, scientific, and geopolitical drivers of renewed U.S. lunar exploration.
*
The successful
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 17, 2026, by Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the CSIS Defense and Security Department, Chantal Li and Jack Seay, former interns at the Aerospace Security Project:
* * *
A New Generation Looks to the Moon: Perspectives on Artemis
This piece is part of a commentary series called Why Go to the Moon? that analyzes the strategic, economic, scientific, and geopolitical drivers of renewed U.S. lunar exploration.
*
The successfulcompletion of the Artemis II mission marked the first time in more than half a century that humans traveled to the vicinity of the Moon. For a generation born after the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, it represents not just a technical milestone, but a defining moment--a generation's first lived experience of the United States' renewed push into deep space.
As part of the Why Go to the Moon? series, former Aerospace Security Project interns examine what Artemis means for the future of exploration. Their perspectives point to two defining features of this new era: the central role of allied partnerships and the Moon's function as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond.
Stronger Together: Allied Power as the United States' Advantage in Space
Chantal Li, Former Intern, Aerospace Security Project
"Reed, Victor, Christina, and Jeremy, on this historic mission, you take with you the heart of this Artemis team, the daring spirit of the American people and our partners across the globe, and the hopes and dreams of a new generation." -- Charlie Blackwell-Thompson
Until Artemis II, a total of 24 people had traveled to the Moon, all American astronauts. As Artemis II completed its lunar flyby, Jeremy Hansen became the first Canadian and non-American to visit deep space, marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of allied space cooperation. This milestone captures the next era of crewed space exploration: a foundation of allied partnership.
The United States is not pursuing Artemis alone. The European Space Agency (ESA)'s European Service Module provides the propulsion capabilities of the Orion Spacecraft. Over 100 European suppliers and 13 ESA member states contributed to the module. Throughout the Artemis II mission, European engineers, like those at NASA, will provide continuous support to the module. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency is also expected to contribute surface instruments and a Lunar Rover in future Artemis missions. Allied capabilities are central to the present and future of U.S. space exploration.
China is advancing its own lunar ambitions, aiming for a crewed Moon landing at the end of 2030, but largely without the kind of deeply integrated partnerships that Artemis represents. As such, China's achievements in space will be seen as more unilateral and less reflective of shared international progress. Leveraging allied specializations and expertise will enable the United States and its partners to prevail in the new space race, reflecting the jointness of humanity's ambitions in space. Artemis II is a reminder that the decisive advantage the United States holds over China is its strong network of allies. Going to the Moon and beyond is not an endeavor to be embarked on alone, and Artemis II lays the foundation for the crewed deep-space missions that will define the future of exploration and competition.
Beyond the Moon: Artemis as the Gateway to Mars
Jack Seay, Former Intern, Aerospace Security Project
"The four of us glimpsed the red hues of Mars far in the distance as the sun slipped behind the Moon and there was zero doubt in our minds that the creative genius of our greatest minds will have us there very soon." -- Reid Wiseman
The value in Artemis II comes not from where it is going, but from what lies beyond. "Been there, done that" is a relevant argument about returning to the Moon's orbit--the United States has already sent astronauts to the Moon, so what's the point? Two relevant and practical aspects make going back to the Moon worthwhile.
Technology has advanced to the point where technologies and methods for supporting long-term human habitation on planets other than Earth could be studied through a permanent presence on the Moon. While the practical rationale for living on other celestial bodies is still far-fetched, it should not be out of the question for future generations. Herein lies the short-term value in all of this: Mars. As the closest planet with conditions most similar to Earth, featuring more gravity and a thin atmosphere compared to other planets in our solar system, Mars represents the practical next step for human exploration and potential habitation. It is the next mountain to climb and the next race to win, with the Artemis program holding the keys to the ignition.
Artemis II, III, and IV will also hopefully jumpstart the nation's enthusiasm and intrigue when it comes to space--as the Space Shuttle program did for me--giving NASA and the private sector the motivation to invest resources in lunar research to support future crewed missions to Mars. Six American flags still stand on the Moon, symbols of what was achieved during the Apollo 11 Moon landing and the missions that followed. But for younger generations, those moments are history, not memory. Not only does Artemis offer something new to the next generation--sending humans farther into space than they have ever been--but it presents a new chapter, one that potentially includes a stream of defining moments, culminating in winning the race to Mars. This would be the new pinnacle of U.S. space power, which, as was seen in the 1960s and 1970s, strengthens national power and prestige.
* * *
Clayton Swope is the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Chantal Li is a former Aerospace Security Project intern at CSIS. Jack Seay is a former Aerospace Security Project intern at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-generation-looks-moon-perspectives-artemis
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Breitbart: Tax Code Built for American Abundance
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 17, 2026, by American Prosperity Co-Chair Michael Faulkender to Breitbart:
* * *
A Tax Code Built for American Abundance
It's mid-April and Americans are once again calculating what taxes they owe. But we should also be asking a different question: does our tax system reward those who give back?
Too many in Washington treat taxpayers as a source of revenue rather than as the lifeblood of a thriving economy. The result has been slower investment, fewer opportunities for families,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 17, 2026, by American Prosperity Co-Chair Michael Faulkender to Breitbart:
* * *
A Tax Code Built for American Abundance
It's mid-April and Americans are once again calculating what taxes they owe. But we should also be asking a different question: does our tax system reward those who give back?
Too many in Washington treat taxpayers as a source of revenue rather than as the lifeblood of a thriving economy. The result has been slower investment, fewer opportunities for families,and a sense that getting ahead is harder than it should be.
The latest round of tax reforms changes that. Our enactment of a pro-growth, pro-family tax code is unleashing an era of American abundance where businesses expand, paychecks rise, and hard-working Americans build real financial security.
To keep reading, click here (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/04/16/exclusive-michael-faulkender-a-tax-code-built-for-american-abundance/).
* * *
The Honorable Michael Faulkender, Co-Chair, American Prosperity
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/a-tax-code-built-for-american-abundance
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI-GA Calls for the Return of Education Authority to the States
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-GA Calls for the Return of Education Authority to the States
Atlanta, GA--The America First Policy Institute's Georgia Chapter (AFPI-GA) issued the following statement as the House Rules Committee blocked House Resolution 1789 from moving forward, which would support the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education and the return of education authority to the states:
"As promised, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are returning power over education to the states, putting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-GA Calls for the Return of Education Authority to the States
Atlanta, GA--The America First Policy Institute's Georgia Chapter (AFPI-GA) issued the following statement as the House Rules Committee blocked House Resolution 1789 from moving forward, which would support the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education and the return of education authority to the states:
"As promised, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are returning power over education to the states, puttingdecisions and accountability for results closer to students, teachers, and families," said Erika Donalds, chair of Education Opportunity at AFPI. "One committee's denial of this reality will only delay the state from taking proactive measures to take charge of education again."
"Since its creation in 1980, the Department of Education has not improved student outcomes, and its expanding federal regulations have hindered states' ability to effectively educate their students," said Rebecca Yardley, Executive Director of AFPI-GA. "HR1789 should have been moved to the floor for the full consideration of the House of Representatives, not held up by a single committee that fails to realize Georgia should be in charge of education not the federal government, whether by ignorance or deliberate inaction. The Georgia General Assembly should find every way to assume devolved educational authority in the state to better serve parents and students."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-ga-calls-for-the-return-of-education-authority-to-the-states
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Applauds New Mexico Supreme Court Decision Upholding Otero County Agreement
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Applauds New Mexico Supreme Court Decision Upholding Otero County Agreement
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI)'s Executive Director of New Mexico, Vince Torres, released the following statement regarding the New Mexico Supreme Court's unanimous decision to uphold Otero County's agreement with federal immigration authorities to operate an Immigrant and Customs Enforcement detention facility.
"We applaud the New Mexico Supreme Court for recognizing the constitutional
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Applauds New Mexico Supreme Court Decision Upholding Otero County Agreement
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI)'s Executive Director of New Mexico, Vince Torres, released the following statement regarding the New Mexico Supreme Court's unanimous decision to uphold Otero County's agreement with federal immigration authorities to operate an Immigrant and Customs Enforcement detention facility.
"We applaud the New Mexico Supreme Court for recognizing the constitutionalboundaries at play and affirming Otero County's authority to work with federal partners to enforce immigration law. This decision not only protects hundreds of local jobs and preserves critical revenue for the county but also reinforces New Mexico's vital role in supporting our nation's border security efforts.
At a time when states and localities face increasing pressure to disengage from federal enforcement, this ruling provides much-needed clarity and affirms that cooperation is both lawful and essential to maintain public safety and the rule of law."
AFPI will continue to support policies that strengthen coordination between federal and local authorities and uphold the integrity of our immigration system.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-new-mexico-supreme-court-decision-upholding-otero-county-agreement
[Category: ThinkTank]
