Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Opinion: Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement
NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement
It used to be considered something of a tawdry question, although it could be flattering as well: "What's your number?" Nowadays, your inquisitor is probably asking about retirement -- as in, how much you think you need to retire. And, as it often was before, it's the wrong question.
Is your number $5 million? $1 million? $50,000? No one seems to know how much they'll need, but whatever ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion: * * * Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement It used to be considered something of a tawdry question, although it could be flattering as well: "What's your number?" Nowadays, your inquisitor is probably asking about retirement -- as in, how much you think you need to retire. And, as it often was before, it's the wrong question. Is your number $5 million? $1 million? $50,000? No one seems to know how much they'll need, but whateverthey think, they're probably not on track to save it. That confusion is unsurprising, because a number cannot reveal if you are on track for retirement.
Of course, it's better to have more money than less. But a "magic number" is meaningless. It is good to have financial goals, and to work toward them, but a wealth goal is counterproductive.
The aim shouldn't be to attain a certain level of wealth by a specific date, but to assure yourself of a steady level of income throughout your retirement. These are fundamentally different objectives, and they require a different investment strategy and mindset from the start.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-07-09/retirement-planning-don-t-focus-on-a-magic-number?srnd=undefined)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/stop-chasing-a-magic-number-for-retirement
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement
It used to be considered something of a tawdry question, although it could be flattering as well: "What's your number?" Nowadays, your inquisitor is probably asking about retirement -- as in, how much you think you need to retire. And, as it often was before, it's the wrong question.
Is your number $5 million? $1 million? $50,000? No one seems to know how much they'll need, but whatever ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion: * * * Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement It used to be considered something of a tawdry question, although it could be flattering as well: "What's your number?" Nowadays, your inquisitor is probably asking about retirement -- as in, how much you think you need to retire. And, as it often was before, it's the wrong question. Is your number $5 million? $1 million? $50,000? No one seems to know how much they'll need, but whateverthey think, they're probably not on track to save it. That confusion is unsurprising, because a number cannot reveal if you are on track for retirement.
Of course, it's better to have more money than less. But a "magic number" is meaningless. It is good to have financial goals, and to work toward them, but a wealth goal is counterproductive.
The aim shouldn't be to attain a certain level of wealth by a specific date, but to assure yourself of a steady level of income throughout your retirement. These are fundamentally different objectives, and they require a different investment strategy and mindset from the start.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-07-09/retirement-planning-don-t-focus-on-a-magic-number?srnd=undefined)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/stop-chasing-a-magic-number-for-retirement
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic
MUNICH, Germany, July 11 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 10, 2026:
* * *
Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic
The business climate for the solo self-employed and microenterprises in Germany improved slightly in June but still remains clearly in negative territory. The "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" rose from -27.7 points in May to -25.9 points in June. While the self-employed have less pessimistic expectations regarding the coming months, they assessed their current situation as even worse than in the previous month. "There is still no ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, July 11 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 10, 2026: * * * Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic The business climate for the solo self-employed and microenterprises in Germany improved slightly in June but still remains clearly in negative territory. The "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" rose from -27.7 points in May to -25.9 points in June. While the self-employed have less pessimistic expectations regarding the coming months, they assessed their current situation as even worse than in the previous month. "There is still nosign of a trend reversal," says ifo expert Katrin Demmelhuber. "Although things are heading in the right direction, a real recovery is a long way off."
However, there are differences between the self-employed occupational groups: While self-employed service providers were considerably less frequently negative in the assessment of their current situation, they were more pessimistic about the coming months. Self-employed retailers were less skeptical in their expectations. By contrast, their assessment of current business worsened and reached a low point.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the self-employed to access loans and other financing options from banks. In the second quarter, the share of self-employed encountering difficulties in loan negotiations rose to 44.8%, up from 34.6%. The share also rose in the economy as a whole, from 31.7 to 40.1%.
Demand for loans remained low: Only 9.3% of the solo self-employed and microenterprises spoke to banks about loans. "The results indicate that access to loans has become markedly more difficult, especially for self-employed retailers," adds Demmelhuber. In retail, the share of self-employed encountering difficulties with access to loans rose from 41.0 to 59,1%. Most recently, more retailers requested loans, with the share rising from 13.3 to 14.8%.
The ifo Institute has been publishing the Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for solo self-employed persons and microenterprises (with fewer than nine employees) since August 2021. As in the composite index, all sectors of the economy are taken into account. However, its main focus is the service sector.
* * *
Publication
The results on solo self-employed and microenterprises are published in detailed charts and tables in the ifo Konjunkturperspektiven.
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Konjunkturperspektiven 06/2026
Learn more (* * *
)
* * *
More Information
Survey results (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic)
Survey "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic
The business climate for the solo self-employed and microenterprises in Germany improved slightly in June but still remains clearly in negative territory. The "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" rose from -27.7 points in May to -25.9 points in June. While the self-employed have less pessimistic expectations regarding the coming months, they assessed their current situation as even worse than in the previous month. "There is still no ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, July 11 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 10, 2026: * * * Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic The business climate for the solo self-employed and microenterprises in Germany improved slightly in June but still remains clearly in negative territory. The "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" rose from -27.7 points in May to -25.9 points in June. While the self-employed have less pessimistic expectations regarding the coming months, they assessed their current situation as even worse than in the previous month. "There is still nosign of a trend reversal," says ifo expert Katrin Demmelhuber. "Although things are heading in the right direction, a real recovery is a long way off."
However, there are differences between the self-employed occupational groups: While self-employed service providers were considerably less frequently negative in the assessment of their current situation, they were more pessimistic about the coming months. Self-employed retailers were less skeptical in their expectations. By contrast, their assessment of current business worsened and reached a low point.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the self-employed to access loans and other financing options from banks. In the second quarter, the share of self-employed encountering difficulties in loan negotiations rose to 44.8%, up from 34.6%. The share also rose in the economy as a whole, from 31.7 to 40.1%.
Demand for loans remained low: Only 9.3% of the solo self-employed and microenterprises spoke to banks about loans. "The results indicate that access to loans has become markedly more difficult, especially for self-employed retailers," adds Demmelhuber. In retail, the share of self-employed encountering difficulties with access to loans rose from 41.0 to 59,1%. Most recently, more retailers requested loans, with the share rising from 13.3 to 14.8%.
The ifo Institute has been publishing the Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for solo self-employed persons and microenterprises (with fewer than nine employees) since August 2021. As in the composite index, all sectors of the economy are taken into account. However, its main focus is the service sector.
* * *
Publication
The results on solo self-employed and microenterprises are published in detailed charts and tables in the ifo Konjunkturperspektiven.
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Konjunkturperspektiven 06/2026
Learn more (* * *
)
* * *
More Information
Survey results (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic)
Survey "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: How Crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' Ranking This Year?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 11 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
How crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' ranking this year?
It's that time of year again when CNBC pulls out of who-knows-where some ranking which purports to show Minnesota's economy going gangbusters.
The release of CNBC's 'Top States for Business' rankings used to be a red-letter day for Minnesota's media and politicians. Last year, however, celebrations ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 11 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by economist John Phelan: * * * How crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' ranking this year? It's that time of year again when CNBC pulls out of who-knows-where some ranking which purports to show Minnesota's economy going gangbusters. The release of CNBC's 'Top States for Business' rankings used to be a red-letter day for Minnesota's media and politicians. Last year, however, celebrationswere somewhat muted as CNBC revealed that our state had tumbled four places to 10th. This year, however, we have come roaring back with a stonking 5th place finish.
Should we take any of this seriously? No.
One should be wary of a ranking system which permits rankings to whiplash around as CNBC's do. Wyoming has jumped eleven places in one year, Arkansas thirteen, while Nebraska has fallen by eleven and Colorado by fourteen. Economies don't tend to change so quickly.
What we are capturing here is not so much any change in the fundamentals of these state's economies, or whether they are actually good or bad states for business, but the effects of CNBC's ever changing methodology.
"Our study is not an opinion survey," we are told. "We gather empirical data on the states' performance in each metric using the most recent figures available."
But how can we square this with their 'Quality of Life' measure -- which, incredibly for a 'Top States for Business' ranking carries more weight than 'Cost of Doing Business,' 'Technology & Innovation,' 'Business Friendliness,' or 'Access to Capital' -- in which:
"We look at worker protections, including livable wage policies, paid leave, and rights to organize. We look at inclusiveness in state laws, including protections against discrimination of all kinds, as well as voting rights and secure election systems. And with surveys showing a sizeable percentage of younger workers would not live in a state that bans abortion, we factor reproductive rights in this category as well."
This is just a wish list of "progressive" policies which, we are told, make a state better for business.
The proof of the ranking is in the data. If it is, indeed, accurately identifying which states are best for business, we would expect a ranking of "Top States for Business" to be somewhat correlated with things that businesses actually do.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 'Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages' gives us data on the number of "establishments" (which it defines as "a single physical location where one predominant activity occurs") and employment in each state.
Figure 1 shows that there is no discernible relationship between a state's ranking on CNBC's 2025 'Top States for Business' and its establishment growth between the fourth quarter of 2024 and fourth quarter of 2025.
Figure 1: Relationship between CNBC 'Top States for Business' rankings and establishment growth
Likewise, Figure 2 shows that there is a slightly positive relationship between a state's ranking on CNBC's 2025 'Top States for Business' and its employment growth between the average of the fourth quarter of 2024 and the average of the fourth quarter of 2025, but it isn't statistically significant (the p-value is 0.25), which means that the observed patterns are likely due to random chance or normal sampling variability rather than a true underlying effect.
Figure 2: Relationship between CNBC 'Top States for Business' rankings and employment growth
Whatever it is that CNBC is measuring, it doesn't seem to have very much to do with business.
Debunking the endless parade of silly rankings could be a full-time job and one is often tempted to let them slide. But, bogus as they generally are, they do matter. I have testified at the state capitol and offered hard economic facts such as:
* In every single year since 2014, per capita GDP has grown more slowly in Minnesota than for the United States generally, a record of underperformance matched only by Wisconsin.
* As recently as 2014, GDP was $4,700 per person higher than it was for the United States generally, or $18,800 for a family of four. In 2025, for the first time on record, GDP per capita in Minnesota was below the national average.
* In real terms, median household income in Minnesota has fallen by 6.4% since 2019, a worse performance than in 44 states.
* Real, per capita Personal Income has grown more slowly in Minnesota since 2018 than in 34 other states.
* The average earning Minnesotan handed over 4.9% of their 2025 wages to the state government, a higher share than in 43 out of 50 other states.
* Minnesota is one of just 16 states where the share of the average earner's wages swallowed up by the state government in income tax has increased over the last decade.
* In 2025, Minnesota's state government spent $6,098 per person, an amount higher than in 45 other states.
* Adjusted for inflation, Minnesota's level of state government spending per person increased by 18.5% between 2019 and 2025. This was a greater increase than in 42 other states.
* Between 2020 and 2025, Minnesota suffered a net loss of residents to other parts of the United States which was worse than in 34 other states.
* Since 2019, our state has lost residents in every age category and every income category above $25,000 annually.
None of which sounds very much like a top state for business.
And, on occasion, these have been dismissed on the grounds that we scored really well in the CNBC rankings.
That is why they keep on coming. As I wrote some time ago:
"Data is rarely kind to the American left. The reason these rankings are created and trumpeted so loudly is that they give "progressives" something other than data to point to. Faced with relatively sluggish economies and population loss, they can point to rankings like CNBC's for comfort. Public policy must not be based on such make believe."
Given the relatively muted reception to the 2026 rankings, maybe that message is finally getting through.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-crazy-is-cnbcs-top-states-for-business-ranking-this-year/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
How crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' ranking this year?
It's that time of year again when CNBC pulls out of who-knows-where some ranking which purports to show Minnesota's economy going gangbusters.
The release of CNBC's 'Top States for Business' rankings used to be a red-letter day for Minnesota's media and politicians. Last year, however, celebrations ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 11 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by economist John Phelan: * * * How crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' ranking this year? It's that time of year again when CNBC pulls out of who-knows-where some ranking which purports to show Minnesota's economy going gangbusters. The release of CNBC's 'Top States for Business' rankings used to be a red-letter day for Minnesota's media and politicians. Last year, however, celebrationswere somewhat muted as CNBC revealed that our state had tumbled four places to 10th. This year, however, we have come roaring back with a stonking 5th place finish.
Should we take any of this seriously? No.
One should be wary of a ranking system which permits rankings to whiplash around as CNBC's do. Wyoming has jumped eleven places in one year, Arkansas thirteen, while Nebraska has fallen by eleven and Colorado by fourteen. Economies don't tend to change so quickly.
What we are capturing here is not so much any change in the fundamentals of these state's economies, or whether they are actually good or bad states for business, but the effects of CNBC's ever changing methodology.
"Our study is not an opinion survey," we are told. "We gather empirical data on the states' performance in each metric using the most recent figures available."
But how can we square this with their 'Quality of Life' measure -- which, incredibly for a 'Top States for Business' ranking carries more weight than 'Cost of Doing Business,' 'Technology & Innovation,' 'Business Friendliness,' or 'Access to Capital' -- in which:
"We look at worker protections, including livable wage policies, paid leave, and rights to organize. We look at inclusiveness in state laws, including protections against discrimination of all kinds, as well as voting rights and secure election systems. And with surveys showing a sizeable percentage of younger workers would not live in a state that bans abortion, we factor reproductive rights in this category as well."
This is just a wish list of "progressive" policies which, we are told, make a state better for business.
The proof of the ranking is in the data. If it is, indeed, accurately identifying which states are best for business, we would expect a ranking of "Top States for Business" to be somewhat correlated with things that businesses actually do.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 'Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages' gives us data on the number of "establishments" (which it defines as "a single physical location where one predominant activity occurs") and employment in each state.
Figure 1 shows that there is no discernible relationship between a state's ranking on CNBC's 2025 'Top States for Business' and its establishment growth between the fourth quarter of 2024 and fourth quarter of 2025.
Figure 1: Relationship between CNBC 'Top States for Business' rankings and establishment growth
Likewise, Figure 2 shows that there is a slightly positive relationship between a state's ranking on CNBC's 2025 'Top States for Business' and its employment growth between the average of the fourth quarter of 2024 and the average of the fourth quarter of 2025, but it isn't statistically significant (the p-value is 0.25), which means that the observed patterns are likely due to random chance or normal sampling variability rather than a true underlying effect.
Figure 2: Relationship between CNBC 'Top States for Business' rankings and employment growth
Whatever it is that CNBC is measuring, it doesn't seem to have very much to do with business.
Debunking the endless parade of silly rankings could be a full-time job and one is often tempted to let them slide. But, bogus as they generally are, they do matter. I have testified at the state capitol and offered hard economic facts such as:
* In every single year since 2014, per capita GDP has grown more slowly in Minnesota than for the United States generally, a record of underperformance matched only by Wisconsin.
* As recently as 2014, GDP was $4,700 per person higher than it was for the United States generally, or $18,800 for a family of four. In 2025, for the first time on record, GDP per capita in Minnesota was below the national average.
* In real terms, median household income in Minnesota has fallen by 6.4% since 2019, a worse performance than in 44 states.
* Real, per capita Personal Income has grown more slowly in Minnesota since 2018 than in 34 other states.
* The average earning Minnesotan handed over 4.9% of their 2025 wages to the state government, a higher share than in 43 out of 50 other states.
* Minnesota is one of just 16 states where the share of the average earner's wages swallowed up by the state government in income tax has increased over the last decade.
* In 2025, Minnesota's state government spent $6,098 per person, an amount higher than in 45 other states.
* Adjusted for inflation, Minnesota's level of state government spending per person increased by 18.5% between 2019 and 2025. This was a greater increase than in 42 other states.
* Between 2020 and 2025, Minnesota suffered a net loss of residents to other parts of the United States which was worse than in 34 other states.
* Since 2019, our state has lost residents in every age category and every income category above $25,000 annually.
None of which sounds very much like a top state for business.
And, on occasion, these have been dismissed on the grounds that we scored really well in the CNBC rankings.
That is why they keep on coming. As I wrote some time ago:
"Data is rarely kind to the American left. The reason these rankings are created and trumpeted so loudly is that they give "progressives" something other than data to point to. Faced with relatively sluggish economies and population loss, they can point to rankings like CNBC's for comfort. Public policy must not be based on such make believe."
Given the relatively muted reception to the 2026 rankings, maybe that message is finally getting through.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-crazy-is-cnbcs-top-states-for-business-ranking-this-year/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on July 10, 2026
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 10, 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 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 10, 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:
* Black Opposition Project is an activist group that conducts polls and "conduct tests" for "thousands of black people" to analyze the "barriers that prevent their resistance" and increase voter participation. The Project is an initiative of HIT Strategies, a Washington D.C-based public opinion research firm that develops polling and voter messaging. Other coalition members of the Project include the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Way to Win, Black Economic Alliance, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, and Project 68.
* Onyx Impact is a left-of-center Atlanta-based nonprofit that claims to research alleged misinformation impacting African-American communities in the United States. The group was founded by Esosa Osa, who previously worked as deputy executive director of Fair Fight Action, a voting access organization founded by Stacey Abrams following her loss in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, and as a senior advisor to Abrams's 2022 Georgia gubernatorial campaign. In 2024, group received funding from several organizations including the Democracy Matters Foundation as well as the Open Society Action Fund.
* Bob and Renee Parsons Foundation is a private grantmaking organization started by GoDaddy and Parsons Xtreme Golf (PXG) founder Robert Parsons and his wife Renee Parsons. In 2013, the Parsons signed the Giving Pledge, a public commitment associated with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, where signatories agree to donate at least half of their net worth to charity in their lifetime. The foundation has previously donated to several community activist groups including the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and Team Rubicon.
* Minnesota Elder Justice Center is a "direct-service organization" that provides training and community education services for victims of elder abuse and neglect of those in Minneapolis' adult protective services systems. The group previously received government funding grants from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) programs. The Center has also received funding from several organizations and nonprofits including the Otto Bremer Trust, the American Endowment Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, and Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund.
* Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) is an international cooperation agency that is a part of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland. According to its website, the SDC claims to be "guided by" the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 policy goals that were adopted by all United Nations (UN) focused on addressing issues of climate action, energy production, and global poverty. The group has also provided funding to several pro-Palestinian organizations including Breaking the Silence and the Palestinian Performing Arts Network (PPAN) while previously working with other groups such as the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights and Development Initiatives.
* * *
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-07-10-2026/
[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 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 10, 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:
* Black Opposition Project is an activist group that conducts polls and "conduct tests" for "thousands of black people" to analyze the "barriers that prevent their resistance" and increase voter participation. The Project is an initiative of HIT Strategies, a Washington D.C-based public opinion research firm that develops polling and voter messaging. Other coalition members of the Project include the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Way to Win, Black Economic Alliance, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, and Project 68.
* Onyx Impact is a left-of-center Atlanta-based nonprofit that claims to research alleged misinformation impacting African-American communities in the United States. The group was founded by Esosa Osa, who previously worked as deputy executive director of Fair Fight Action, a voting access organization founded by Stacey Abrams following her loss in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, and as a senior advisor to Abrams's 2022 Georgia gubernatorial campaign. In 2024, group received funding from several organizations including the Democracy Matters Foundation as well as the Open Society Action Fund.
* Bob and Renee Parsons Foundation is a private grantmaking organization started by GoDaddy and Parsons Xtreme Golf (PXG) founder Robert Parsons and his wife Renee Parsons. In 2013, the Parsons signed the Giving Pledge, a public commitment associated with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, where signatories agree to donate at least half of their net worth to charity in their lifetime. The foundation has previously donated to several community activist groups including the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and Team Rubicon.
* Minnesota Elder Justice Center is a "direct-service organization" that provides training and community education services for victims of elder abuse and neglect of those in Minneapolis' adult protective services systems. The group previously received government funding grants from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) programs. The Center has also received funding from several organizations and nonprofits including the Otto Bremer Trust, the American Endowment Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, and Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund.
* Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) is an international cooperation agency that is a part of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland. According to its website, the SDC claims to be "guided by" the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 policy goals that were adopted by all United Nations (UN) focused on addressing issues of climate action, energy production, and global poverty. The group has also provided funding to several pro-Palestinian organizations including Breaking the Silence and the Palestinian Performing Arts Network (PPAN) while previously working with other groups such as the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights and Development Initiatives.
* * *
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-07-10-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Large Load Reform - How Prepared Are U.S. Grid Operators for the AI Era?
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by Director Joseph Majkut and research interns Alexander Garcia, Chelsey Gilchrist and Malik Jaffal, all of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program:
* * *
Large Load Reform: How Prepared Are U.S. Grid Operators for the AI Era?
On October 23, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reform and hasten the interconnection of large loads. Defined as ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by Director Joseph Majkut and research interns Alexander Garcia, Chelsey Gilchrist and Malik Jaffal, all of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program: * * * Large Load Reform: How Prepared Are U.S. Grid Operators for the AI Era? On October 23, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reform and hasten the interconnection of large loads. Defined assources of electricity demand exceeding 20 megawatts (MW), large loads are an increasingly urgent policy concern as developers race to construct data centers across the United States.
In recent years, large load interconnection requests have exploded, leading to stalled projects and compounding delays. Developers in some regions must now wait as long as seven years to bring new data centers and other facilities online. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has linked rapid data center construction to future economic prosperity and maintaining a technological competitive edge, emphasizing the need to improve speed to power.
Last month, FERC announced orders responding to the ANOPR. Through six show-cause orders, FERC directed grid operators to prove that existing electricity tariffs address five criteria for speed to power and consumer protection within 60 days. The six operators, a mix of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), serve nearly two-thirds of the U.S. electricity load.
Speeding up large load interconnection is the core intent, but FERC's orders require the operators to address the separate, but intimately related, issues of cost-shifting, generation capacity shortfalls, and transmission infrastructure deficiencies. They require operators to demonstrate that their policies protect ratepayers from elevated costs stemming from increased electricity demand; operate distinct studies and maintain clear rules for co-located and behind-the-meter (BTM) generation; and provide transmission services for flexible loads.
Aware of the challenges of interconnecting large loads, as well as mounting public opposition to data centers, RTOs and ISOs have already created initiatives to address many of FERC's criteria. The matrix below evaluates existing RTO and ISO policies against FERC's new show-cause orders. Initial findings reveal a fragmented policy landscape and indicate that operators may need significant adjustments to meet FERC's criteria. The severity of these adjustments varies among grid operators.
* * *
Table: Large Load Interconnection Policy and Tariff Matrix
* * *
Review of Reform Criteria
Faster Studies and Alternative Transmission Technologies
The first of FERC's reform objectives would improve how grid operators evaluate requests from large electricity customers. Existing study processes were largely designed around traditional generator interconnections and gradual, more diffuse increases in electricity demand. Today's large load customers often require hundreds of megawatts, or even gigawatts, of capacity, creating planning challenges that differ substantially from those of previous decades.
Accordingly, FERC is encouraging operators to develop more efficient study processes, while requiring them to consider alternative transmission technologies that may provide service more quickly or at lower cost than conventional network upgrades.
Some progress has been made, but disparities remain. SPP's HILL and HILLGA frameworks show that dedicated study pathways for large loads are both technically and administratively feasible. Elsewhere, however, at least two of the six operators continue relying on generic study procedures that cannot handle today's scale of demand growth. The disparity between operators demonstrates that FERC's expectations are achievable but far from universally implemented.
Cost-Shift Prevention and Transparency
FERC's second reform objective responds to perhaps the most contentious element of the ongoing data center buildout: cost-shifting.
As data centers proliferate and their electricity demand grows, retail power prices have climbed nationwide. Wholesale electricity prices have risen as much as 267 percent in areas surrounding data centers. The costs of interconnecting large loads are even more significant for ratepayers. Data centers' demand for power requires significant investment in new infrastructure, including power plants, transmission lines, substations, and distribution lines. Utilities socialize these costs among ratepayers even if ratepayers do not use the new infrastructure themselves, raising their bills further.
FERC's six orders consequently direct operators to demonstrate how these costs are identified and allocated and to establish tariffs to prevent their shift to ratepayers.
Cost-shifting and transparency are the criterion where operators fall furthest short. Only PJM, whose cost-causation rules were already targeted by FERC, and SPP, which allocates costs more transparently, might meet FERC's standards. In all other markets, consumers see varying degrees of electricity rate transparency, but none of those markets have established tariffs designed to prevent cost-shifting.
Co-location and Behind-the-Meter Generation
FERC's third reform objective addresses one of the fastest-evolving aspects of large-load development: co-location and behind-the-meter generation.
Developers increasingly pair data centers with dedicated on-site or proximately located generation resources to improve reliability, shorten development timelines, and reduce project dependence on congested transmission systems. Semi Analysis recently forecasted that more than 40 gigawatts (GW) of data centers would be built to use behind-the-meter power generation. Much of that is likely to be gas-powered. Power sector research firm Halcyon has identified 28 GW of natural gas plants under development behind the meter for powering data centers. While many of these plants may not reach final stages, or will seek grid integration over time, they show the power sector should be prepared for diverse arrangements for powering data centers.
FERC is therefore seeking clearer tariff provisions governing these arrangements before they become commonplace. Tariff readiness varies substantially. PJM and SPP have already begun implementing tariff pathways addressing co-located resources, while all other operators continue to rely on ad hoc approaches or lack comprehensive frameworks altogether. As investment in dedicated power supplies for data centers accelerates, regulatory clarity in this area will become increasingly important.
New Services for Flexible Loads
The fourth reform category reflects changes in how regulators view electricity demand itself.
Historically, grid operators have assumed that customers will consume power and rely on transmission infrastructure as needed. Many modern facilities and data centers, however, can modulate their load at will, temporarily reducing consumption, shifting computational workloads, or responding to grid conditions when incentivized.
FERC seeks greater use of transmission service technologies that recognize this flexibility. Rather than treating all large loads identically, approaches such as conditional firm service and interruptible load arrangements allow customers willing to accept operational constraints to connect sooner or at lower cost. Only a handful of operators have meaningfully integrated these technologies. SPP's CHILLS framework and PJM's developing non-firm service offerings provide a model that other operators may soon emulate, but comparable offerings currently remain limited elsewhere.
Studying Generation to Serve Proximate Large Loads and Large, Co-located Loads
FERC's last priority is ensuring that RTOs and ISOs conduct expedited study processes, identifying whether co-located or proximate generation could serve large loads.
These studies let operators evaluate co-located or proximate generation quickly and reliably as a route to interconnecting large loads. Using existing electricity infrastructure would avoid the otherwise long timelines for interconnection and potentially unnecessary infrastructure buildout.
Through this criterion, FERC sets the expectation that proximate and co-located generation for large loads has a specialized, short-circuited study process. SPP fulfills this aim through HILLGA, which studies proximate and co-located generation for large load interconnection. PJM, MISO, and CAISO all share incomplete or inconsistent study pathways for co-located and proximate generation. ISO-NE and NYISO do not yet have specific generation study procedures that fulfill this requirement.
General Analysis
Discrepancies among grid operators' tariffs indicate significant readiness gaps. Based on precedent, such as FERC's December 2025 order to PJM (the results of which are visible in the matrix above), the commission is likely to act where it believes operators currently fall short of its guidelines. On a conservative reading of the status quo, only 20 percent of the criteria meet the guidelines; of 30 matrix boxes, only 6 are plausibly sufficient. Furthermore, none of the six grid operators are likely to receive a clear pass through the five reforms.
Given the spectrum of large load readiness across grid operators and reform areas, significant policy actions are likely to emerge after the initial 60-day period following the show cause orders.
FERC's orders are unlikely to induce a wave of uniform compliance, but rather a multiyear, piecemeal modernization of large load interconnection practices. While the commission's overarching objective is to accelerate and standardize the interconnection of large loads, its orders reflect broader concerns surrounding electricity affordability, transmission planning, and the allocation of infrastructure costs. Cost-shift prevention and transparency are likely to remain salient issues as regulators seek to balance rapid economic development with the protection of existing ratepayers.
Conclusion
FERC's June 2026 show-cause orders represent the commission's most significant effort to modernize large load interconnection policy to date. Importantly, they expose a fragmented regulatory landscape in which grid operators have adopted markedly different approaches to managing large electricity customers. SPP's relative success in meeting FERC's objectives shows they are achievable under the existing regulatory framework; the matrix suggests, however, that most operators will need to implement significant reforms before reaching comparable levels of large load readiness.
Nevertheless, FERC's jurisdiction should not be overstated. Its regional market interventions, particularly those concerning cost-shifting, may not produce the desired results. While top-down reforms may improve rate transparency, FERC is not the final arbiter of retail electricity rates. The commission can require RTOs and ISOs to adopt more transparent tariff provisions and strengthen wholesale market rules governing large load interconnections, but its authority extends no further. Nor do RTOs and ISOs themselves determine how utilities recover the costs of new infrastructure from customers, decisions that remain under the purview of utilities and state public utility commissions.
The significance of these proceedings extends beyond the specific tariff revisions that may emerge over the coming months. The orders acknowledge that the regulatory framework governing large load interconnections has not kept pace with the magnitude of electricity demand driven by AI and other emerging industries. The success of these reforms will depend not only on FERC's ability to modernize wholesale interconnection policy, but also on effective coordination among grid operators, utilities, state regulators, and large load developers to accommodate new demand efficiently, transparently, and sustainably.
* * *
Joseph Majkut is the director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Alexander Garcia, Chelsey Gilchrist, and Malik Jaffal are interns with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/large-load-reform-how-prepared-are-us-grid-operators-ai-era
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Large Load Reform: How Prepared Are U.S. Grid Operators for the AI Era?
On October 23, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reform and hasten the interconnection of large loads. Defined as ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by Director Joseph Majkut and research interns Alexander Garcia, Chelsey Gilchrist and Malik Jaffal, all of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program: * * * Large Load Reform: How Prepared Are U.S. Grid Operators for the AI Era? On October 23, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reform and hasten the interconnection of large loads. Defined assources of electricity demand exceeding 20 megawatts (MW), large loads are an increasingly urgent policy concern as developers race to construct data centers across the United States.
In recent years, large load interconnection requests have exploded, leading to stalled projects and compounding delays. Developers in some regions must now wait as long as seven years to bring new data centers and other facilities online. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has linked rapid data center construction to future economic prosperity and maintaining a technological competitive edge, emphasizing the need to improve speed to power.
Last month, FERC announced orders responding to the ANOPR. Through six show-cause orders, FERC directed grid operators to prove that existing electricity tariffs address five criteria for speed to power and consumer protection within 60 days. The six operators, a mix of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), serve nearly two-thirds of the U.S. electricity load.
Speeding up large load interconnection is the core intent, but FERC's orders require the operators to address the separate, but intimately related, issues of cost-shifting, generation capacity shortfalls, and transmission infrastructure deficiencies. They require operators to demonstrate that their policies protect ratepayers from elevated costs stemming from increased electricity demand; operate distinct studies and maintain clear rules for co-located and behind-the-meter (BTM) generation; and provide transmission services for flexible loads.
Aware of the challenges of interconnecting large loads, as well as mounting public opposition to data centers, RTOs and ISOs have already created initiatives to address many of FERC's criteria. The matrix below evaluates existing RTO and ISO policies against FERC's new show-cause orders. Initial findings reveal a fragmented policy landscape and indicate that operators may need significant adjustments to meet FERC's criteria. The severity of these adjustments varies among grid operators.
* * *
Table: Large Load Interconnection Policy and Tariff Matrix
* * *
Review of Reform Criteria
Faster Studies and Alternative Transmission Technologies
The first of FERC's reform objectives would improve how grid operators evaluate requests from large electricity customers. Existing study processes were largely designed around traditional generator interconnections and gradual, more diffuse increases in electricity demand. Today's large load customers often require hundreds of megawatts, or even gigawatts, of capacity, creating planning challenges that differ substantially from those of previous decades.
Accordingly, FERC is encouraging operators to develop more efficient study processes, while requiring them to consider alternative transmission technologies that may provide service more quickly or at lower cost than conventional network upgrades.
Some progress has been made, but disparities remain. SPP's HILL and HILLGA frameworks show that dedicated study pathways for large loads are both technically and administratively feasible. Elsewhere, however, at least two of the six operators continue relying on generic study procedures that cannot handle today's scale of demand growth. The disparity between operators demonstrates that FERC's expectations are achievable but far from universally implemented.
Cost-Shift Prevention and Transparency
FERC's second reform objective responds to perhaps the most contentious element of the ongoing data center buildout: cost-shifting.
As data centers proliferate and their electricity demand grows, retail power prices have climbed nationwide. Wholesale electricity prices have risen as much as 267 percent in areas surrounding data centers. The costs of interconnecting large loads are even more significant for ratepayers. Data centers' demand for power requires significant investment in new infrastructure, including power plants, transmission lines, substations, and distribution lines. Utilities socialize these costs among ratepayers even if ratepayers do not use the new infrastructure themselves, raising their bills further.
FERC's six orders consequently direct operators to demonstrate how these costs are identified and allocated and to establish tariffs to prevent their shift to ratepayers.
Cost-shifting and transparency are the criterion where operators fall furthest short. Only PJM, whose cost-causation rules were already targeted by FERC, and SPP, which allocates costs more transparently, might meet FERC's standards. In all other markets, consumers see varying degrees of electricity rate transparency, but none of those markets have established tariffs designed to prevent cost-shifting.
Co-location and Behind-the-Meter Generation
FERC's third reform objective addresses one of the fastest-evolving aspects of large-load development: co-location and behind-the-meter generation.
Developers increasingly pair data centers with dedicated on-site or proximately located generation resources to improve reliability, shorten development timelines, and reduce project dependence on congested transmission systems. Semi Analysis recently forecasted that more than 40 gigawatts (GW) of data centers would be built to use behind-the-meter power generation. Much of that is likely to be gas-powered. Power sector research firm Halcyon has identified 28 GW of natural gas plants under development behind the meter for powering data centers. While many of these plants may not reach final stages, or will seek grid integration over time, they show the power sector should be prepared for diverse arrangements for powering data centers.
FERC is therefore seeking clearer tariff provisions governing these arrangements before they become commonplace. Tariff readiness varies substantially. PJM and SPP have already begun implementing tariff pathways addressing co-located resources, while all other operators continue to rely on ad hoc approaches or lack comprehensive frameworks altogether. As investment in dedicated power supplies for data centers accelerates, regulatory clarity in this area will become increasingly important.
New Services for Flexible Loads
The fourth reform category reflects changes in how regulators view electricity demand itself.
Historically, grid operators have assumed that customers will consume power and rely on transmission infrastructure as needed. Many modern facilities and data centers, however, can modulate their load at will, temporarily reducing consumption, shifting computational workloads, or responding to grid conditions when incentivized.
FERC seeks greater use of transmission service technologies that recognize this flexibility. Rather than treating all large loads identically, approaches such as conditional firm service and interruptible load arrangements allow customers willing to accept operational constraints to connect sooner or at lower cost. Only a handful of operators have meaningfully integrated these technologies. SPP's CHILLS framework and PJM's developing non-firm service offerings provide a model that other operators may soon emulate, but comparable offerings currently remain limited elsewhere.
Studying Generation to Serve Proximate Large Loads and Large, Co-located Loads
FERC's last priority is ensuring that RTOs and ISOs conduct expedited study processes, identifying whether co-located or proximate generation could serve large loads.
These studies let operators evaluate co-located or proximate generation quickly and reliably as a route to interconnecting large loads. Using existing electricity infrastructure would avoid the otherwise long timelines for interconnection and potentially unnecessary infrastructure buildout.
Through this criterion, FERC sets the expectation that proximate and co-located generation for large loads has a specialized, short-circuited study process. SPP fulfills this aim through HILLGA, which studies proximate and co-located generation for large load interconnection. PJM, MISO, and CAISO all share incomplete or inconsistent study pathways for co-located and proximate generation. ISO-NE and NYISO do not yet have specific generation study procedures that fulfill this requirement.
General Analysis
Discrepancies among grid operators' tariffs indicate significant readiness gaps. Based on precedent, such as FERC's December 2025 order to PJM (the results of which are visible in the matrix above), the commission is likely to act where it believes operators currently fall short of its guidelines. On a conservative reading of the status quo, only 20 percent of the criteria meet the guidelines; of 30 matrix boxes, only 6 are plausibly sufficient. Furthermore, none of the six grid operators are likely to receive a clear pass through the five reforms.
Given the spectrum of large load readiness across grid operators and reform areas, significant policy actions are likely to emerge after the initial 60-day period following the show cause orders.
FERC's orders are unlikely to induce a wave of uniform compliance, but rather a multiyear, piecemeal modernization of large load interconnection practices. While the commission's overarching objective is to accelerate and standardize the interconnection of large loads, its orders reflect broader concerns surrounding electricity affordability, transmission planning, and the allocation of infrastructure costs. Cost-shift prevention and transparency are likely to remain salient issues as regulators seek to balance rapid economic development with the protection of existing ratepayers.
Conclusion
FERC's June 2026 show-cause orders represent the commission's most significant effort to modernize large load interconnection policy to date. Importantly, they expose a fragmented regulatory landscape in which grid operators have adopted markedly different approaches to managing large electricity customers. SPP's relative success in meeting FERC's objectives shows they are achievable under the existing regulatory framework; the matrix suggests, however, that most operators will need to implement significant reforms before reaching comparable levels of large load readiness.
Nevertheless, FERC's jurisdiction should not be overstated. Its regional market interventions, particularly those concerning cost-shifting, may not produce the desired results. While top-down reforms may improve rate transparency, FERC is not the final arbiter of retail electricity rates. The commission can require RTOs and ISOs to adopt more transparent tariff provisions and strengthen wholesale market rules governing large load interconnections, but its authority extends no further. Nor do RTOs and ISOs themselves determine how utilities recover the costs of new infrastructure from customers, decisions that remain under the purview of utilities and state public utility commissions.
The significance of these proceedings extends beyond the specific tariff revisions that may emerge over the coming months. The orders acknowledge that the regulatory framework governing large load interconnections has not kept pace with the magnitude of electricity demand driven by AI and other emerging industries. The success of these reforms will depend not only on FERC's ability to modernize wholesale interconnection policy, but also on effective coordination among grid operators, utilities, state regulators, and large load developers to accommodate new demand efficiently, transparently, and sustainably.
* * *
Joseph Majkut is the director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Alexander Garcia, Chelsey Gilchrist, and Malik Jaffal are interns with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/large-load-reform-how-prepared-are-us-grid-operators-ai-era
[Category: ThinkTank]
CRC News: InfluenceWatch Citations for June 2026
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on July 9, 2026:
* * *
CRC News: InfluenceWatch citations for June 2026
News journals from The Federalist (on the right) to CounterPunch (on the left) used IW as a source last month.
-
The Capital Research Center launched InfluenceWatch in 2017 "after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of the various influencers of public policy issues." InfluenceWatch has fulfilled that mission so well that it has become a trusted source for policy makers and media outlets across the political spectrum. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on July 9, 2026: * * * CRC News: InfluenceWatch citations for June 2026 News journals from The Federalist (on the right) to CounterPunch (on the left) used IW as a source last month. - The Capital Research Center launched InfluenceWatch in 2017 "after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of the various influencers of public policy issues." InfluenceWatch has fulfilled that mission so well that it has become a trusted source for policy makers and media outlets across the political spectrum.On June 19, for example, CounterPunch, a left-wing opinion journal, cited IW in a report on the behavior of The Nature Conservancy:
According to the conservative outlet Influence Watch, "The Nature Conservancy has a strong business relationship with some of the nation's largest energy producers, such as Chevron and Duke Energy, and many large businesses such as Dow Chemical. TNC has also maintained associations with the political center-right: Former Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist is a member of the TNC board."
Similarly, The Advocate is another left-leaning publication that claims to be "the world's leading source of LGBTQ+ news and information." In a July 10 report on a controversy involving the Texas U.S. Senate race, The Advocate cited the IW profile of a right-leaning advocacy nonprofit named Citizens for Sanity:
As of April 1, 2026, per Ballotpedia, 31 states have enacted legislation banning deepfakes in political ads, including Texas. (Citizens for Sanity is based in Washington, D.C., per Influence Watch.) However, the Texas bill, which considers the creation of deepfakes a criminal offense, only bans their publication and distribution within 30 days of an election.
Links and full titles of the two reports are as follows:
CounterPunch--Logging "Giant Sticks of Coal": Confronting the Biomass Industry
The Advocate--Republicans run bizarre AI deepfake ad showing James Talarico singing about trans kids: The fake Talarico is shown singing a parody of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music.
Here are eight other IW media citations from June:
* * *
Daily Caller-- Officials Warn There's Something In The Water, And It May Be Making You Infertile
Some doubt mifepristone's alleged environmental risks.
"There is absolutely no evidence that this is an environmental issue," Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)'s Environmental Health Science Director Nathan Donley said, according to PolitiFact. "Pharmaceutical waste can be a big issue when we're talking about widely used drugs, but to somehow point to mifepristone as a bad actor here is completely disingenuous."
CBD is a "left-of-center environmental activist and legal advocacy organization" that advocates for population control, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
California Globe--Ag Secretary Rollins, Interior Sec Burgum Convene White House Meeting Between PG&E Regarding Future of Potter Valley Dam: It has diverted water for over a century through a tunnel to the Russian River basin, supporting agriculture, hydropower, and water supply for hundreds of thousands of people in Northern California
Much of this was backed by The New Venture Fund, like all four nonprofits managed by the for-profit consultancy Arabella Advisors, a left-leaning philanthropic consulting company that provides strategy, advocacy, impact investing, and management services to high-dollar foundations, nonprofits, corporations, and individuals. The company was founded in 2005 by Eric Kessler, a Clinton administration alumnus, which according to Influence Watch, primarily exists to sponsor a number of "fake" groups: websites designed to look like standalone nonprofits. These "fake" groups rarely become fully-fledged nonprofits; instead, they typically exist to effect an issue advocacy campaign pushing left-wing policies and may disappear after the campaign is finished.
* * *
The Federalist-- Court Filing: Democrat AGs Behind Lawfare Coordinated With Leftist Groups About 'How To Stop Trump'
States United Democracy Center is the brainchild of Norm Eisen, a left-leaning lawyer who served as the "Ethics Czar" in the Obama White House. The group was launched originally as the Voter Protection Program "to coordinate left-leaning advocacy groups and Democratic campaign committees in the event that then-President Donald Trump lost and subsequently contested the results of the 2020 Presidential Election," according to nonprofit tracker InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Science Literacy Project-- Viewpoint: How Earthjustice became the poster child for the abuse of special interest activist funding
While Earthjustice chose not to be transparent on which foundations or special interests are funding their lawfare activities, a quick scan of the websites of large foundations that tend to fund NGOs to conduct similar lawsuits did show a considerable network of well-connected funders.
The Ford Foundation was one of the initial founding donorsof Earthjustice. Does it really make sense for a philanthropy built on a century of auto industry profits to be funding an NGO suing the fossil fuel and tire industries? The Ford Foundation remains a funder but there has been no disclosure of recent donations.
The MacArthur Foundation has made 11 grants to Earthjustice totaling almost $15 million. Most of those payments have come in the last six declared years.
Other foundations that have listed support for Earthjustice include the Sandler Foundation, Packard Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Hewlett Foundation, to name but a few (source: InfluenceWatch).
* * *
The Federalist-- Arizona's Lawfare-Pushing AG Can't Quit Her Witch Hunt Against Trump Allies
The state court of appeals recently found that Mayes illegally withheld communications between the AG's office and the leftist States United Democracy Center. The leftist election law group reportedly advised Mayes' office on a pathway to indict the alternate electors.
Nonprofit tracker InfluenceWatch says States United Democracy Center "was founded as one of many organizing coalitions and left-leaning strategy groups to coordinate left-leaning advocacy groups and Democratic campaign committees in the event that then-President Donald Trump lost and subsequently contested the results of the 2020 Presidential Election." Norm Eisen, a left-leaning lawyer who served as the "Ethics Czar" in the Obama White House, founded the organization.
* * *
Shooting Sports Weekly--We Won't Let Anti-Gun Billionaires Who Finance Civilian Disarmament Live in the Shadows Anymore
The Trace is headed by John Feinblatt, who also heads Everytown for Gun Safety and once served as a senior advisor to Bloomberg when he was mayor. Feinblatt is the principal officer listed on tax filings for The Trace. Everytown, of course, is a gun control organization that wants to see lawful firearm ownership eliminated in America.
To top it all off, The Trace admits that it has "more than a thousand readers who have stepped up to support financially." The Trace reported they received over $6.3 million in 2024, according to the watchdog group InfluenceWatch. That means to make its budget work, each of those readers would have had to donated over $6,300.
* * *
The Federalist-- Leftists Hate America So Much They're Turning Her 250th Birthday Into A Celebration Of Marxism
The 50501 Movement similarly sprung up in response to Trump's return to office. The organization has espoused support for racist DEI policies, "LGBT interests," and "Palestinian nationalism;" sought Trump's removal from office; and participated in demonstrations against Trump, Elon Musk, and ICE, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
The Federalist--FBI Raids Leftist Group With History Of Suspect Voter Registration Practices: The Ohio Organizing Collaborative has ties to a voter canvassing group with a 'bad reputation' for suspected fraudulent voter registrations.
The OOC is tied to myriad left-wing activist groups and claims to be building "a broad-based movement to end the criminalization of poverty." Its policy focus, according to the group's website, is on "young people, low income people, and Black people." As charity tracker InfluenceWatch reports, OOC's sister group, the Ohio Organizing Campaign, "focuses on registering and mobilizing voters of the same demographics."
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the collaborative has received significant funding from groups such as far-left sugar daddy George Soros' Foundation to Promote Open Society (at least $2 million), Arabella Advisors-linked nonprofits, the Voter Registration Project, and big labor outfits like Service Employees International Union, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Daily Caller-- EXCLUSIVE: Are Donor-Recommended Grants Bankrolling Assisted Suicide Advocacy?
Some of Wall Street's largest donor-advised funds may be facilitating grants to America's largest assisted suicide advocacy group.
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) facilitated by Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (FC) and Vanguard Charitable contributed a combined millions of dollars total to Compassion & Choices, America's largest and oldest assisted suicide advocacy group, according to ProPublica's publicly available data.
[. . .]
FC in particular also helped facilitated over $82 million in grants to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, $834,000 to the pro-LGBTQ+ Human Rights Campaign, and $4 million to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in 2022, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
The Washington Times-- Leftist bid to 'reframe' 250th birthday narrative reunites Women's March squad
What are the activists mobilizing for? The Next250 initiative touts five policy pillars: a "living wage for all," "climate justice," "reproductive rights," "voting rights," and "gun safety and peace."
The fight for reparations for Black Americans also figures prominently.
Aria Florant, CEO of Liberation Ventures, is coordinating "Week of Repair" events from June 19-July 4 that "invite people to engage with concepts of reparations."
"We're investing in a whole collection of projects, events and storytelling that are all focused on getting Americans to reckon with the past and to acknowledge and take accountability for what we got wrong, and therefore envision a repair and healing future," said Ms. Florant on the media call.
As is often the case with efforts billed as helping the poor, Next250 enjoys support from the rich.
Next250 is "housed" at One Fair Wage, a fiscally supported project of the Alliance for a Just Society, according to the Capital Research Center's InfluenceWatch website.
The alliance's donors include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, and Foundation to Promote Open Society, which is chaired by Democratic megadonor George Soros.
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org. He previously worked...
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/crc-news-influencewatch-citations-for-june-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
CRC News: InfluenceWatch citations for June 2026
News journals from The Federalist (on the right) to CounterPunch (on the left) used IW as a source last month.
-
The Capital Research Center launched InfluenceWatch in 2017 "after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of the various influencers of public policy issues." InfluenceWatch has fulfilled that mission so well that it has become a trusted source for policy makers and media outlets across the political spectrum. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on July 9, 2026: * * * CRC News: InfluenceWatch citations for June 2026 News journals from The Federalist (on the right) to CounterPunch (on the left) used IW as a source last month. - The Capital Research Center launched InfluenceWatch in 2017 "after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of the various influencers of public policy issues." InfluenceWatch has fulfilled that mission so well that it has become a trusted source for policy makers and media outlets across the political spectrum.On June 19, for example, CounterPunch, a left-wing opinion journal, cited IW in a report on the behavior of The Nature Conservancy:
According to the conservative outlet Influence Watch, "The Nature Conservancy has a strong business relationship with some of the nation's largest energy producers, such as Chevron and Duke Energy, and many large businesses such as Dow Chemical. TNC has also maintained associations with the political center-right: Former Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist is a member of the TNC board."
Similarly, The Advocate is another left-leaning publication that claims to be "the world's leading source of LGBTQ+ news and information." In a July 10 report on a controversy involving the Texas U.S. Senate race, The Advocate cited the IW profile of a right-leaning advocacy nonprofit named Citizens for Sanity:
As of April 1, 2026, per Ballotpedia, 31 states have enacted legislation banning deepfakes in political ads, including Texas. (Citizens for Sanity is based in Washington, D.C., per Influence Watch.) However, the Texas bill, which considers the creation of deepfakes a criminal offense, only bans their publication and distribution within 30 days of an election.
Links and full titles of the two reports are as follows:
CounterPunch--Logging "Giant Sticks of Coal": Confronting the Biomass Industry
The Advocate--Republicans run bizarre AI deepfake ad showing James Talarico singing about trans kids: The fake Talarico is shown singing a parody of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music.
Here are eight other IW media citations from June:
* * *
Daily Caller-- Officials Warn There's Something In The Water, And It May Be Making You Infertile
Some doubt mifepristone's alleged environmental risks.
"There is absolutely no evidence that this is an environmental issue," Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)'s Environmental Health Science Director Nathan Donley said, according to PolitiFact. "Pharmaceutical waste can be a big issue when we're talking about widely used drugs, but to somehow point to mifepristone as a bad actor here is completely disingenuous."
CBD is a "left-of-center environmental activist and legal advocacy organization" that advocates for population control, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
California Globe--Ag Secretary Rollins, Interior Sec Burgum Convene White House Meeting Between PG&E Regarding Future of Potter Valley Dam: It has diverted water for over a century through a tunnel to the Russian River basin, supporting agriculture, hydropower, and water supply for hundreds of thousands of people in Northern California
Much of this was backed by The New Venture Fund, like all four nonprofits managed by the for-profit consultancy Arabella Advisors, a left-leaning philanthropic consulting company that provides strategy, advocacy, impact investing, and management services to high-dollar foundations, nonprofits, corporations, and individuals. The company was founded in 2005 by Eric Kessler, a Clinton administration alumnus, which according to Influence Watch, primarily exists to sponsor a number of "fake" groups: websites designed to look like standalone nonprofits. These "fake" groups rarely become fully-fledged nonprofits; instead, they typically exist to effect an issue advocacy campaign pushing left-wing policies and may disappear after the campaign is finished.
* * *
The Federalist-- Court Filing: Democrat AGs Behind Lawfare Coordinated With Leftist Groups About 'How To Stop Trump'
States United Democracy Center is the brainchild of Norm Eisen, a left-leaning lawyer who served as the "Ethics Czar" in the Obama White House. The group was launched originally as the Voter Protection Program "to coordinate left-leaning advocacy groups and Democratic campaign committees in the event that then-President Donald Trump lost and subsequently contested the results of the 2020 Presidential Election," according to nonprofit tracker InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Science Literacy Project-- Viewpoint: How Earthjustice became the poster child for the abuse of special interest activist funding
While Earthjustice chose not to be transparent on which foundations or special interests are funding their lawfare activities, a quick scan of the websites of large foundations that tend to fund NGOs to conduct similar lawsuits did show a considerable network of well-connected funders.
The Ford Foundation was one of the initial founding donorsof Earthjustice. Does it really make sense for a philanthropy built on a century of auto industry profits to be funding an NGO suing the fossil fuel and tire industries? The Ford Foundation remains a funder but there has been no disclosure of recent donations.
The MacArthur Foundation has made 11 grants to Earthjustice totaling almost $15 million. Most of those payments have come in the last six declared years.
Other foundations that have listed support for Earthjustice include the Sandler Foundation, Packard Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Hewlett Foundation, to name but a few (source: InfluenceWatch).
* * *
The Federalist-- Arizona's Lawfare-Pushing AG Can't Quit Her Witch Hunt Against Trump Allies
The state court of appeals recently found that Mayes illegally withheld communications between the AG's office and the leftist States United Democracy Center. The leftist election law group reportedly advised Mayes' office on a pathway to indict the alternate electors.
Nonprofit tracker InfluenceWatch says States United Democracy Center "was founded as one of many organizing coalitions and left-leaning strategy groups to coordinate left-leaning advocacy groups and Democratic campaign committees in the event that then-President Donald Trump lost and subsequently contested the results of the 2020 Presidential Election." Norm Eisen, a left-leaning lawyer who served as the "Ethics Czar" in the Obama White House, founded the organization.
* * *
Shooting Sports Weekly--We Won't Let Anti-Gun Billionaires Who Finance Civilian Disarmament Live in the Shadows Anymore
The Trace is headed by John Feinblatt, who also heads Everytown for Gun Safety and once served as a senior advisor to Bloomberg when he was mayor. Feinblatt is the principal officer listed on tax filings for The Trace. Everytown, of course, is a gun control organization that wants to see lawful firearm ownership eliminated in America.
To top it all off, The Trace admits that it has "more than a thousand readers who have stepped up to support financially." The Trace reported they received over $6.3 million in 2024, according to the watchdog group InfluenceWatch. That means to make its budget work, each of those readers would have had to donated over $6,300.
* * *
The Federalist-- Leftists Hate America So Much They're Turning Her 250th Birthday Into A Celebration Of Marxism
The 50501 Movement similarly sprung up in response to Trump's return to office. The organization has espoused support for racist DEI policies, "LGBT interests," and "Palestinian nationalism;" sought Trump's removal from office; and participated in demonstrations against Trump, Elon Musk, and ICE, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
The Federalist--FBI Raids Leftist Group With History Of Suspect Voter Registration Practices: The Ohio Organizing Collaborative has ties to a voter canvassing group with a 'bad reputation' for suspected fraudulent voter registrations.
The OOC is tied to myriad left-wing activist groups and claims to be building "a broad-based movement to end the criminalization of poverty." Its policy focus, according to the group's website, is on "young people, low income people, and Black people." As charity tracker InfluenceWatch reports, OOC's sister group, the Ohio Organizing Campaign, "focuses on registering and mobilizing voters of the same demographics."
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the collaborative has received significant funding from groups such as far-left sugar daddy George Soros' Foundation to Promote Open Society (at least $2 million), Arabella Advisors-linked nonprofits, the Voter Registration Project, and big labor outfits like Service Employees International Union, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Daily Caller-- EXCLUSIVE: Are Donor-Recommended Grants Bankrolling Assisted Suicide Advocacy?
Some of Wall Street's largest donor-advised funds may be facilitating grants to America's largest assisted suicide advocacy group.
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) facilitated by Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (FC) and Vanguard Charitable contributed a combined millions of dollars total to Compassion & Choices, America's largest and oldest assisted suicide advocacy group, according to ProPublica's publicly available data.
[. . .]
FC in particular also helped facilitated over $82 million in grants to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, $834,000 to the pro-LGBTQ+ Human Rights Campaign, and $4 million to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in 2022, according to InfluenceWatch.
* * *
The Washington Times-- Leftist bid to 'reframe' 250th birthday narrative reunites Women's March squad
What are the activists mobilizing for? The Next250 initiative touts five policy pillars: a "living wage for all," "climate justice," "reproductive rights," "voting rights," and "gun safety and peace."
The fight for reparations for Black Americans also figures prominently.
Aria Florant, CEO of Liberation Ventures, is coordinating "Week of Repair" events from June 19-July 4 that "invite people to engage with concepts of reparations."
"We're investing in a whole collection of projects, events and storytelling that are all focused on getting Americans to reckon with the past and to acknowledge and take accountability for what we got wrong, and therefore envision a repair and healing future," said Ms. Florant on the media call.
As is often the case with efforts billed as helping the poor, Next250 enjoys support from the rich.
Next250 is "housed" at One Fair Wage, a fiscally supported project of the Alliance for a Just Society, according to the Capital Research Center's InfluenceWatch website.
The alliance's donors include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, and Foundation to Promote Open Society, which is chaired by Democratic megadonor George Soros.
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org. He previously worked...
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/crc-news-influencewatch-citations-for-june-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Releases New Report on Protecting Children From AI Chatbots
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on July 9, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Releases New Report on Protecting Children from AI Chatbots
Today, the America First Policy Institute released a new expert insight, "Child Safety Through Parental Authority: An AI Policy Framework."
Recent reports show that more than 60 percent of children use AI regularly. This increased AI and chatbot usage by minors has exposed major safety concerns, and large AI companies such as Character.AI, Meta, Google, and ChatGPT are facing lawsuits from parents whose children have ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on July 9, 2026: * * * AFPI Releases New Report on Protecting Children from AI Chatbots Today, the America First Policy Institute released a new expert insight, "Child Safety Through Parental Authority: An AI Policy Framework." Recent reports show that more than 60 percent of children use AI regularly. This increased AI and chatbot usage by minors has exposed major safety concerns, and large AI companies such as Character.AI, Meta, Google, and ChatGPT are facing lawsuits from parents whose children havecommitted suicide after interacting with their platforms.
AFPI argues that as artificial intelligence advances, Congress should require that AI companies establish custodial accounts and that they publish recurring child safety disclosures that give parents greater visibility into their children's AI usage.
AFPI's policy recommendations to Congress include:
* Requiring AI companies to publish regular child safety disclosures
* Requiring AI companies to establish custodial accounts for use by minors, tying them into existing age verification infrastructure
* Ensuring parents can access their child's conversation history with chatbots, especially in the event of their death
* Protecting child safety whistleblowers in the AI industry
The evidence presented in AFPI's report proves that voluntary self-regulation by AI companies has not produced adequate child safety protections. Parents must be given the tools to protect their children from exploitation, addiction, and even death. The proposed framework does just that--it puts parents, not companies or bureaucrats, in control of what their children can access while engaging with AI platforms.
Read AFPI's full brief here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/child-safety-through-parental-authority-an-ai-policy-framework).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-releases-new-report-on-protecting-children-from-ai-chatbots
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Releases New Report on Protecting Children from AI Chatbots
Today, the America First Policy Institute released a new expert insight, "Child Safety Through Parental Authority: An AI Policy Framework."
Recent reports show that more than 60 percent of children use AI regularly. This increased AI and chatbot usage by minors has exposed major safety concerns, and large AI companies such as Character.AI, Meta, Google, and ChatGPT are facing lawsuits from parents whose children have ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on July 9, 2026: * * * AFPI Releases New Report on Protecting Children from AI Chatbots Today, the America First Policy Institute released a new expert insight, "Child Safety Through Parental Authority: An AI Policy Framework." Recent reports show that more than 60 percent of children use AI regularly. This increased AI and chatbot usage by minors has exposed major safety concerns, and large AI companies such as Character.AI, Meta, Google, and ChatGPT are facing lawsuits from parents whose children havecommitted suicide after interacting with their platforms.
AFPI argues that as artificial intelligence advances, Congress should require that AI companies establish custodial accounts and that they publish recurring child safety disclosures that give parents greater visibility into their children's AI usage.
AFPI's policy recommendations to Congress include:
* Requiring AI companies to publish regular child safety disclosures
* Requiring AI companies to establish custodial accounts for use by minors, tying them into existing age verification infrastructure
* Ensuring parents can access their child's conversation history with chatbots, especially in the event of their death
* Protecting child safety whistleblowers in the AI industry
The evidence presented in AFPI's report proves that voluntary self-regulation by AI companies has not produced adequate child safety protections. Parents must be given the tools to protect their children from exploitation, addiction, and even death. The proposed framework does just that--it puts parents, not companies or bureaucrats, in control of what their children can access while engaging with AI platforms.
Read AFPI's full brief here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/child-safety-through-parental-authority-an-ai-policy-framework).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-releases-new-report-on-protecting-children-from-ai-chatbots
[Category: ThinkTank]