Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Transgender Sports Deception
NEW YORK, Jan. 17 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 15, 2026, to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
The Transgender Sports Deception
By Colin Wright
Nobody is banned from playing, only from playing for opposite-sex teams.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., cases challenging state laws that restrict participation on girls' and women's sports teams to female athletes. A January 2025 poll found that 79% of Americans--including 67% of Democrats--believe male athletes who "identify" as women
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Jan. 17 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 15, 2026, to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
The Transgender Sports Deception
By Colin Wright
Nobody is banned from playing, only from playing for opposite-sex teams.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., cases challenging state laws that restrict participation on girls' and women's sports teams to female athletes. A January 2025 poll found that 79% of Americans--including 67% of Democrats--believe male athletes who "identify" as womenshouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports.
Faced with this overwhelming consensus, much of the media has adopted a strategy of reframing the issue. It is presented as whether transgender people should be "banned from sports," not whether males should be excluded from female sports.
The headlines following the court's oral arguments were nearly interchangeable. The New York Times: "Justices Seem Inclined to Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes." Reuters wrote that the justices "lean toward allowing transgender sports bans." The Associated Press said the court "seems likely to allow state bans of trans athletes in school sports."
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-transgender-sports-deception-33b7547f?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqddqjFk71C-_1Wu7LqqrW5Runb3RbqxlGH-OZYxTxzfrvlXcNbfY9kpdWi-Vsw%3D&gaa_ts=696a589a&gaa_sig=vR9JqvofUzc36QddS5SG2bp-ATfLoOvbmhdTajePCMDY2I4EU7IbJGD5enI5KYOXutbSAv1LQrR9k6r4CJsHvA%3D%3D)
* * *
Colin Wright is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/the-transgender-sports-deception
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Russia Targets NATO Frontline States
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 17, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Russia Targets NATO Frontline States
By Anna J. Davis
Executive Summary:
* A cargo ship sailing from St. Petersburg allegedly damaged an undersea telecoms cable in the Baltic Sea on December 31 after dragging its anchor along the seabed in an attempted act of sabotage. Russian forces sabotaging subsea cables and pipelines have become a regular threat across the Baltic Sea and the Arctic regions.
* Damaging undersea infrastructure is only one element of Russia's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 17, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Russia Targets NATO Frontline States
By Anna J. Davis
Executive Summary:
* A cargo ship sailing from St. Petersburg allegedly damaged an undersea telecoms cable in the Baltic Sea on December 31 after dragging its anchor along the seabed in an attempted act of sabotage. Russian forces sabotaging subsea cables and pipelines have become a regular threat across the Baltic Sea and the Arctic regions.
* Damaging undersea infrastructure is only one element of Russia'sbroader campaign to reshape the security environment along the frontline of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
* Russia needs its war against Ukraine to continue, as it provides the Kremlin with a convenient scapegoat for aggressive actions against NATO states. With a meaningful peace agreement, Moscow would lose the plausible deniability it relies on to mask its offensive behavior by claiming it was unintended or by blaming Ukrainian forces.
On December 31, 2025, Finnish and Estonian authorities seized the Fitburg cargo ship in the Baltic Sea for attempting to damage an undersea telecoms cable running from Helsinki to Estonia. The Fitburg, which had departed from St. Petersburg, allegedly dragged its anchor along the Baltic seabed and damaged a cable located in Estonia's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Finnish Customs, January 1; Police of Finland, January 12). It was sailing under the flag of St Vincent and Grenadines and captained by Russian citizen Andrei Maksimenko (Police of Finland, January 3; ERR, January 12). The authorities have since released the vessel and taken a crew member, an Azerbaijani citizen who boarded the vessel in St. Petersburg, into custody. They have also issued a travel ban for several other crew members (ERR, January 12). One former Estonian Navy commander said that "if data cables were fully severed, and ATMs and card payments stopped working, that impact would be huge" (ERR, January 12).
Russia's sabotage of subsea cables and pipelines has become a regular threat across the Baltic Sea and the Arctic regions (see EDM, February 5, 2025). It is only one part of the larger, changing security environment along the frontline of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Moscow is attempting to project power, vulnerability, and both real and perceived threats toward the populations and infrastructure of NATO member states as it continues its war against Ukraine. Russia needs its war against Ukraine to continue, however, if it is to sustain this behavior toward NATO frontline states. Russia's war against Ukraine enables Moscow to hide behind the narrative of accidental breaches against NATO or to blame the Ukrainian armed forces. Moscow holds an intrinsic interest in stalling meaningful peace talks because it places value on the ability to hide behind the blurred lines of war.
Russian hybrid tactics and political manipulation tend to occur in tandem across NATO's frontline. In December 2024, Romania's intelligence services revealed that Russia had orchestrated a social media operation to boost Calin Georgescu's presidential campaign (see Jamestown Perspectives, May 2, 2025). Georgescu, the far-right, pro-Russian candidate, won the first round of elections only to have the results annulled by the country's Constitutional Court due to Russian interference. Later that year, a Romanian F-16 fighter jet intercepted and escorted a Russian drone into Ukrainian airspace, where it was likely shot down (Antena 3 CNN, September 13, 2025; Kyiv Independent, September 14, 2025). The rate of Russian drone incursions inside Romanian airspace has increased exponentially since September 2023 (see EDM, December 2, 2025).
In Poland, Russian offensive tactics include sabotage, propaganda, and recruitment of refugees for espionage (see EDM, June 9, July 22, 2025). In response to these mounting threats, the Polish government has begun preparing for the possibility of direct military confrontation (see EDM, April 4, 2025). Between 2010 and 2025, 35 percent of Europe's arrests for Russian-linked espionage and sabotage occurred in Poland (see EDM, May 8, 2025). Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian activity inside Poland has targeted military bases, airfields, and adjacent transportation networks (see EDM, May 8, 2025). In September 2025, at least 19 decoy Gerbera drones entered Polish airspace during a large-scale Russian strike on Ukraine (see EDM, September 15, 2025). This was the first time NATO engaged Russian military assets over alliance territory.
Drones are not the only aircraft detected and intercepted by NATO frontline states. During the Christmas period, Polish air defense services intercepted and escorted a Russian reconnaissance plane away from international waters of the Baltic Sea (Polskie Radio, December 25, 2025). Polish Armed Forces Operational Command said that the aircraft was flying near Poland's airspace borders. Around the same time, reports indicated that 59 weather balloons, likely carrying smuggled goods, had entered Polish airspace via Belarus (RMF24, December 29, 2025; RBC-Ukraine, December 30, 2025).
In the Baltic states, Russia uses numerous tactics. These include information warfare, propaganda, subversion, covert violent action, conventional aggression, targeting social groups, influencing elections via cyber and information operations, cyber-attacks, targeting energy infrastructure, and initiating mass illegal migration (see EDM, May 27, 2025). Russia's Foreign Ministry is advancing the narrative that the West is using the Baltic states to threaten Russia and that the Baltic Sea is now "a potential theater of military operations" (see EDM, September 4, 2025). Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania officially disconnected their power grids from Russia in February 2025 to reduce Moscow's ability to manipulate their electricity supply (see EDM, February 20, 2025). The three states are in regular discussions with the United States to strengthen critical energy infrastructure security and reduce reliance on, or the threat from, Russia. The latest of these Baltic 3+1 Energy Dialogues emphasized the potential increase in U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports into the Baltics, as well as the development of nuclear technology (Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; U.S. Department of Energy, November 7, 2025). The Baltics have been exploring alternative nuclear technologies in response to Russia's threats to their energy security, including discussions to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) in collaboration with Sweden, Finland, and Poland (Government of Poland, September 10, 2025).
This potential military theater is already a site of regular Russian interference and offensive behavior, both above, on, and beneath the surface. Earlier in January, a Russian border guard vessel remained in Estonian territorial waters for roughly 35 minutes without permission (ERR, July 28, 2025). In December, Estonian Defense Forces detected three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets that remained in the country's airspace without permission for nearly 12 minutes before being escorted by Italian Air Force F-35 fighter jets stationed as part of NATO's Baltic Air Policing mission (ERR, September 19, 2025). Earlier in 2025, Lithuanian officials announced they found two kilograms of explosive material in a drone that had crashed in Lithuanian territory. The drone had entered Lithuania from Belarus after Ukrainian defense systems altered its flight path (LRT, August 5, September 17, 2025; Delfi, August 6, 2025).
Czech intelligence services recently reported that Russia is fostering an extensive espionage network operating under diplomatic cover inside the country, according to the Czech security services' annual report for 2024, released in July 2025 (Security Information Service, July 10, 2025; see EDM, July 22, 2025). The report detailed that Russian operatives recruit individuals, including journalists, members of organized crime groups, and economically vulnerable migrants from non-EU countries, to carry out intelligence tasks. Recruits are often unaware they are working on behalf of Russia because intelligence officers rely on intermediaries.
Hungary and Slovakia have also faced Russian-instigated cyberattacks and hybrid threats despite their energy dependence on Russia and closer relations with Moscow than other European states. In March 2022, Russian security services instigated a cyberattack that infiltrated the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including the ministry's network and a secure network for transmitting classified information (Hungary Today, April 14, 2022). Hungarian officials publicly denied the attack had taken place, calling it "election lies" (444, May 16, 2024). Hungarian media later found that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had known about the attack based on a letter by a Hungarian intelligence services head (UNN, May 16, 2024).
In May 2025, a report jointly released by the United States and several European states revealed that a Russian state-sponsored cyber campaign had been targeting surveillance cameras across Europe and the United States since 2022 (Joint Cybersecurity Advisory, May 2025). This campaign targeted approximately 170 cameras in Slovakia, 280 in Hungary, 200 in Poland, and 990 in Romania, with the remainder largely located in Ukraine. Slovakia had already been targeted in May 2024 by Russian hacker groups in a Central Europe-wide cyberattack, during which the groups issued bomb threats via email to Slovak schools, banks, and electronic retailers (TVP World, May 8, 2024).
Russia's offensive behavior along NATO's frontline is a sustained effort to exploit and manufacture vulnerabilities and to test NATO's commitment to its own defense, as well as to Ukraine. Without its war against Ukraine, Moscow loses a substantial degree of its ability to deny, blame, or excuse breaches and threats toward NATO. A meaningful peace agreement would deprive Russia of the plausible deniability on which it has come to rely. For that reason, the Kremlin will continue delaying and derailing negotiations until compelled to do otherwise.
* * *
Anna J. Davis is Fellow of Eurasia Studies at the Jamestown Foundation and a contrinuting editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russia-targets-nato-frontline-states/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to China Brief Notes: Taiwan's Cautious Optimism on U.S. National Security Strategy
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 16, 2026, in its China Brief Notes:
* * *
Taiwan's Cautious Optimism on U.S. National Security Strategy
By Dennis Yang
Executive Summary:
* Initial responses in Taiwan to the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) have been divided, largely in line with stakeholders' political persuasions.
* Those in President Lai's administration have welcomed the document's large number of mentions of Taiwan, the removal of language referring to a U.S. "one China Policy" and not supporting Taiwan independence, and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 16, 2026, in its China Brief Notes:
* * *
Taiwan's Cautious Optimism on U.S. National Security Strategy
By Dennis Yang
Executive Summary:
* Initial responses in Taiwan to the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) have been divided, largely in line with stakeholders' political persuasions.
* Those in President Lai's administration have welcomed the document's large number of mentions of Taiwan, the removal of language referring to a U.S. "one China Policy" and not supporting Taiwan independence, andthe commitment to "denying aggression" in the first island chain.
* Opposition Kuomintang voices, as well as some aligned with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), have voiced concern about the NSS. They worry that the strategy's focus on the Western Hemisphere, coupled with the administration's apparent softening in tone toward Beijing, could lead to a "strategic retreat" from Taiwan.
U.S. emphasis on burden sharing for a Taiwan contingency puts additional pressure on Taiwan to increase its self-defense capabilities and cooperate more with Indo-Pacific allies.
On December 4, 2025, the White House released the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS). The document mentions Taiwan eight times, the third-most of any country, after the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Russia. It also attaches great importance to the prevention of a Taiwan Strait conflict, saying that "deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority," and calling for the capacity to deny aggression "anywhere" in the first island chain (White House, December 4, 2025). In addition to focusing on Taiwan's strategic value, it also notes Taiwan's economic importance, due to its "dominance of semiconductor production."
The document contains several subtle shifts in language on Taiwan from the Biden administration's 2022 NSS. While the earlier document said that the United States would "oppose" any unilateral changes to the status quo, the new strategy simply says that it "does not support" any changes. The new NSS also drops language from the Biden administration's strategy on not supporting Taiwan independence and on remaining committed to a "one China policy" (White House, October 12, 2022).
Initial Taiwanese reactions to the release of the NSS ranged from cautious optimism to outright skepticism. Some interpreted the language as signaling greater U.S. strategic clarity regarding the Taiwan Strait, while others focused on linguistic shifts in the NSS to argue that it may foreshadow higher expectations for Taiwan and greater uncertainty about Washington's long-term intentions.
Incumbent Administration Optimistic
The day after the NSS was released, President Lai Ching-te remarked on social media that he "greatly appreciate[d]" the prioritization of deterring a conflict over Taiwan and securing the first island chain (X/@ChingteLai, December 5, 2025). Presidential Office Spokesperson Karen Kuo described preventing an assault on Taiwan as the strategy's most important objective, saying that "as long as Taiwan is safe, the Indo-Pacific is safe" (SETN, December 6, 2025)./[1]
Cabinet-level officials also reacted positively. Taiwan's foreign minister, Lin Chia-lung, broadened his comments to include reference to Taiwan's role in key supply chains. He said that President Trump's recent signing of the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act and his approval of arms sale packages to Taiwan demonstrate continued U.S. commitment to Taiwan (Reuters, November 18, 2025; MoFA, December 6, 2025). Taiwan's defense minister, Wellington Koo, remarked that "peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific is still the United States's greatest core interest", emphasizing collective deterrence as well as Taiwan's progress in its resolve and self-defense capabilities (LTN, December 6, 2025).
This tone was echoed among Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators and DPP-affiliated experts. Wang Ting-yu, who sits on the Legislative Yuan's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Taiwan "is seen as an important core interest" f the United States, and noted that Taiwan's importance to the United States "is very clearly stated" in the NSS (SETN, December 6, 2025). Su Tzu-yun, director of the Defense Strategy and Resources Division at the government-affiliated think tank Institute for National Defense and Security Research (INDSR) said that the NSS affirms U.S. strategic clarity and represents a fourth "period of strategic opportunity") in Taiwan's recent history./[2] Su noted that references in the NSS to "collective defense" and commitments to "denying aggression" in the first island chain should lead to a decrease in "skepticism of the United States" (LTN, December 7, 2025).
The NSS makes clear that the burden of preventing conflict in the Taiwan Strait is not the unilateral responsibility of the United States. It says that U.S. allies "must step up and spend--and more importantly do--much more for collective defense," and that the U.S. will "maintain our determined rhetoric on increased defense spending" in Taiwan.
This has caused some anxiety, even among politicians connected to the DPP administration. General Lee Hsiang-yu), who served as National Security Bureau director under President Ma Ying-jeou and ambassador to Denmark under President Tsai Ing-wen, interpreted the NSS as demanding that Taiwan develop "absolute deterrence" (UDN, December 7, 2025). He also warned that Taiwan must avoid being a victim of great power competition.
On the other side of Taiwan's political spectrum, the Kuomintang (KMT) leadership and local officials have been uncharacteristically quiet, giving no official response on the NSS. One legislator, Lee Yen-hsiu, acknowledged the language in the NSS but criticized delays in U.S. arms deliveries, urging Washington to pressure manufacturers to adhere to delivery timelines (Radio Taiwan International, December 7, 2025).
Some perspectives from the pro-PRC wing of the KMT overlapped with Beijing's response to the NSS, particularly regarding the PRC's interpretation of U.S. intentions in the Western Hemisphere (China Brief, December 17, 2025). Former KMT Legislator and media pundit Tsai Cheng-yuan emphasized the NSS's ambition to "reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere," stating that the NSS represented a "strategic retreat" and that the United States was "hollowing out its Indo-Pacific strategy". This sentiment was reiterated by another former KMT legislator, Joanna Chien Lei, who sees Trump as intending to rely on Taiwan and Japan to contain the PRC. Tsai also argued that the U.S. government is softening its view of the PRC from "enemy number one" to "a friend that they are not on good terms with" (Storm Media Group, December 8, 2025).
Conclusion
Different stakeholders in Taiwan have reacted in different ways to the new U.S. National Security Strategy. Many are reassured of continued U.S. attention and support, especially those in the DPP administration. At the same time, the NSS has sharpened debates over burden sharing and Taiwan's decision-making agency within the overall U.S. strategy. It has not resolved longstanding ambiguities surrounding U.S. commitments to Taiwan, but instead has reframed them in ways that have been interpreted either as opportunities or as challenges. Going forward, Taiwan will likely continue its ongoing military modernization and seek greater cooperation with Japan in recognition that it will not be able to rely solely on the United States in a future Taiwan contingency.
[1] The specific wording is in reference to (Any contingency for Taiwan is a contingency for Japan), first articulated by former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in 2021 after leaving office. (The original Japanese is Recently, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi referenced the concept in response to a question in parliament that a PRC attack on Taiwan could constitute an "existential crisis" for Japan, allowing for Japan to resort to self-defense.
[2] The other three "periods of strategic opportunity," according to Su, were President George W. Bush's arms sale package to Taiwan in 2001 and his commitment to defend Taiwan; the Taiwan Travel Act, passed under the first Trump administration; and President Biden's four public commitments to defending Taiwan (LTN, December 7, 2025).
Other Figures Respond With Caution
* * *
Dennis Yang is a Research Assistant at the Jamestown Foundation. He researches Cross-Strait relations, Taiwanese politics, CCP united front efforts, and China-Latin America relations.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/taiwans-cautious-optimism-on-u-s-national-security-strategy/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Arab News: Geopolitical Consequences of Iran Protests for South Caucasus
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Jan. 16, 2026, to Arab News:
* * *
The Geopolitical Consequences of Iran Protests for South Caucasus
By Luke Coffey
The ongoing mass demonstrations in Iran are the largest protests the country has seen in about half a decade. Although this current round of nationwide demonstrations began as a response to the economic crisis affecting market traders in the bazaars, it rapidly spread across the country as long-standing grievances
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Jan. 16, 2026, to Arab News:
* * *
The Geopolitical Consequences of Iran Protests for South Caucasus
By Luke Coffey
The ongoing mass demonstrations in Iran are the largest protests the country has seen in about half a decade. Although this current round of nationwide demonstrations began as a response to the economic crisis affecting market traders in the bazaars, it rapidly spread across the country as long-standing grievancesover the lack of political reform and economic growth boiled over.
It is too early to tell what the outcome of these protests will be. The regime has proved resilient in the past and, although the situation does appear messy, it does not appear close to a total collapse. However, if the protests continue and outside intervention takes place, a wide range of outcomes is possible, from a rapid regime collapse as seen in Libya in 2011 to a gradual erosion of centralized control and de facto partition as seen in Syria.
While many policymakers view Iran primarily through the lens of the Middle East, the country's northern flank cannot be ignored. The three South Caucasus countries -- Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan -- will be watching events closely with nervousness and anxiety. Iran has historically viewed the South Caucasus as an area of influence in competition with Turkiye and Russia. The region is geopolitically important, as some of the world's most critical oil and gas transit pipelines run through it. Any spillover from Iran's internal turmoil could therefore have broader geopolitical consequences for the South Caucasus.
Although none of the three countries has made public statements regarding the demonstrations, off-the-record conversations with regional officials suggest clear concern. While the three states maintain varying degrees of relations with Tehran, two shared issues stand out.
The first is the economic impact of sustained unrest inside Iran. As neighbors, all three countries engage in trade and economic activity with Iran, albeit to different degrees. Azerbaijan, as the only country that borders both Russia and Iran, plays a role as a transit country between the two allies and generates revenue from this arrangement.
Armenia has often viewed Iran as an economic lifeline since trade with its neighbors Turkiye and Azerbaijan was frozen following the Nagorno-Karabakh War in the 1990s. This remains the case today, with Armenia's land borders with both Turkiye and Azerbaijan still closed. As a result, Iran continues to serve as one of Yerevan's most important economic outlets.
Georgia's trade with Iran is smaller than that of Armenia and Azerbaijan but it has been growing in recent years. As the Georgian government has grown more politically aligned with Moscow and more distant from its traditional European partners, it has increasingly sought economic opportunities elsewhere, including with Tehran. Trade between Georgia and Iran has risen year on year.
Notably, Georgia has faced criticism for allowing Russian cargo aircraft to transit its airspace en route to Iran, despite the fact that Russia continues to occupy portions of Georgian territory. This underscores how economic considerations are increasingly overriding long-standing political sensitivities.
Another economic factor shaping regional thinking is US President Donald Trump's threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on any country doing business with Iran. While such a measure may not have a dramatic immediate impact on the economies of the South Caucasus, it would still create economic fallout that governments in the region would prefer to avoid, particularly at a time of broader regional uncertainty.
The second shared concern among the South Caucasus states is the humanitarian impact of a potential refugee crisis. If conditions in Iran deteriorate to levels seen in Libya or Syria in 2011, the countries of the South Caucasus could experience an influx of refugees fleeing instability and violence. Such a development would place serious strain on already-fragile economies and public services, and it is a scenario regional governments are keen to prevent.
For Armenia and Azerbaijan, the two South Caucasus countries that share a land border with Iran, additional concerns are at play. One major issue is the well-being of ethnic minority communities inside Iran. For Armenia, which has historically maintained close relations with Tehran, there is concern that a shift in the internal balance of power could undermine the status of Iran's ethnic Armenian community.
For Azerbaijan, the issue is both more sensitive and more consequential. Since the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828 divided ethnic Azerbaijani lands between the Russian Empire and Persia, a latent grievance has existed in Azerbaijan regarding the treatment of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran. Some estimates place the number of ethnic Azerbaijanis living in northern Iran in the range of 15 million to 25 million. They continue to speak their own language and maintain cultural traditions more closely aligned with modern-day Azerbaijan than with Persian identity. Any major unrest in northern Iran could increase domestic pressure on authorities in Baku to respond, particularly if ethnic Azerbaijani communities are affected.
Another shared concern for Armenia and Azerbaijan is the potential impact of instability in Iran on the fragile peace process between the two countries. Although leaders in Yerevan and Baku pledged last August to ratify a peace agreement in the coming months, progress has been limited. A major crisis in Iran could easily divert political attention and diplomatic momentum away from completing this process.
Overall, the countries of the South Caucasus would strongly prefer stability and security over chaos and uncertainty. Yet recent history has shown that mass protests and sudden political shifts can rapidly reshape the region. Only a few weeks into 2026, the year is already shaping up to be one of significant geopolitical consequence. How events in Iran ultimately affect the South Caucasus and the wider region remains to be seen but, at present, the outlook is far from reassuring.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2629548).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. His work at Hudson analyzes national security and foreign policy, with a focus on Europe, Eurasia, NATO, and transatlantic relations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/geopolitical-consequences-iran-protests-south-caucasus-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Kicks Off 'America. The Beautiful.' Campaign
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Heritage Kicks Off "America. The Beautiful." Campaign
Starting this weekend, The Heritage Foundation will unveil an ambitious ad campaign that pays homage to "America. The Beautiful."
The centerpiece of this campaign is a 60-second cinematic TV ad that will air this weekend during NFL playoff games, with additional broadcasting during the College Football National Championship on Monday.
Watch the ad here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XQuVlYxRxg).
Featuring the evolution of the American way of life,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Heritage Kicks Off "America. The Beautiful." Campaign
Starting this weekend, The Heritage Foundation will unveil an ambitious ad campaign that pays homage to "America. The Beautiful."
The centerpiece of this campaign is a 60-second cinematic TV ad that will air this weekend during NFL playoff games, with additional broadcasting during the College Football National Championship on Monday.
Watch the ad here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XQuVlYxRxg).
Featuring the evolution of the American way of life,the TV ad highlights the enduring things that make America exceptional--particularly the commitment of husband and wife in marriage, the importance of parents and families passing along their values to the next generation, the rewards of service to community and country, and the faithfulness of God.
Heritage Foundation president Dr. Kevin Roberts made the following comment on the new campaign:
* * *
"I'm proud of Heritage's campaign to refocus America on what is true, good, and beautiful in our country, especially as we celebrate our nation's 250th birthday. The message in our ad serves as a powerful reminder that our nation has flourished because of its traditional values grounded in faith, marriage, and family.
"As long as we keep these commitments first in our lives, America's future will long endure."
* * *
The TV ad will run through April on networks including TBS, TNT, USA, TV Land, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN U, Golf, FS!, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax, Cooking, GAC Family, Hallmark, Magnolia, GSN, GRIT, INSP, AHC, and potentially other channels.
The campaign will have an expansive presence on national networks, social media channels, and targeted digital ads. Learn more about the campaign here (https://www.heritage.org/beautiful).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-kicks-america-the-beautiful-campaign
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Posts Commentary: Maduro's Friends in America - The Alliance for Global Justice
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on Jan. 16, 2026:
* * *
Maduro's friends in America: the Alliance for Global Justice
The Alliance supports collectivist dictatorships across Latin America, and Nicolas Maduro was no exception.
By Robert Stilson
Erstwhile Venezuelan dictator-president Nicolas Maduro is in federal custody after having been captured in a cross-border raid by U.S. forces. This has predictably touched off a firestorm among his most ardent nonprofit supporters in America, and few groups have been more vocal or consistent in their
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on Jan. 16, 2026:
* * *
Maduro's friends in America: the Alliance for Global Justice
The Alliance supports collectivist dictatorships across Latin America, and Nicolas Maduro was no exception.
By Robert Stilson
Erstwhile Venezuelan dictator-president Nicolas Maduro is in federal custody after having been captured in a cross-border raid by U.S. forces. This has predictably touched off a firestorm among his most ardent nonprofit supporters in America, and few groups have been more vocal or consistent in theiradmiration for Maduro's repressive and boundlessly corrupt regime than the Alliance for Global Justice.
Background
A mainstay of the internationally oriented far-left in the United States, the Alliance for Global Justice is a 501(c)(3) public charity that principally serves as a fiscal sponsor for ideologically-aligned activist groups that do not have their own tax-exempt status from the IRS. The Alliance has described itself as "the accounting department for the movement for social change," and takes pride in "continuing to sponsor the groups that no other fiscal sponsor will take on." In its fiscal year ending March 2024 it reported $6.7 million in total revenue against $8.8 million in expenses.
Despite its relatively modest size, the Alliance for Global Justice has occasionally made headlines for its fiscal sponsorship activities. During its 2020-2021 fiscal year, the Alliance brought in $56.4 million (an eightfold increase from the year before) largely due to its sponsorship of the Movement for Black Lives and a number of other Black Lives Matter-related groups. It was also revealed to have served as fiscal sponsor for Samidoun, a group which was sanctioned by the governments of the United States and Canada as "a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization." Today, the "donate" page on the Alliance's website blames what the group calls its "right-wing Zionist adversaries" for its resulting inability to accept credit card payments.
Support for Venezuela
Since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the activists occupying America's leftmost fringes have regularly turned toward Latin America in search of a geopolitical lodestar. The Alliance for Global Justice is no exception. Its origins can be traced back to 1979 and a pro-Sandinista group called the Nicaragua Network. Until 2024, the Alliance served as fiscal sponsor for the Venceremos Brigade, which has dispatched thousands of sympathetic American radicals to Cuba to labor in solidarity with its communist government since 1969.
It is no different with Venezuela, which alongside Nicaragua tends to account for an outsized portion of the Alliance for Global Justice's public commentary. The group has been a staunch supporter of Venezuela's socialist "Bolivarian Revolution" since Hugo Chavez became president in 1999. It attributes the country's myriad socioeconomic problems not to profound domestic corruption and mismanagement, but to sanctions and other foreign interference from the United States.
It can be difficult to distinguish material published on the Alliance's website from Venezuelan government propaganda. In 2024, after Maduro claimed to have secured another six-year term as president in an election widely considered to have been outright stolen, the Alliance dutifully promoted the regime's official results. In a statement, it declared:
* * *
Alliance for Global Justice congratulates Venezuela for a clear, transparent, consistent and peaceful electoral process implemented on July 28. We also congratulate President Nicolas Maduro on his re-election and the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) for administering a free and fair election.
* * *
The Alliance has also been aggressively critical of the decision to award the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan pro-democracy opposition figure Maria Corina Machado, publishing a doctored photograph of her with the flags of the United States and Israel superimposed across her face and clothing. Earlier in 2025, the Alliance's weekly newsletter spotlighted Iran's violent theocratic autocracy for standing with Venezuela "against US aggressions," alongside a quote from Maduro declaring that "the State of Israel was created to colonize the Middle East and Central Asia, to plunder the wealth of those regions and subjugate their peoples."
The Alliance's affinity for Maduro's dictatorship evidently extends to a willingness to encourage domestic lawbreaking. In conjunction with several other activist groups (including Code Pink), it had previously asked supporters to pledge to rapidly "perform direct action and risk arrest if the US invades or otherwise overthrows the democratically elected government of Venezuela."
It made good on this pledge after Maduro was captured in January 2026, joining with dozens of other activist groups in calling for "coordinated and organized resistance" across the United States in order to "defend Venezuela's sovereignty and right to resist" and to "shut down the supply chains of imperialism." To the Alliance for Global Justice, Maduro's capture was part of an effort "to thwart the autonomy and success of the Venezuelan people" and "an attack on socialism, in all its forms, in order to advance a new fascism across the Americas."
Major Funders
All of this makes the question of who currently funds the Alliance for Global Justice an interesting one. At least thirty-one nonprofit grantmakers reported giving at least $20,000 to the Alliance in their respective fiscal years ending in 2024, which is the most recent available. These are listed below in descending order, along with links to their corresponding profiles on InfluenceWatch:
* Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program: $392,100
* Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund: $303,908
* Colorado Health Foundation: $300,150
* William Penn Foundation: $250,000
* Groundswell Fund: $220,170
* Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust: $180,000
* Common Counsel Foundation: $130,000
* Marin Community Foundation: $125,000
* New York Foundation: $102,500
* Michael Reese Health Trust: $100,000
* Park Foundation: $90,000
* Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation: $89,000
* Borealis Philanthropy: $80,000
* Race Forward: $80,000
* 128 Collective Foundation: $75,000
* North Star Fund: $60,000
* Solutions Project: $60,000
* Claneil Foundation: $55,000
* SisterSong: $50,200
* Krupp Family Foundation: $43,478
* Amalgamated Charitable Foundation: $38,250
* Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona: $37,090
* Destination Tomorrow: $30,000
* Field Foundation of Illinois: $30,000
* Key Lime Foundation: $30,000
* Manzanita Foundation: $30,000
* San Diego Foundation: $25,000
* Tides Center: $25,000
* Institute for Local Self-Reliance: $23,000
* Brown University: $22,200
* American Online Giving Foundation: $20,382
Combined, these thirty-one funders gave $3,097,428 to the Alliance for Global Justice in 2024, which would represent somewhat less than half of the group's total revenue that year. Of course, such a calculation cannot precisely be made, because many of these grantmakers operate on different fiscal years than the Alliance (and from one another).
Thoughts and questions
A few additional comments may be worth noting.
First, functionally-anonymous grants from donor-advised fund providers such as Vanguard, Fidelity, and Morgan Stanley account for a significant portion of the Alliance for Global Justice's revenue. This is consistent with modern philanthropic giving trends, but also may reflect the particularly controversial nature of the Alliance's advocacy and a desire among donors to conceal their support for the group. That, of course, is speculation.
Second, while some grants were made simply to support the Alliance's general operations, many others were earmarked for specific fiscally sponsored projects. The Common Counsel Foundation noted that its funding was designated for the Reale Justice Network and Assata's Daughters (named in honor of the recently-deceased fugitive murderer Assata Shakur), while Borealis Philanthropy's grant was for the purpose of supporting Black Trans Media.
Finally, it would be interesting to hear what these grantmakers think of the Alliance's strident pro-Maduro advocacy--to say nothing of its other noxious activism. Do they agree with it? If not, why do they continue their financial support? This is especially true for those funders that made general support grants--such as the Park Foundation--since they cannot claim that they merely intended to support one of the Alliance's sponsored projects. Such an argument would nevertheless be specious, however, as the Alliance's board only accepts projects for sponsorship if they align with its own mission and vision. The bottom line is that these funders are willingly underwriting a group that openly favors a rotten authoritarian kleptocracy over the United States of America.
* * *
Robert Stilson
Robert runs several of CRC's specialized projects. Originally from Indiana, he has a B.A. from Hanover College and a J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, where he graduated magna cum laude.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/maduros-friends-in-america-the-alliance-for-global-justice/
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Releases New Policy Recommendations to Make Housing Affordable Again
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 (TNSrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Jan. 16, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Releases New Policy Recommendations to Make Housing Affordable Again
Washington, D.C.--The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a new issue brief (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/rebuilding-the-american-dream-homeownership-for-all-americans), "Rebuilding the American Dream: Homeownership for All Americans." The brief details how excessive government regulation, fees, and permitting delays have fueled the nation's housing affordability crisis
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 (TNSrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Jan. 16, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Releases New Policy Recommendations to Make Housing Affordable Again
Washington, D.C.--The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a new issue brief (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/rebuilding-the-american-dream-homeownership-for-all-americans), "Rebuilding the American Dream: Homeownership for All Americans." The brief details how excessive government regulation, fees, and permitting delays have fueled the nation's housing affordability crisisand outlines a supply-focused policy agenda to restore affordability for American families.
The issue brief draws on analysis of a new AFPI poll, conducted January 2026, to show that rising housing costs are reshaping Americans' lives, limiting job mobility, delaying family formation, and pushing homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.
"America's housing crisis is not accidental," said Greg Sindelar, Interim President and CEO at the America First Policy Institute. "It is the predictable result of policy choices by the Biden administration that made it slower, riskier, and more expensive to build homes. AFPI's housing agenda lays out a clear, achievable path to restore affordability by expanding supply, cutting red tape, and rewarding communities that incentivize these common-sense changes."
Key Findings Highlighted in AFPI's January 2026 National Poll Include:
* A majority of voters say high housing costs have delayed at least one major life milestone, including moving for work, starting a family, or retiring.
* Young Americans are disproportionately affected, with nearly six in ten voters ages 18-34 saying housing affordability has affected their ability to move for a better job.
* Voters overwhelmingly identify government fees, mandates, and red tape as significant contributors to higher housing costs in their communities.
* State and local government bureaucrats are ranked as the top group responsible for making it difficult for young families to afford a home.
Policy Solutions Proposed by AFPI Include:
To address both affordability and access, AFPI's housing agenda prioritizes practical, supply-focused reforms that directly reduce costs for families:
* Empowering families to build wealth by allowing 529 education savings accounts to be used toward first-time home purchases.
* Supporting modern construction methods, including factory-built housing to speed delivery and lower prices while maintaining safety and quality.
* Expanding skilled-trades training to address labor shortages and reduce construction costs.
* Using federal leverage to incentivize state and local governments to cut excessive fees, streamline permitting, and reduce construction delays.
* Prioritizing federal housing, infrastructure, and workforce funds for communities that remove barriers to homebuilding.
* Establishing a market-driven Working Families Housing Fund to finance workforce housing in jurisdictions that pursue reform.
Additional AFPI polling shows that 85% of Americans view housing as a pain point, and 39% say that the government needs to make housing more affordable.
"With the right policies, America can build again and restore the American Dream of homeownership, raising a family, and building a future," Sindelar added.
The full issue brief is available at www.americafirstpolicy.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-releases-brief-to-make-housing-affordable-again
[Category: ThinkTank]
