Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Mesa School Board Scraps Unconstitutional Speech Ban
PHOENIX, Arizona, June 27 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by by Adam Shelton, senior staff attorney at Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation:
* * *
Mesa School Board Scraps Unconstitutional Speech Ban
In a victory for the freedom of speech, the Mesa Public School's Governing Board on Thursday updated its public comment policy to allow speech "without regard to viewpoint," eliminating its previous prohibition on "personal attacks." Board members made the change after the Goldwater Institute notified them earlier this ... Show Full Article PHOENIX, Arizona, June 27 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by by Adam Shelton, senior staff attorney at Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation: * * * Mesa School Board Scraps Unconstitutional Speech Ban In a victory for the freedom of speech, the Mesa Public School's Governing Board on Thursday updated its public comment policy to allow speech "without regard to viewpoint," eliminating its previous prohibition on "personal attacks." Board members made the change after the Goldwater Institute notified them earlier thisyear that their previous policy amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Goldwater sent a letter (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Letter-to-Mesa-Pub.-Sch.-re-Public-Comments-Policy.pdf) to Mesa Public Schools in April urging board members to amend their policy barring "personal attacks on Board members, staff, students, or members of the public" during the public comment period of a board meeting. Any "negative" comment directed at a board or staff member could be shut down, no matter how factual, measured, or accurate the critique.
At the same time, the board allowed parents and community members to heap praise on those same board or staff members. That's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
The board's updated policy fixes the problem at the heart of Goldwater's letter. The blanket prohibition on "personal attacks" is gone. Instead, the policy explicitly states that "the Governing Board permits public comments without regard to viewpoint, including criticism, praise, or neutral observations concerning matters within its jurisdiction." That's a direct and unambiguous commitment to viewpoint neutrality, which is exactly what the Constitution requires.
This new policy also defines "disruptive conduct" in concrete behavioral terms, like speaking out of turn, exceeding time limits, yelling, interrupting, or inciting actual disruption of the meeting. This should prevent it from being wielded to prohibit negative comments under the guise of being too "disruptive."
School board comment periods are a type of public forum-a limited one to be sure, but a public forum nonetheless. And in these limited public forums, a governmental entity like a school board can only regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. It cannot restrict speech based on the speaker's viewpoint.
The Supreme Court has time and again held that viewpoint discrimination is so egregious that the government must nearly always abstain from such regulations. As the Court has explained, "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth."
A policy that restricts speech based on viewpoint is an assault on both the idea that the First Amendment stands as a shield to protect Americans and our collective decision as a country that individuals possess an inalienable right to speak and think freely.
These principles are especially important in the context of a school governing board banning "personal" attacks against board members and staff. Such a policy thwarts the core purpose of public comment periods at board meetings: educating the board and the community about community members' concerns.
If, for example, a parent has a grievance about their child's math teacher's teaching style, it would be hard to adequately explain the problem without referring to the teacher.
Public comment periods at school board meetings exist to allow parents and community members to bring issues before the board and the public. It gives them a voice in the decisions that directly affect their children and their tax dollars.
The Mesa school board's new policy will help serve that important purpose.
* * *
Adam Shelton is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
* * *
URL: Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/mesa-school-board-scraps-unconstitutional-speech-ban/
* * *
Mesa School Board Scraps Unconstitutional Speech Ban
In a victory for the freedom of speech, the Mesa Public School's Governing Board on Thursday updated its public comment policy to allow speech "without regard to viewpoint," eliminating its previous prohibition on "personal attacks." Board members made the change after the Goldwater Institute notified them earlier this ... Show Full Article PHOENIX, Arizona, June 27 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by by Adam Shelton, senior staff attorney at Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation: * * * Mesa School Board Scraps Unconstitutional Speech Ban In a victory for the freedom of speech, the Mesa Public School's Governing Board on Thursday updated its public comment policy to allow speech "without regard to viewpoint," eliminating its previous prohibition on "personal attacks." Board members made the change after the Goldwater Institute notified them earlier thisyear that their previous policy amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Goldwater sent a letter (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Letter-to-Mesa-Pub.-Sch.-re-Public-Comments-Policy.pdf) to Mesa Public Schools in April urging board members to amend their policy barring "personal attacks on Board members, staff, students, or members of the public" during the public comment period of a board meeting. Any "negative" comment directed at a board or staff member could be shut down, no matter how factual, measured, or accurate the critique.
At the same time, the board allowed parents and community members to heap praise on those same board or staff members. That's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
The board's updated policy fixes the problem at the heart of Goldwater's letter. The blanket prohibition on "personal attacks" is gone. Instead, the policy explicitly states that "the Governing Board permits public comments without regard to viewpoint, including criticism, praise, or neutral observations concerning matters within its jurisdiction." That's a direct and unambiguous commitment to viewpoint neutrality, which is exactly what the Constitution requires.
This new policy also defines "disruptive conduct" in concrete behavioral terms, like speaking out of turn, exceeding time limits, yelling, interrupting, or inciting actual disruption of the meeting. This should prevent it from being wielded to prohibit negative comments under the guise of being too "disruptive."
School board comment periods are a type of public forum-a limited one to be sure, but a public forum nonetheless. And in these limited public forums, a governmental entity like a school board can only regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. It cannot restrict speech based on the speaker's viewpoint.
The Supreme Court has time and again held that viewpoint discrimination is so egregious that the government must nearly always abstain from such regulations. As the Court has explained, "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth."
A policy that restricts speech based on viewpoint is an assault on both the idea that the First Amendment stands as a shield to protect Americans and our collective decision as a country that individuals possess an inalienable right to speak and think freely.
These principles are especially important in the context of a school governing board banning "personal" attacks against board members and staff. Such a policy thwarts the core purpose of public comment periods at board meetings: educating the board and the community about community members' concerns.
If, for example, a parent has a grievance about their child's math teacher's teaching style, it would be hard to adequately explain the problem without referring to the teacher.
Public comment periods at school board meetings exist to allow parents and community members to bring issues before the board and the public. It gives them a voice in the decisions that directly affect their children and their tax dollars.
The Mesa school board's new policy will help serve that important purpose.
* * *
Adam Shelton is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
* * *
URL: Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/mesa-school-board-scraps-unconstitutional-speech-ban/
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: White Paper Promotes New World Order
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by China Brief Editor Arran Hope:
* * *
White Paper Promotes New World Order
Executive Summary:
* A new white paper on global governance presents Chinese leader Xi Jinping's flagship foreign policy initiative as a bid to reform international governance in its favor. Both the white paper itself and surrounding commentary show that Beijing's dismissals of claims it seeks to reshape the international system are a red herring.
* The document shows how Beijing sees a route to displacing the United ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by China Brief Editor Arran Hope: * * * White Paper Promotes New World Order Executive Summary: * A new white paper on global governance presents Chinese leader Xi Jinping's flagship foreign policy initiative as a bid to reform international governance in its favor. Both the white paper itself and surrounding commentary show that Beijing's dismissals of claims it seeks to reshape the international system are a red herring. * The document shows how Beijing sees a route to displacing the UnitedStates and the West in the international system runs through global south countries, which it claims to lead, and in particular through harnessing the support of the BRICS countries and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
* Almost half of the document is spent enumerating Beijing's impressive achievements expanding its global influence over the last decade. Foreign Minister Wang Yi signaled its importance as the PRC seeks to shape the governance of emerging domains such as artificial intelligence, cyberspace, outer space, and other planetary frontier regions.
-
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is building a new world order. That is the primary takeaway from a new white paper released by the State Council on June 6 (SCIO, June 6). Across nearly 20,000 characters, the document, titled "More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China's Principles, Proposals and Actions" presents Beijing's diagnosis of current problems in the international system, repeatedly criticizes the United States and developed countries, sets out its vision for global governance, and attempts to justify why the international community should support its vision at this particular point in time.
The focus of the white paper is Chinese leader Xi Jinping's "Global Governance Initiative" (GGI). Party insiders describe the GGI as providing "overall top-level design" for global governance reform, sitting above Beijing's three other global initiatives and the One Belt One Road initiative (CCTV, June 23). A recent People's Daily article describes it as a "shining banner guiding the progress of the times" that Xi has put forward while "standing at the strategic height of the future and destiny of mankind" (People's Daily, June 19). Commentary surrounding the GGI and the white paper indicate that Beijing is increasingly focused not just on building a narrative around its global leadership but on following through with tangible actions.
Beijing Does, in Fact, Want a New World Order
The white paper itself is careful to emphasize that Beijing does not want to fully overturn the international order. Central to this is a constant reiteration of the foundational importance of the United Nations (UN) as the "core" of the international system. This is coupled with repeated reassurances. It states twice that there is no need to "set up a new kitchen" (; i.e. start all over), and says that the current system "does not need to be dismantled and rebuilt in full".
This is echoed in some of the surrounding commentary. A scholar at the Central Party School, Wu Zhicheng, used similar language in an interview with CCTV. He said that Beijing's proposal is "neither a complete overthrow of the existing international order nor a move to create a new system outside the current international framework" (CCTV, June 23). Two scholars from Fudan University's School of International Relations and Public Affairs similarly argue that the PRC "does not intend to subvert or replace the existing international order nor to forcibly implement a reform plan that prioritizes one country's dominance" (Zhang and Shi, June 2026). [1]
There are reasons to be skeptical of these claims. The PRC's white papers are principally exercises in persuasion. While they are intended to communicate the government's official position to a domestic audience, their messaging function to the rest of the world is just as important--hence this white paper's translation into seven additional languages (Xinhua, June 17). [2] Their contents should be treated with care. The most recent white paper, for instance, contains statements that are at best partial truths and at worst falsehoods. For instance, claims that Beijing safeguards the international nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regimes are belied by its newfound acceptance of North Korean nuclearization, as well as its own nuclear program, according to the U.S. government (U.S. Mission to Geneva, February 6; China Brief, June 25). Its critique of U.S. violations of international law are equally applicable to the PRC itself. For instance, it is yet to respond to a letter from eight United Nations special rapporteurs that warns the country is likely violating at least 12 international human rights laws that it has ratified (UN OHCHR, April 16; China Brief, May 15).
Another reason for skepticism is that both the white paper and the surrounding commentary do appear to advocate for a new world order. The document's preface states that the GGI is designed in part to answer the question of "what kind of global governance system to build", while further down it argues that the times are calling for a new "model of global governance" and repeats the PRC's commitment to "establishing a new global political and economic order" first advocated for in the 1980s. The academic article by Fudan University scholars cited above also says that the GGI is intended to "transcend the Western-centric governance paradigm" and allow the PRC to "accelerate the construction of governance systems in emerging fields".
The notion that the PRC's proposed system will transcend--that is, replace--the current one is echoed by Fu Xiaoqiang, president of the Chinese Institutes for Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), a think tank that is part of the Ministry of State Security. Fu goes on to say that the shift to this system is "an historical inevitability" (CCTV, June 23). More bluntly, a recent op-ed in the South China Morning Post by Henry Huiyao Wang, the president of the Center for China and Globalization who has longstanding ties to the CCP's united front system, ran with the headline "Trump has buried liberal world order but what comes next could be better" (SCMP, June 1).
Careful language about the government's precise intentions is an important part of Beijing's strategy. Building a completely new set of international governance institutions from scratch would be a formidable challenge with a low chance of success. Beijing will not pursue such a course of action: not only does it believe that dealing with current "severe and complex" global challenges is a "daunting and arduous task", attempting such a feat would likely alienate the majority of countries whose very support it needs (SCIO, June 6). [3] While it is happy to offer inducements for that support, it is also willing to wield its considerable leverage--as the white paper makes clear, "the world's prosperity also needs China".
The white paper is keen to tout that Beijing is already a leader in many respects. Beyond claiming to "take the lead in practicing true multilateralism" and arguing that its diplomatic record is a "source of strength for [its] ... leadership of global governance in the new era" it also styles itself as a leader in various other domains, including in scheduling fentanyl-related substances, in multilateral cooperation, in leading the Global South, and in global climate and biodiversity governance. It also claims it understands how to "guide the times" and "guide the direction of change". It still manages a level of hauteur, however, admonishing countries "not to be someone who hesitates or procrastinates by waiting and watching" and instead to be "someone who struggles and fights unremittingly". Global governance reform, clearly, is not a dinner party.
Conclusion
The latest white paper from the State Council signals that Beijing is making strides in pursuing an incremental approach to building a new world order, largely through the existing institutional framework. The kind of wholesale governance reform it puts forward will take time: it is, as the white paper points out, "an historical process" (or as the official English translation puts it more reassuringly, "a "gradual historical process"). Beijing's dismissals of warnings that it seeks to build a new world order are a red herring. As the impressive tally the white paper's third section lays out shows, it has already achieved many "remarkable results".
This year will be crucial for assessing Beijing's continued progress of gaining international influence. A new UN Secretary-General is set to be elected, the G20 summit is coming up in Miami, and, as Foreign Minister Wang Yi laid out in the press conference held to launch the white paper, the PRC seeks to build its influence in a range of areas. These include its regional influence, as it hosts the APEC Leaders' Informal Meeting later this year; its say over the governance of emerging fields, sustainable development, and industrial and supply chains; and its construction of governance platforms headquartered in the PRC, such as the International Organization of Mediation, the Secretariat of the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity Concerning the Ocean, and the World Data Organization (SCIO, June 17).
An indicator of how central Xi Jinping sees this initiative as a legacy issue for himself, the fall of 2026 will also see an inaugural "Xiong'an Global Governance Forum" held in Xi's flagship urban construction project just outside Beijing (SCIO, June 17). This will provide a better sense of whether the GGI can match its billing to "provide a compass for the great ship of history to chart its course through turbulent waters", and whether Xi can be the helmsman that he clearly believes himself to be (SCIO, June 6).
* * *
Arran Hope, Editor, China Brief
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/white-paper-promotes-new-world-order/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
White Paper Promotes New World Order
Executive Summary:
* A new white paper on global governance presents Chinese leader Xi Jinping's flagship foreign policy initiative as a bid to reform international governance in its favor. Both the white paper itself and surrounding commentary show that Beijing's dismissals of claims it seeks to reshape the international system are a red herring.
* The document shows how Beijing sees a route to displacing the United ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by China Brief Editor Arran Hope: * * * White Paper Promotes New World Order Executive Summary: * A new white paper on global governance presents Chinese leader Xi Jinping's flagship foreign policy initiative as a bid to reform international governance in its favor. Both the white paper itself and surrounding commentary show that Beijing's dismissals of claims it seeks to reshape the international system are a red herring. * The document shows how Beijing sees a route to displacing the UnitedStates and the West in the international system runs through global south countries, which it claims to lead, and in particular through harnessing the support of the BRICS countries and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
* Almost half of the document is spent enumerating Beijing's impressive achievements expanding its global influence over the last decade. Foreign Minister Wang Yi signaled its importance as the PRC seeks to shape the governance of emerging domains such as artificial intelligence, cyberspace, outer space, and other planetary frontier regions.
-
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is building a new world order. That is the primary takeaway from a new white paper released by the State Council on June 6 (SCIO, June 6). Across nearly 20,000 characters, the document, titled "More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China's Principles, Proposals and Actions" presents Beijing's diagnosis of current problems in the international system, repeatedly criticizes the United States and developed countries, sets out its vision for global governance, and attempts to justify why the international community should support its vision at this particular point in time.
The focus of the white paper is Chinese leader Xi Jinping's "Global Governance Initiative" (GGI). Party insiders describe the GGI as providing "overall top-level design" for global governance reform, sitting above Beijing's three other global initiatives and the One Belt One Road initiative (CCTV, June 23). A recent People's Daily article describes it as a "shining banner guiding the progress of the times" that Xi has put forward while "standing at the strategic height of the future and destiny of mankind" (People's Daily, June 19). Commentary surrounding the GGI and the white paper indicate that Beijing is increasingly focused not just on building a narrative around its global leadership but on following through with tangible actions.
Beijing Does, in Fact, Want a New World Order
The white paper itself is careful to emphasize that Beijing does not want to fully overturn the international order. Central to this is a constant reiteration of the foundational importance of the United Nations (UN) as the "core" of the international system. This is coupled with repeated reassurances. It states twice that there is no need to "set up a new kitchen" (; i.e. start all over), and says that the current system "does not need to be dismantled and rebuilt in full".
This is echoed in some of the surrounding commentary. A scholar at the Central Party School, Wu Zhicheng, used similar language in an interview with CCTV. He said that Beijing's proposal is "neither a complete overthrow of the existing international order nor a move to create a new system outside the current international framework" (CCTV, June 23). Two scholars from Fudan University's School of International Relations and Public Affairs similarly argue that the PRC "does not intend to subvert or replace the existing international order nor to forcibly implement a reform plan that prioritizes one country's dominance" (Zhang and Shi, June 2026). [1]
There are reasons to be skeptical of these claims. The PRC's white papers are principally exercises in persuasion. While they are intended to communicate the government's official position to a domestic audience, their messaging function to the rest of the world is just as important--hence this white paper's translation into seven additional languages (Xinhua, June 17). [2] Their contents should be treated with care. The most recent white paper, for instance, contains statements that are at best partial truths and at worst falsehoods. For instance, claims that Beijing safeguards the international nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regimes are belied by its newfound acceptance of North Korean nuclearization, as well as its own nuclear program, according to the U.S. government (U.S. Mission to Geneva, February 6; China Brief, June 25). Its critique of U.S. violations of international law are equally applicable to the PRC itself. For instance, it is yet to respond to a letter from eight United Nations special rapporteurs that warns the country is likely violating at least 12 international human rights laws that it has ratified (UN OHCHR, April 16; China Brief, May 15).
Another reason for skepticism is that both the white paper and the surrounding commentary do appear to advocate for a new world order. The document's preface states that the GGI is designed in part to answer the question of "what kind of global governance system to build", while further down it argues that the times are calling for a new "model of global governance" and repeats the PRC's commitment to "establishing a new global political and economic order" first advocated for in the 1980s. The academic article by Fudan University scholars cited above also says that the GGI is intended to "transcend the Western-centric governance paradigm" and allow the PRC to "accelerate the construction of governance systems in emerging fields".
The notion that the PRC's proposed system will transcend--that is, replace--the current one is echoed by Fu Xiaoqiang, president of the Chinese Institutes for Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), a think tank that is part of the Ministry of State Security. Fu goes on to say that the shift to this system is "an historical inevitability" (CCTV, June 23). More bluntly, a recent op-ed in the South China Morning Post by Henry Huiyao Wang, the president of the Center for China and Globalization who has longstanding ties to the CCP's united front system, ran with the headline "Trump has buried liberal world order but what comes next could be better" (SCMP, June 1).
Careful language about the government's precise intentions is an important part of Beijing's strategy. Building a completely new set of international governance institutions from scratch would be a formidable challenge with a low chance of success. Beijing will not pursue such a course of action: not only does it believe that dealing with current "severe and complex" global challenges is a "daunting and arduous task", attempting such a feat would likely alienate the majority of countries whose very support it needs (SCIO, June 6). [3] While it is happy to offer inducements for that support, it is also willing to wield its considerable leverage--as the white paper makes clear, "the world's prosperity also needs China".
The white paper is keen to tout that Beijing is already a leader in many respects. Beyond claiming to "take the lead in practicing true multilateralism" and arguing that its diplomatic record is a "source of strength for [its] ... leadership of global governance in the new era" it also styles itself as a leader in various other domains, including in scheduling fentanyl-related substances, in multilateral cooperation, in leading the Global South, and in global climate and biodiversity governance. It also claims it understands how to "guide the times" and "guide the direction of change". It still manages a level of hauteur, however, admonishing countries "not to be someone who hesitates or procrastinates by waiting and watching" and instead to be "someone who struggles and fights unremittingly". Global governance reform, clearly, is not a dinner party.
Conclusion
The latest white paper from the State Council signals that Beijing is making strides in pursuing an incremental approach to building a new world order, largely through the existing institutional framework. The kind of wholesale governance reform it puts forward will take time: it is, as the white paper points out, "an historical process" (or as the official English translation puts it more reassuringly, "a "gradual historical process"). Beijing's dismissals of warnings that it seeks to build a new world order are a red herring. As the impressive tally the white paper's third section lays out shows, it has already achieved many "remarkable results".
This year will be crucial for assessing Beijing's continued progress of gaining international influence. A new UN Secretary-General is set to be elected, the G20 summit is coming up in Miami, and, as Foreign Minister Wang Yi laid out in the press conference held to launch the white paper, the PRC seeks to build its influence in a range of areas. These include its regional influence, as it hosts the APEC Leaders' Informal Meeting later this year; its say over the governance of emerging fields, sustainable development, and industrial and supply chains; and its construction of governance platforms headquartered in the PRC, such as the International Organization of Mediation, the Secretariat of the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity Concerning the Ocean, and the World Data Organization (SCIO, June 17).
An indicator of how central Xi Jinping sees this initiative as a legacy issue for himself, the fall of 2026 will also see an inaugural "Xiong'an Global Governance Forum" held in Xi's flagship urban construction project just outside Beijing (SCIO, June 17). This will provide a better sense of whether the GGI can match its billing to "provide a compass for the great ship of history to chart its course through turbulent waters", and whether Xi can be the helmsman that he clearly believes himself to be (SCIO, June 6).
* * *
Arran Hope, Editor, China Brief
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/white-paper-promotes-new-world-order/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to The Telegraph: Britain Can't Afford Ed Miliband
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to The Telegraph:
* * *
Britain Can't Afford Ed Miliband
If the Energy Secretary became chancellor, we would all pay, and our children would be left with the mess
-
Every improvement in human prosperity has started with a boost in energy. Escaping the photosynthetic trap, that brutal limit on output based on soil and nutrients, was the first great leap as we swapped today's wood for ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to The Telegraph: * * * Britain Can't Afford Ed Miliband If the Energy Secretary became chancellor, we would all pay, and our children would be left with the mess - Every improvement in human prosperity has started with a boost in energy. Escaping the photosynthetic trap, that brutal limit on output based on soil and nutrients, was the first great leap as we swapped today's wood foryesterday's forest in the form of coal, generating more heat for lower cost. Releasing that energy allowed our cities to boom and ideas to prosper.
What broke us free wasn't thrift or virtue, it was price. Coal found at the surface around Newcastle in the reign of Charles II was three times as energy-dense as wood. Abundance let us escape scarcity, as has happened with every transition since.
Sadly the Charles our Energy Secretary studied in history was Marx, not Stuart. Ed Miliband believes only socialism, not freedom will change Britain's energy mix. He's wrong and that's risking our carbon-free future.
Clean, cheap power is a prize worth chasing, but you need energy to reach it and the journey from carbon to non-carbon will be one of the most energy-hungry undertakings in our history. The wind turbines, the electricity grids, the fission and, I hope, fusion reactors and the factories that will install it all demand more power, not less. But instead of freeing our industry and innovators, we're seeing both hollowed out.
Mountaineers speak of the death zone, the altitude above which your body can no longer sustain itself and slowly dies. Soldiers talk about the killing ground, that area you must pass through where you're most vulnerable and at greatest risk. In both, the temptation, from exhaustion or fear, is to sit and wait for the danger to pass, but it won't. It never passes. The only way to survive is to keep moving.
Miliband's carbon strategy is to stop. Instead of generating the energy needed to succeed, he's holding us back like a panicked lieutenant in no-man's land. He's shutting off our cheap, reliable carbon energy and made it harder and more expensive to deliver the clean power meant to replace it. So we are pinned down, paying the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world and watching jobs die all around us. The latest to go was the Denby potteries, which had survived 200 years of war and peace but couldn't manage two years of Miliband's virtuous vanity that mistakes paralysis for prudence.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised: he's been a socialist flagellant practically since birth. His father was one of Britain's foremost Marxist theorists and he led Labour from the hard Left, with policies that look punitive even with the high taxes we see today. He wore the nickname Red Ed with pride.
Socialism doesn't change, it's all about power - who controls it, and who directs it. Today that's energy: which firms will get the subsidy, which the bill?
With the need to build data centres and inject life into our digital economy, energy is only going to be more important and higher prices mean lower growth. And we only have a brief time to get this right, or we won't just see old jobs go overseas, we will ensure the new ones never arrive.
Many others understand the need for cheap power. Even the German Greens have been in governments that burn lignite, a dirty coal, because they surely know Miliband's dream of net zero without global agreement is just unilateral industrial disarmament.
This socialist vision of utopia exists nowhere. Norway taps the gas fields we share and sells us the energy, and China builds new coal-fired power plants to help make the steel we've effectively forbidden to reduce carbon outputs.
Our real emissions have barely moved, they've just moved abroad. Poor Ed, he missed the economics lesson that, while taxes are territorial, carbon is global; so we're paying with our jobs for higher carbon outputs from dirtier industries with lower employment standards overseas. I'm not sure he's thought this through.
Read in The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/25/britain-cant-afford-ed-miliband-labour-energy-net-zero/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Tom Tugendhat is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/britain-cant-afford-ed-miliband-tom-tugendhat
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Britain Can't Afford Ed Miliband
If the Energy Secretary became chancellor, we would all pay, and our children would be left with the mess
-
Every improvement in human prosperity has started with a boost in energy. Escaping the photosynthetic trap, that brutal limit on output based on soil and nutrients, was the first great leap as we swapped today's wood for ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to The Telegraph: * * * Britain Can't Afford Ed Miliband If the Energy Secretary became chancellor, we would all pay, and our children would be left with the mess - Every improvement in human prosperity has started with a boost in energy. Escaping the photosynthetic trap, that brutal limit on output based on soil and nutrients, was the first great leap as we swapped today's wood foryesterday's forest in the form of coal, generating more heat for lower cost. Releasing that energy allowed our cities to boom and ideas to prosper.
What broke us free wasn't thrift or virtue, it was price. Coal found at the surface around Newcastle in the reign of Charles II was three times as energy-dense as wood. Abundance let us escape scarcity, as has happened with every transition since.
Sadly the Charles our Energy Secretary studied in history was Marx, not Stuart. Ed Miliband believes only socialism, not freedom will change Britain's energy mix. He's wrong and that's risking our carbon-free future.
Clean, cheap power is a prize worth chasing, but you need energy to reach it and the journey from carbon to non-carbon will be one of the most energy-hungry undertakings in our history. The wind turbines, the electricity grids, the fission and, I hope, fusion reactors and the factories that will install it all demand more power, not less. But instead of freeing our industry and innovators, we're seeing both hollowed out.
Mountaineers speak of the death zone, the altitude above which your body can no longer sustain itself and slowly dies. Soldiers talk about the killing ground, that area you must pass through where you're most vulnerable and at greatest risk. In both, the temptation, from exhaustion or fear, is to sit and wait for the danger to pass, but it won't. It never passes. The only way to survive is to keep moving.
Miliband's carbon strategy is to stop. Instead of generating the energy needed to succeed, he's holding us back like a panicked lieutenant in no-man's land. He's shutting off our cheap, reliable carbon energy and made it harder and more expensive to deliver the clean power meant to replace it. So we are pinned down, paying the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world and watching jobs die all around us. The latest to go was the Denby potteries, which had survived 200 years of war and peace but couldn't manage two years of Miliband's virtuous vanity that mistakes paralysis for prudence.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised: he's been a socialist flagellant practically since birth. His father was one of Britain's foremost Marxist theorists and he led Labour from the hard Left, with policies that look punitive even with the high taxes we see today. He wore the nickname Red Ed with pride.
Socialism doesn't change, it's all about power - who controls it, and who directs it. Today that's energy: which firms will get the subsidy, which the bill?
With the need to build data centres and inject life into our digital economy, energy is only going to be more important and higher prices mean lower growth. And we only have a brief time to get this right, or we won't just see old jobs go overseas, we will ensure the new ones never arrive.
Many others understand the need for cheap power. Even the German Greens have been in governments that burn lignite, a dirty coal, because they surely know Miliband's dream of net zero without global agreement is just unilateral industrial disarmament.
This socialist vision of utopia exists nowhere. Norway taps the gas fields we share and sells us the energy, and China builds new coal-fired power plants to help make the steel we've effectively forbidden to reduce carbon outputs.
Our real emissions have barely moved, they've just moved abroad. Poor Ed, he missed the economics lesson that, while taxes are territorial, carbon is global; so we're paying with our jobs for higher carbon outputs from dirtier industries with lower employment standards overseas. I'm not sure he's thought this through.
Read in The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/25/britain-cant-afford-ed-miliband-labour-energy-net-zero/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Tom Tugendhat is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/britain-cant-afford-ed-miliband-tom-tugendhat
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on June 26, 2026
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on June 26, 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, June 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on June 26, 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:
* Eat Learn Play Foundation is a charity that provides nutritional, health, and literacy support for children in the Oakland Unified School District. It was founded in 2018 by Golden State Warriors basketball player Stephen Curry and his wife, Ayesha Curry. It has received funding from the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, the East Bay Community Foundation, and the National Philanthropic Trust. Supporting and community partners listed on its website include the Trust for Public Land, the TomKat Foundation, Oakland REACH, the Hellman Foundation, and the Kenneth Rainin Foundation.
* Hold the Line PAC is a political action committee (PAC) founded in 2024 to help "the next generation of Democratic leaders" and "defeat MAGA, anti-democracy Republicans at the ballot box." The PAC was founded by Marcus Flowers, who ran in the 2022 midterm elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, losing to then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Hold the Line PAC is a listed partner group of the anti-Second Trump administration protest movement No Kings. Other No Kings members include the 50501 Movement, Indivisible, Common Cause, Democracy Forward, the Human Rights Campaign, the Sierra Club, and Working Families Power.
* Advancing American Freedom Foundation (AAFF) is a right-of-center organization that works to educate "the American people about the ideas of free markets, limited government, traditional values, and strong American leadership in the world." AAFF is the 501(c)(3) sister organization of Advancing American Freedom, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit founded by former Vice President Mike Pence that claims to support "the Conservative Movement by developing innovative policy solutions, strategies, coalitions, and messaging that builds upon those accomplishments, [and] expands freedom for all Americans." The AAFF has received funding from DonorsTrust, the National Christian Charitable Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, the National Philanthropic Trust, and the John William Pope Foundation.
* Press Forward Minnesota is the state chapter of the national Press Forward network, and was created to invest $10 million dollars in local news and media organizations around the state. The initiative, housed within the Minnesota Council on Foundations, was founded in 2024 through funding from the McKnight Foundation, the Bush Foundation and the Glen Nelson Center at American Public Media Group. In early 2025, Press Forward Minnesota made $520,000 worth of inaugural grants to 13 Minnesota-based recipients.
* Hearthland Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded by film director Steven Spielbergand his wife, actress Kate Capshaw. Spielberg and Capshaw also co-founded the Righteous Persons Foundation in 1995. The Hearthland Foundation has made grants to several left-of-center organizations including the Tides Center, the Hopewell Fund, the Windward Fund, the WorkMoney Foundation, the Equal Justice Initiative, and the March for Our Lives Foundation.
* * *
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-06-26-2026/
[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, June 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on June 26, 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:
* Eat Learn Play Foundation is a charity that provides nutritional, health, and literacy support for children in the Oakland Unified School District. It was founded in 2018 by Golden State Warriors basketball player Stephen Curry and his wife, Ayesha Curry. It has received funding from the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, the East Bay Community Foundation, and the National Philanthropic Trust. Supporting and community partners listed on its website include the Trust for Public Land, the TomKat Foundation, Oakland REACH, the Hellman Foundation, and the Kenneth Rainin Foundation.
* Hold the Line PAC is a political action committee (PAC) founded in 2024 to help "the next generation of Democratic leaders" and "defeat MAGA, anti-democracy Republicans at the ballot box." The PAC was founded by Marcus Flowers, who ran in the 2022 midterm elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, losing to then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Hold the Line PAC is a listed partner group of the anti-Second Trump administration protest movement No Kings. Other No Kings members include the 50501 Movement, Indivisible, Common Cause, Democracy Forward, the Human Rights Campaign, the Sierra Club, and Working Families Power.
* Advancing American Freedom Foundation (AAFF) is a right-of-center organization that works to educate "the American people about the ideas of free markets, limited government, traditional values, and strong American leadership in the world." AAFF is the 501(c)(3) sister organization of Advancing American Freedom, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit founded by former Vice President Mike Pence that claims to support "the Conservative Movement by developing innovative policy solutions, strategies, coalitions, and messaging that builds upon those accomplishments, [and] expands freedom for all Americans." The AAFF has received funding from DonorsTrust, the National Christian Charitable Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, the National Philanthropic Trust, and the John William Pope Foundation.
* Press Forward Minnesota is the state chapter of the national Press Forward network, and was created to invest $10 million dollars in local news and media organizations around the state. The initiative, housed within the Minnesota Council on Foundations, was founded in 2024 through funding from the McKnight Foundation, the Bush Foundation and the Glen Nelson Center at American Public Media Group. In early 2025, Press Forward Minnesota made $520,000 worth of inaugural grants to 13 Minnesota-based recipients.
* Hearthland Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded by film director Steven Spielbergand his wife, actress Kate Capshaw. Spielberg and Capshaw also co-founded the Righteous Persons Foundation in 1995. The Hearthland Foundation has made grants to several left-of-center organizations including the Tides Center, the Hopewell Fund, the Windward Fund, the WorkMoney Foundation, the Equal Justice Initiative, and the March for Our Lives Foundation.
* * *
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-06-26-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Alaska Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants, and Union Thuggery for the Digital Age
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by Michael Watson, research director and managing editor for InfluenceWatch:
* * *
Alaska Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants, and union thuggery for the digital age
Republicans and supposed conservatives who want to hand America's labor unions more power to extract resources from and compel activities among America's working people have a gigantic problem: Big Labor is extremely socially and culturally progressive, endorsing left-wing vanguard positions on transgender issues and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by Michael Watson, research director and managing editor for InfluenceWatch: * * * Alaska Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants, and union thuggery for the digital age Republicans and supposed conservatives who want to hand America's labor unions more power to extract resources from and compel activities among America's working people have a gigantic problem: Big Labor is extremely socially and culturally progressive, endorsing left-wing vanguard positions on transgender issues andabortion.
When challenged on unions' social liberalism, these conservatives' strategy is simple: whataboutism. Blame the companies for "[standing] with the radical left to push woke, transgender ideology," to quote a spokesperson for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).
But a legal opinion out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates how this is an irrelevant dodge because Big Labor is a co-conspirator in corporate wokeness, not an opponent or defender of dissenting workers. In short, two flight attendants alleged that when Alaska Airlines terminated them for questioning social-liberal legislation the company endorsed, union leadership proved ineffective defenders of their rights, in all probability because the union and the airline were on the same left-wing side of the political spectrum.
The Case
The tell that Big Labor may not be the defender of the Christian employee's rights of conscience is the title of the case itself: Marli Brown and Lacey Smith v. Alaska Airlines and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA AFL-CIO. The union and the employer are on the same side, and the workers are the opponents.
The workers were represented by the religious-liberty-focused public interest law firm First Liberty Institute, so I'll let them present the principal claims of the case:
In early 2021, Alaska Airlines announced its support for the Equality Act on an internal employee message board and invited employees to comment. Flight attendant Lacey Smith posted a question, asking, "As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality?" In the same forum, First Liberty's second client asked, "Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women [sic] rights and parental rights? ...." Both clients were subsequently investigated, questioned by airline authorities, and eventually fired from their jobs.
As the case progressed, investigators uncovered an alleged union role in the firings. Again, from First Liberty Institute:
Court documents filed yesterday [January 16, 2024] reveal the extent of the union's involvement. Union MEC President reported the flight attendants' comments to Alaska Airlines leadership. In a company chat among union representatives, one stated, "Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments, or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well." Union representatives repeatedly disparaged the flight attendants, calling them "bigots" and "pukes." Referring to Lacey, the Union President said, "I hate her."
In the district court in Seattle, the judge threw the case out on summary judgment. First Liberty Institute's clients, the fired flight attendants, appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which handed down its ruling Wednesday.
The Ruling
In short, the three-judge panel ruled that the district court was wrong and the fired flight attendants' claims of religious discrimination can go forward against both the airline and the union. (A note on the ruling: At this stage of consideration, the court considers the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, so it assumes that everything the fired workers claim to be true is in fact true.) Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, a prolific Twitter/X commentator on legal matters, has a thorough thread detailing the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling for readers who want a full rundown on what the court held.
What's relevant to our discussion of American organized labor and its collusion in corporate wokeness is the (again, alleged and taken as true for purposes of legal considerations at this stage of the case) behavior of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) union officials. For what it's worth, AFA is a constituent union of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which, as a consequence of the Long Declines in both unionization and landline telephony, has adopted a mergers-and-acquisitions strategy for keeping itself afloat. CWA is notoriously left-wing even by unions' leftist standards (it was the most prominent union to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign), and AFA-CWA's national president, Sara Nelson, is a prominent activist on the left wing of organized labor. (She's also a Bernie fan.)
Back to the ruling. After the first dissenting flight attendant posted her religious-based objection to the Equality Act to Alaska Airlines' internal employee message board, the company behaved exactly as Sen. Hawley's talking points say it would: In Wessan's retelling:
"The head of Alaska's legal team said 'employees do not have the right to believe that LGBTQ rights are immoral.' A VP wrote, 'I 100% agree.'"
But how then did the union respond, and how does that compare to Hawley and company's expectations? Remember, the pro-union think tank American Compass, lavishly funded by the left-wing anti-capitalist Hewlett Foundation to promote economic leftism as a "conservative" approach, asserts that Big Labor has a "conservative heart," and one of its former U.S. Senate allies, Marco Rubio, wrote once that unions might protect workers against "a requirement that the workers embrace management's latest 'woke' human resources fad."
So, when presented with the opportunity to protect workers who were asserting, in internal communications channels, the position ultimately taken by the United States Senate (the Equality Act did not pass), did AFA-CWA take it? Not just no, but (again, according to the allegations taken at face value) hell no. The court wrote:
Peterson, the AFA Master Executive Council President, separately emailed his AFA colleagues to express dismay at Smith's post. Referencing Smith, he wrote:
"Employees get to be bigots in their private lives and to express their bigoted and misinformed opinions while not at work--as horrifying as that may be." He added that "the post is reprehensible and there should be repercussions."
One does not need to be a judge ruling at summary judgment to discredit the union official's claim that he would represent Smith in disciplinary proceedings "fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination." Other union officials channeled their predecessors' labor-violence rhetoric, at least rhetorically. From the ruling:
Independently, AFA representative Terry Taylor posted in a Google chat with other union officials: "Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well" (Taylor later revised that message), and also that [Marli] Brown "needs to go!" In an email to another flight attendant who had complained about the posts, Taylor called the posts "reprehensible."
So far, so free speech, I guess. But now union internal politics meet the realities of exclusive monopoly bargaining. The court continues:
Taylor would later serve as Brown's union representative in Alaska's disciplinary proceedings against Brown. Union Grievance Chairperson Stephanie Adams privately described Brown's comments as "shitty," also telling Taylor that she expected Brown to receive "[a]t least a suspension," to which Taylor responded: "I certainly hope so!"
So, according to the court, Brown had a representative in disciplinary proceedings who had written explicitly that she should be thrown down a well and thought she was guilty and should be punished. If this were a criminal case, one presumes the judge would be here discussing "ineffective assistance of counsel."
For his part, Wessan dryly writes, "I can see why they [the cashiered flight attendants] did not think the union had their backs!"
It should not be surprising that, during the disciplinary process, the union's assistance to the two employees--which the employees, under the law, had no choice but to accept--was allegedly self-sabotaging. I'll let the lawyer Wessan explain:
Reading this discussion of the investigation into the employee who posted an innocuous question is disheartening. At least they only recommended "no discipline" for the sincere beliefs. (That is, until [AFA representatives] told her not to mention her religious concerns and Alaska fired her.)
The other employee was fired too. Alaska explained that questioning the progressive viewpoint of "gender identity or sexual orientation" is itself discrimination. Got it. The union declined to arbitrate because the member is entitled to be "a bigot at home, but not at work."
The Lesson
So to make a very long story short, Alaska Airlines allegedly canned two flight attendants for making a political argument that was ultimately upheld by the procedures of the United States Senate and, in so doing, might have violated their religious rights (both workers are Christians, and both feared the Equality Act's potential effect on their religious freedom). The union officials tasked with representing the workers in disciplinary proceedings put in writing that they agreed with the company that expressing this political view was a punishable offense and that maybe violence should be done to the workers they were obligated to represent, in Minecraft of course.
Indeed, the court concludes:
The record raises factual questions about whether AFA's representation of Brown was colored by potential disagreement with her religious views. As Brown was advocating a religious defense during her investigatory meeting, it was AFA's Taylor who privately texted:"I may hurl," to her AFA colleague Stephanie Adams, who was also participating in the meeting. As noted above, Adams had written to others that Brown was unlike her own friends, whom she described as "good women with good values and [who] believe in equality." Taylor had also earlier written in private communications to other AFA colleagues that Brown "needs to go!," that the Smith and Brown posts on Alaska's World were "reprehensible," and that someone should "put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well."
* * *
AFA's account may ultimately carry the day with the jury. But between the comments that could be interpreted as expressing a negative view of Brown's faith, Taylor's claimed unwillingness to defend Brown on religious discrimination grounds, and Taylor's efforts to dissuade Brown from raising this defense, it is genuinely disputed whether AFA attempted to cause Brown's termination based on her religious beliefs or acquiesced in it.
* * *
As was true in the case of Brown, AFA's Peterson was heavily involved in Alaska's efforts to investigate and discipline Smith, even though this level of involvement was rare for him. Peterson's "struggle with faith" text extended to Smith as well as Brown, and he repeatedly referred to Smith as a "bigot" and "bigoted." As we noted above, Peterson did tell others at AFA that the union would "represent [Smith] through the grievance process fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination." But a reasonable jury could find that Peterson's explanation was not believable when, among other things, he was internally saying that "Mngmt needs to send [Smith's] bigoted ass packing for a variety of reasons."
The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a jury to evaluate the facts and arguments. Whatever the final legal analysis concludes, if the facts alleged by the flight attendants are even somewhat accurate, one thing is clear: If there were a case that more conclusively put to rest the now-Secretary of State's politically dangerous delusion that organized labor could prove the defender of dissenting workers against "a requirement that the workers embrace management's latest 'woke' human resources fad" than the case Marli Brown and Lacey Smith have been forced to endure, I cannot imagine it.
* * *
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a...
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/alaska-airlines-the-association-of-flight-attendants-and-union-thuggery-for-the-digital-age/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Alaska Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants, and union thuggery for the digital age
Republicans and supposed conservatives who want to hand America's labor unions more power to extract resources from and compel activities among America's working people have a gigantic problem: Big Labor is extremely socially and culturally progressive, endorsing left-wing vanguard positions on transgender issues and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by Michael Watson, research director and managing editor for InfluenceWatch: * * * Alaska Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants, and union thuggery for the digital age Republicans and supposed conservatives who want to hand America's labor unions more power to extract resources from and compel activities among America's working people have a gigantic problem: Big Labor is extremely socially and culturally progressive, endorsing left-wing vanguard positions on transgender issues andabortion.
When challenged on unions' social liberalism, these conservatives' strategy is simple: whataboutism. Blame the companies for "[standing] with the radical left to push woke, transgender ideology," to quote a spokesperson for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).
But a legal opinion out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates how this is an irrelevant dodge because Big Labor is a co-conspirator in corporate wokeness, not an opponent or defender of dissenting workers. In short, two flight attendants alleged that when Alaska Airlines terminated them for questioning social-liberal legislation the company endorsed, union leadership proved ineffective defenders of their rights, in all probability because the union and the airline were on the same left-wing side of the political spectrum.
The Case
The tell that Big Labor may not be the defender of the Christian employee's rights of conscience is the title of the case itself: Marli Brown and Lacey Smith v. Alaska Airlines and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA AFL-CIO. The union and the employer are on the same side, and the workers are the opponents.
The workers were represented by the religious-liberty-focused public interest law firm First Liberty Institute, so I'll let them present the principal claims of the case:
In early 2021, Alaska Airlines announced its support for the Equality Act on an internal employee message board and invited employees to comment. Flight attendant Lacey Smith posted a question, asking, "As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality?" In the same forum, First Liberty's second client asked, "Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women [sic] rights and parental rights? ...." Both clients were subsequently investigated, questioned by airline authorities, and eventually fired from their jobs.
As the case progressed, investigators uncovered an alleged union role in the firings. Again, from First Liberty Institute:
Court documents filed yesterday [January 16, 2024] reveal the extent of the union's involvement. Union MEC President reported the flight attendants' comments to Alaska Airlines leadership. In a company chat among union representatives, one stated, "Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments, or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well." Union representatives repeatedly disparaged the flight attendants, calling them "bigots" and "pukes." Referring to Lacey, the Union President said, "I hate her."
In the district court in Seattle, the judge threw the case out on summary judgment. First Liberty Institute's clients, the fired flight attendants, appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which handed down its ruling Wednesday.
The Ruling
In short, the three-judge panel ruled that the district court was wrong and the fired flight attendants' claims of religious discrimination can go forward against both the airline and the union. (A note on the ruling: At this stage of consideration, the court considers the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, so it assumes that everything the fired workers claim to be true is in fact true.) Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, a prolific Twitter/X commentator on legal matters, has a thorough thread detailing the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling for readers who want a full rundown on what the court held.
What's relevant to our discussion of American organized labor and its collusion in corporate wokeness is the (again, alleged and taken as true for purposes of legal considerations at this stage of the case) behavior of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) union officials. For what it's worth, AFA is a constituent union of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which, as a consequence of the Long Declines in both unionization and landline telephony, has adopted a mergers-and-acquisitions strategy for keeping itself afloat. CWA is notoriously left-wing even by unions' leftist standards (it was the most prominent union to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign), and AFA-CWA's national president, Sara Nelson, is a prominent activist on the left wing of organized labor. (She's also a Bernie fan.)
Back to the ruling. After the first dissenting flight attendant posted her religious-based objection to the Equality Act to Alaska Airlines' internal employee message board, the company behaved exactly as Sen. Hawley's talking points say it would: In Wessan's retelling:
"The head of Alaska's legal team said 'employees do not have the right to believe that LGBTQ rights are immoral.' A VP wrote, 'I 100% agree.'"
But how then did the union respond, and how does that compare to Hawley and company's expectations? Remember, the pro-union think tank American Compass, lavishly funded by the left-wing anti-capitalist Hewlett Foundation to promote economic leftism as a "conservative" approach, asserts that Big Labor has a "conservative heart," and one of its former U.S. Senate allies, Marco Rubio, wrote once that unions might protect workers against "a requirement that the workers embrace management's latest 'woke' human resources fad."
So, when presented with the opportunity to protect workers who were asserting, in internal communications channels, the position ultimately taken by the United States Senate (the Equality Act did not pass), did AFA-CWA take it? Not just no, but (again, according to the allegations taken at face value) hell no. The court wrote:
Peterson, the AFA Master Executive Council President, separately emailed his AFA colleagues to express dismay at Smith's post. Referencing Smith, he wrote:
"Employees get to be bigots in their private lives and to express their bigoted and misinformed opinions while not at work--as horrifying as that may be." He added that "the post is reprehensible and there should be repercussions."
One does not need to be a judge ruling at summary judgment to discredit the union official's claim that he would represent Smith in disciplinary proceedings "fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination." Other union officials channeled their predecessors' labor-violence rhetoric, at least rhetorically. From the ruling:
Independently, AFA representative Terry Taylor posted in a Google chat with other union officials: "Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well" (Taylor later revised that message), and also that [Marli] Brown "needs to go!" In an email to another flight attendant who had complained about the posts, Taylor called the posts "reprehensible."
So far, so free speech, I guess. But now union internal politics meet the realities of exclusive monopoly bargaining. The court continues:
Taylor would later serve as Brown's union representative in Alaska's disciplinary proceedings against Brown. Union Grievance Chairperson Stephanie Adams privately described Brown's comments as "shitty," also telling Taylor that she expected Brown to receive "[a]t least a suspension," to which Taylor responded: "I certainly hope so!"
So, according to the court, Brown had a representative in disciplinary proceedings who had written explicitly that she should be thrown down a well and thought she was guilty and should be punished. If this were a criminal case, one presumes the judge would be here discussing "ineffective assistance of counsel."
For his part, Wessan dryly writes, "I can see why they [the cashiered flight attendants] did not think the union had their backs!"
It should not be surprising that, during the disciplinary process, the union's assistance to the two employees--which the employees, under the law, had no choice but to accept--was allegedly self-sabotaging. I'll let the lawyer Wessan explain:
Reading this discussion of the investigation into the employee who posted an innocuous question is disheartening. At least they only recommended "no discipline" for the sincere beliefs. (That is, until [AFA representatives] told her not to mention her religious concerns and Alaska fired her.)
The other employee was fired too. Alaska explained that questioning the progressive viewpoint of "gender identity or sexual orientation" is itself discrimination. Got it. The union declined to arbitrate because the member is entitled to be "a bigot at home, but not at work."
The Lesson
So to make a very long story short, Alaska Airlines allegedly canned two flight attendants for making a political argument that was ultimately upheld by the procedures of the United States Senate and, in so doing, might have violated their religious rights (both workers are Christians, and both feared the Equality Act's potential effect on their religious freedom). The union officials tasked with representing the workers in disciplinary proceedings put in writing that they agreed with the company that expressing this political view was a punishable offense and that maybe violence should be done to the workers they were obligated to represent, in Minecraft of course.
Indeed, the court concludes:
The record raises factual questions about whether AFA's representation of Brown was colored by potential disagreement with her religious views. As Brown was advocating a religious defense during her investigatory meeting, it was AFA's Taylor who privately texted:"I may hurl," to her AFA colleague Stephanie Adams, who was also participating in the meeting. As noted above, Adams had written to others that Brown was unlike her own friends, whom she described as "good women with good values and [who] believe in equality." Taylor had also earlier written in private communications to other AFA colleagues that Brown "needs to go!," that the Smith and Brown posts on Alaska's World were "reprehensible," and that someone should "put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well."
* * *
AFA's account may ultimately carry the day with the jury. But between the comments that could be interpreted as expressing a negative view of Brown's faith, Taylor's claimed unwillingness to defend Brown on religious discrimination grounds, and Taylor's efforts to dissuade Brown from raising this defense, it is genuinely disputed whether AFA attempted to cause Brown's termination based on her religious beliefs or acquiesced in it.
* * *
As was true in the case of Brown, AFA's Peterson was heavily involved in Alaska's efforts to investigate and discipline Smith, even though this level of involvement was rare for him. Peterson's "struggle with faith" text extended to Smith as well as Brown, and he repeatedly referred to Smith as a "bigot" and "bigoted." As we noted above, Peterson did tell others at AFA that the union would "represent [Smith] through the grievance process fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination." But a reasonable jury could find that Peterson's explanation was not believable when, among other things, he was internally saying that "Mngmt needs to send [Smith's] bigoted ass packing for a variety of reasons."
The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a jury to evaluate the facts and arguments. Whatever the final legal analysis concludes, if the facts alleged by the flight attendants are even somewhat accurate, one thing is clear: If there were a case that more conclusively put to rest the now-Secretary of State's politically dangerous delusion that organized labor could prove the defender of dissenting workers against "a requirement that the workers embrace management's latest 'woke' human resources fad" than the case Marli Brown and Lacey Smith have been forced to endure, I cannot imagine it.
* * *
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a...
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/alaska-airlines-the-association-of-flight-attendants-and-union-thuggery-for-the-digital-age/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: Venezuela Suffered Its Worst Earthquake in Decades - What Comes Next?
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on June 26, 2026, by fellow Henry Ziemer and intern Joseph Ruelas, both with the Americas Program:
* * *
Venezuela Suffered Its Worst Earthquake in Decades: What Comes Next?
On Wednesday, June 24, two powerful earthquakes, measuring 7.2 and 7.5 on the Richter scale, struck along the coast of Venezuela. The quakes were some of the strongest to hit the South American nation in over a century and have wrought significant devastation, with new assessments of the destruction continuing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on June 26, 2026, by fellow Henry Ziemer and intern Joseph Ruelas, both with the Americas Program: * * * Venezuela Suffered Its Worst Earthquake in Decades: What Comes Next? On Wednesday, June 24, two powerful earthquakes, measuring 7.2 and 7.5 on the Richter scale, struck along the coast of Venezuela. The quakes were some of the strongest to hit the South American nation in over a century and have wrought significant devastation, with new assessments of the destruction continuingto flow in. This comes at a fraught moment for Venezuela, which prior to the earthquakes was in a fragile political equilibrium following the capture and removal of dictator Nicolas Maduro on January 3. The remaining inner circle of the Maduro regime, headed by Delcy Rodriguez, has been balancing growing popular pressure for reform and democratization with its desire to retain its hold on the levers of power, all while managing its relationship with the United States.
The current disaster and humanitarian crisis add new uncertainty to this already volatile situation. It will also be a significant test for U.S. Venezuela policy, which the White House has touted as a major foreign policy success. Help from the United States will be indispensable, both in the short term to address immediate human needs and over the long term to help rebuild devastated communities and infrastructure.
Q1: What are the initial damage estimates?
A1: As of this writing, at least 589 people are confirmed dead, though thousands more are unaccounted for beneath the rubble. The epicenter of the quakes was one of Venezuela's most populated areas, and images and videos of the quakes shared to social media show collapsed structures and violent shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated that as many as 10,000 people could be dead, with economic losses projected to be between 1 and 7 percent of GDP. The earthquakes also impacted electrical transmission and telecommunications infrastructure, leaving many areas without power or the ability to contact emergency services or report the damage in their local communities. The full extent of the disaster therefore remains difficult to estimate.
Systemic factors within Venezuela have left the country especially vulnerable to earthquakes. Weak enforcement of building codes and the prevalence of informal construction in cities like Caracas and La Guajira made many structures woefully underprepared for the magnitude of the disaster. Furthermore, the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, which would ordinarily be first responders to such a complex emergency, have been hollowed out through decades of corruption and politicization. Initial reports also suggest that the airstrip at Simon Bolivar International Airport has been rendered inoperable, making it impossible to land large planes there. Aid will need to arrive via smaller planes that can still land, rotor wing aircraft, or by cargo planes that can land at undamaged airfields farther south, though this last option will cost critical hours in overland transport and may be complicated by damaged roads and bridges.
Q2: How rare are earthquakes of this magnitude in Venezuela?
A2: Venezuela's coastline is a seismically active zone, located along the boundary between the Caribbean and South American tectonic plates. Perhaps the most famous earthquake in Venezuelan history was an estimated 7.7 magnitude quake that hit Caracas in 1812 during the Venezuelan War of Independence, devastating the city and resulting in as many as 30,000 casualties. Wednesday's incident was notable in that two strong earthquakes occurred within a short period of time, a relatively rare seismic occurrence, though a similar but less severe "doublet" occurred in Venezuela's western Zulia state in the fall of 2025 that caused significant property damage and at least one death.
Given the severity of the earthquake, USGS has noted a high probability of aftershocks in the coming days. While these are unlikely to reach a magnitude of 6.0 or higher, they could cause additional damage to buildings that have been weakened by previous quakes, further complicating response efforts.
Q3: What are some of the broader concerns for Venezuelans?
A3: Venezuelans harbored little confidence in their government's ability to fill basic needs before the quake, but the magnitude of this disaster is sure to put the woeful state of emergency response in stark relief. This could drive further disaffection toward the remaining members of Maduro's inner circle. The best thing Rodriguez can do now is prioritize open communication, both between the government and citizens and between individuals. Notably, the state has encouraged Venezuelans to use its VenApp, a notorious tool of digital repression used to share tips on dissident activity following the stolen 2024 election, to share information about missing relatives and community members. However, if Rodriguez or her lieutenants are perceived to be prioritizing repression over saving lives, this will only exacerbate domestic unrest. Venezuela should also open itself to aid from all corners. Several countries have pledged to contribute humanitarian aid; none should be turned away given the gulf between the level of need and lack of domestic state capacity to meet it.
Over the longer term, better estimates of the scale and extent of destruction will be needed to accurately assess next steps, but all parties should be prepared for a long and costly rebuilding process. Structures that have not collapsed could still need extensive repairs to ensure they remain structurally sound, a project with a price tag likely in the billions. Venezuela's investment is already precarious: Earlier this week, it announced it was seeking to restructure $240 billion in sovereign debt, $40-90 billion more than what external analysts had projected. For foreign investors who were already hesitant to pour significant resources into the country, the earthquakes provide yet another reason to hold off on inking any deals.
Another key question will be how the quakes impacted Venezuela's oil infrastructure. The epicenters were located close to Puerto Cabello, a key oil export terminal. If it was damaged, Venezuela will lose out on one of its few revenue streams, further complicating any rebuilding process.
Q4: How will this affect U.S. policy in Venezuela?
A4: The United States is currently pursuing a three-phase plan in Venezuela based on stabilization, recovery, and eventual political transition. There is a chance that the crisis undermines current tentative steps toward the final phase of transition. Given the herculean task of rebuilding, Rodriguez could argue that discussion of electoral timelines should be set aside for the time being. The risk is that what starts as even a temporary pause can rapidly become self-reinforcing and suppress discussion around democratization. It is true that the priority now must be saving lives, but the United States cannot lose sight of the ultimate need for transition as part of Venezuela's rebuilding process.
In a worst-case scenario, a botched recovery leading to further authoritarian consolidation could worsen ongoing irregular migration dynamics in the region. The quakes have left tens or hundreds of thousands of survivors without homes and devastated already fragile local economies. Without help, and soon, these individuals may have no choice but to leave, either becoming internally displaced persons or crossing into neighboring countries, potentially triggering a new wave of Venezuelan outmigration and creating new opportunities for criminal elements who predate on the need of vulnerable populations.
Q5: What are international response efforts looking like?
A5: Venezuela stands to be the most significant test of the Trump administration's new model for foreign assistance. While disaster response has long been the bread and butter of U.S. military missions in the Western Hemisphere, reductions to the staffing and resources of the U.S. Agency for International Development will place an even larger burden on the military to address urgent humanitarian need. In an interview on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States was in the process of deploying search and rescue teams to help clear victims from the rubble. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) also announced it would be standing up a an operational planning team to coordinate interagency relief efforts. Most recently, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control issued a new general license exempting entities engaged in earthquake relief from the remaining sanctions on Venezuela. These are welcome moves; the U.S. military is the most qualified and capable force to assist with the immediate disaster response in Venezuela.
While the U.S. naval presence in the Caribbean has diminished from the armada that took shape prior to Operation Absolute Resolve, there are several assets that could be surged to meet urgent humanitarian need. Indeed, SOUTHCOM has already announced that the USS Fort Lauderdale amphibious transport dock, which has the ability to launch MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, and the USS Billings littoral combat ship, which has the ability to carry Seahawk helicopters, will be dispatched as part of the response effort. Other airborne first response assets can be brought in from Joint Task Force Bravo based out of Soto Cano Airfield in Honduras.
The earthquake response will also test the mettle of multinational coalitions like the Shield of the Americas. Already, countries such as Argentina, Chile, and El Salvador have offered to contribute first responders and supplies to help with the disaster response. A flood of assistance offers has also come from European nations, Brazil, and India, which recently announced plans to set up a field hospital in Venezuela. The United States has an opportunity to provide the logistical and organizational backbone to ensure these various assistance activities are deployed quickly and to where need is greatest, while helping to deconflict aid efforts among partner countries.
The outpouring of international support for Venezuela has been encouraging, but international aid providers must be prepared for a long-term commitment, not merely a short burst of assistance. The critical first 24 hours following the disaster have now passed, but the decisions to come will be decisive in determining Venezuela's trajectory on the road to recovery.
* * *
Henry Ziemer is a fellow with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Joseph Ruelas is an intern with the Americas Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/venezuela-suffered-its-worst-earthquake-decades-what-comes-next
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Venezuela Suffered Its Worst Earthquake in Decades: What Comes Next?
On Wednesday, June 24, two powerful earthquakes, measuring 7.2 and 7.5 on the Richter scale, struck along the coast of Venezuela. The quakes were some of the strongest to hit the South American nation in over a century and have wrought significant devastation, with new assessments of the destruction continuing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on June 26, 2026, by fellow Henry Ziemer and intern Joseph Ruelas, both with the Americas Program: * * * Venezuela Suffered Its Worst Earthquake in Decades: What Comes Next? On Wednesday, June 24, two powerful earthquakes, measuring 7.2 and 7.5 on the Richter scale, struck along the coast of Venezuela. The quakes were some of the strongest to hit the South American nation in over a century and have wrought significant devastation, with new assessments of the destruction continuingto flow in. This comes at a fraught moment for Venezuela, which prior to the earthquakes was in a fragile political equilibrium following the capture and removal of dictator Nicolas Maduro on January 3. The remaining inner circle of the Maduro regime, headed by Delcy Rodriguez, has been balancing growing popular pressure for reform and democratization with its desire to retain its hold on the levers of power, all while managing its relationship with the United States.
The current disaster and humanitarian crisis add new uncertainty to this already volatile situation. It will also be a significant test for U.S. Venezuela policy, which the White House has touted as a major foreign policy success. Help from the United States will be indispensable, both in the short term to address immediate human needs and over the long term to help rebuild devastated communities and infrastructure.
Q1: What are the initial damage estimates?
A1: As of this writing, at least 589 people are confirmed dead, though thousands more are unaccounted for beneath the rubble. The epicenter of the quakes was one of Venezuela's most populated areas, and images and videos of the quakes shared to social media show collapsed structures and violent shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated that as many as 10,000 people could be dead, with economic losses projected to be between 1 and 7 percent of GDP. The earthquakes also impacted electrical transmission and telecommunications infrastructure, leaving many areas without power or the ability to contact emergency services or report the damage in their local communities. The full extent of the disaster therefore remains difficult to estimate.
Systemic factors within Venezuela have left the country especially vulnerable to earthquakes. Weak enforcement of building codes and the prevalence of informal construction in cities like Caracas and La Guajira made many structures woefully underprepared for the magnitude of the disaster. Furthermore, the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, which would ordinarily be first responders to such a complex emergency, have been hollowed out through decades of corruption and politicization. Initial reports also suggest that the airstrip at Simon Bolivar International Airport has been rendered inoperable, making it impossible to land large planes there. Aid will need to arrive via smaller planes that can still land, rotor wing aircraft, or by cargo planes that can land at undamaged airfields farther south, though this last option will cost critical hours in overland transport and may be complicated by damaged roads and bridges.
Q2: How rare are earthquakes of this magnitude in Venezuela?
A2: Venezuela's coastline is a seismically active zone, located along the boundary between the Caribbean and South American tectonic plates. Perhaps the most famous earthquake in Venezuelan history was an estimated 7.7 magnitude quake that hit Caracas in 1812 during the Venezuelan War of Independence, devastating the city and resulting in as many as 30,000 casualties. Wednesday's incident was notable in that two strong earthquakes occurred within a short period of time, a relatively rare seismic occurrence, though a similar but less severe "doublet" occurred in Venezuela's western Zulia state in the fall of 2025 that caused significant property damage and at least one death.
Given the severity of the earthquake, USGS has noted a high probability of aftershocks in the coming days. While these are unlikely to reach a magnitude of 6.0 or higher, they could cause additional damage to buildings that have been weakened by previous quakes, further complicating response efforts.
Q3: What are some of the broader concerns for Venezuelans?
A3: Venezuelans harbored little confidence in their government's ability to fill basic needs before the quake, but the magnitude of this disaster is sure to put the woeful state of emergency response in stark relief. This could drive further disaffection toward the remaining members of Maduro's inner circle. The best thing Rodriguez can do now is prioritize open communication, both between the government and citizens and between individuals. Notably, the state has encouraged Venezuelans to use its VenApp, a notorious tool of digital repression used to share tips on dissident activity following the stolen 2024 election, to share information about missing relatives and community members. However, if Rodriguez or her lieutenants are perceived to be prioritizing repression over saving lives, this will only exacerbate domestic unrest. Venezuela should also open itself to aid from all corners. Several countries have pledged to contribute humanitarian aid; none should be turned away given the gulf between the level of need and lack of domestic state capacity to meet it.
Over the longer term, better estimates of the scale and extent of destruction will be needed to accurately assess next steps, but all parties should be prepared for a long and costly rebuilding process. Structures that have not collapsed could still need extensive repairs to ensure they remain structurally sound, a project with a price tag likely in the billions. Venezuela's investment is already precarious: Earlier this week, it announced it was seeking to restructure $240 billion in sovereign debt, $40-90 billion more than what external analysts had projected. For foreign investors who were already hesitant to pour significant resources into the country, the earthquakes provide yet another reason to hold off on inking any deals.
Another key question will be how the quakes impacted Venezuela's oil infrastructure. The epicenters were located close to Puerto Cabello, a key oil export terminal. If it was damaged, Venezuela will lose out on one of its few revenue streams, further complicating any rebuilding process.
Q4: How will this affect U.S. policy in Venezuela?
A4: The United States is currently pursuing a three-phase plan in Venezuela based on stabilization, recovery, and eventual political transition. There is a chance that the crisis undermines current tentative steps toward the final phase of transition. Given the herculean task of rebuilding, Rodriguez could argue that discussion of electoral timelines should be set aside for the time being. The risk is that what starts as even a temporary pause can rapidly become self-reinforcing and suppress discussion around democratization. It is true that the priority now must be saving lives, but the United States cannot lose sight of the ultimate need for transition as part of Venezuela's rebuilding process.
In a worst-case scenario, a botched recovery leading to further authoritarian consolidation could worsen ongoing irregular migration dynamics in the region. The quakes have left tens or hundreds of thousands of survivors without homes and devastated already fragile local economies. Without help, and soon, these individuals may have no choice but to leave, either becoming internally displaced persons or crossing into neighboring countries, potentially triggering a new wave of Venezuelan outmigration and creating new opportunities for criminal elements who predate on the need of vulnerable populations.
Q5: What are international response efforts looking like?
A5: Venezuela stands to be the most significant test of the Trump administration's new model for foreign assistance. While disaster response has long been the bread and butter of U.S. military missions in the Western Hemisphere, reductions to the staffing and resources of the U.S. Agency for International Development will place an even larger burden on the military to address urgent humanitarian need. In an interview on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States was in the process of deploying search and rescue teams to help clear victims from the rubble. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) also announced it would be standing up a an operational planning team to coordinate interagency relief efforts. Most recently, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control issued a new general license exempting entities engaged in earthquake relief from the remaining sanctions on Venezuela. These are welcome moves; the U.S. military is the most qualified and capable force to assist with the immediate disaster response in Venezuela.
While the U.S. naval presence in the Caribbean has diminished from the armada that took shape prior to Operation Absolute Resolve, there are several assets that could be surged to meet urgent humanitarian need. Indeed, SOUTHCOM has already announced that the USS Fort Lauderdale amphibious transport dock, which has the ability to launch MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, and the USS Billings littoral combat ship, which has the ability to carry Seahawk helicopters, will be dispatched as part of the response effort. Other airborne first response assets can be brought in from Joint Task Force Bravo based out of Soto Cano Airfield in Honduras.
The earthquake response will also test the mettle of multinational coalitions like the Shield of the Americas. Already, countries such as Argentina, Chile, and El Salvador have offered to contribute first responders and supplies to help with the disaster response. A flood of assistance offers has also come from European nations, Brazil, and India, which recently announced plans to set up a field hospital in Venezuela. The United States has an opportunity to provide the logistical and organizational backbone to ensure these various assistance activities are deployed quickly and to where need is greatest, while helping to deconflict aid efforts among partner countries.
The outpouring of international support for Venezuela has been encouraging, but international aid providers must be prepared for a long-term commitment, not merely a short burst of assistance. The critical first 24 hours following the disaster have now passed, but the decisions to come will be decisive in determining Venezuela's trajectory on the road to recovery.
* * *
Henry Ziemer is a fellow with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Joseph Ruelas is an intern with the Americas Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/venezuela-suffered-its-worst-earthquake-decades-what-comes-next
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Minnesota Responds to 40% SNAP Error Spike in Their State
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 26, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Minnesota Responds to 40% SNAP Error Spike in their State
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a statement from Zach Freimark, executive director of AFPI Minnesota, in response to a forty percent increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reporting.
Minnesota millionaire Rob Undersander has warned for years that the Minnesota's SNAP rules let someone like him, with well over a million dollars to his name, legally collect ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 26, 2026: * * * AFPI Minnesota Responds to 40% SNAP Error Spike in their State MINNEAPOLIS, MN - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a statement from Zach Freimark, executive director of AFPI Minnesota, in response to a forty percent increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reporting. Minnesota millionaire Rob Undersander has warned for years that the Minnesota's SNAP rules let someone like him, with well over a million dollars to his name, legally collectbenefits. The state brushed him off, and this week's federal report demonstrates the cost of ignoring these warnings, due to new federal cost-sharing requirements for states with higher error rates.
"Minnesota had every warning it needed to rebuild public trust in how it spends taxpayer dollars and refused to implement common-sense measures for its food stamp program, like asking applicants how much money they actually have.
Now the bill is coming due," stated Freimark. "The USDA data released this week puts Minnesota's payment error rate for Fiscal Year 2025 at 12.58 percent, a 40 percent jump in a single year. When nearly 13 cents of every dollar is misspent, that is not a clerical hiccup.
It is a sign that the people running this program either cannot or will not manage it. The state created this mess, but it is Minnesota taxpayers who will write the $130 million check to cover it."
To learn more about AFPI Minnesota, click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/state-chapter-new/america-first-minnesota).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-minnesota-responds-to-40-snap-error-spike-in-their-state
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Minnesota Responds to 40% SNAP Error Spike in their State
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a statement from Zach Freimark, executive director of AFPI Minnesota, in response to a forty percent increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reporting.
Minnesota millionaire Rob Undersander has warned for years that the Minnesota's SNAP rules let someone like him, with well over a million dollars to his name, legally collect ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 26, 2026: * * * AFPI Minnesota Responds to 40% SNAP Error Spike in their State MINNEAPOLIS, MN - The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) today released a statement from Zach Freimark, executive director of AFPI Minnesota, in response to a forty percent increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reporting. Minnesota millionaire Rob Undersander has warned for years that the Minnesota's SNAP rules let someone like him, with well over a million dollars to his name, legally collectbenefits. The state brushed him off, and this week's federal report demonstrates the cost of ignoring these warnings, due to new federal cost-sharing requirements for states with higher error rates.
"Minnesota had every warning it needed to rebuild public trust in how it spends taxpayer dollars and refused to implement common-sense measures for its food stamp program, like asking applicants how much money they actually have.
Now the bill is coming due," stated Freimark. "The USDA data released this week puts Minnesota's payment error rate for Fiscal Year 2025 at 12.58 percent, a 40 percent jump in a single year. When nearly 13 cents of every dollar is misspent, that is not a clerical hiccup.
It is a sign that the people running this program either cannot or will not manage it. The state created this mess, but it is Minnesota taxpayers who will write the $130 million check to cover it."
To learn more about AFPI Minnesota, click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/state-chapter-new/america-first-minnesota).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-minnesota-responds-to-40-snap-error-spike-in-their-state
[Category: ThinkTank]