Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Post: This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to the Washington Post:
* * *
This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China
A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power.
-
There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a story ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to the Washington Post: * * * This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power. - There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a storywarning the world about China's ambition and what it's prepared to risk to achieve it.
Kinmen Island is known for its seafood and rural calm. It is home to some 140,000 people who remained loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, the nationalist leader in China's civil war. The island helped hold back the Communist Red Army, so today it is part of Taiwan, as the Republic of China is commonly known, and they have their own small airport.
The other side of a strait so narrow a dissident once swam across is the Chinese city of Xiamen. There, the new airport is being built. Xiamen's growing population of 5 million is demanding better connections, and the new international hub expected to open later this year will meet that demand.
So far, so normal. Civilian airports often sit close together -- in this case six miles apart -- and have overlapping airspace. That causes problems, but the solutions are now standard: share data, agree on procedures and set up a hotline. Taiwan's civil aviation authority has been asking to do just that for years. It has been ignored.
But this isn't some bureaucratic oversight. It isn't about airports or airspace. It's about control and China's attempts to undermine Taipei and exercise control over the rebel province, and about how it wants to shape the world.
Taiwan attended the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization as a guest in 2013. It participated in the World Health Assembly as an observer from 2009 through 2016. Beijing subsequently blocked Taiwan's participation in both bodies, claiming the one-China policy meant it was the sole voice for both the People's Republic and the Republic of China.
Both of these decisions have made life more dangerous -- for everyone. Excluding Taiwan from the international airline safety body makes Chinese airliners less safe, too. And during covid, Taiwan was one of the first countries to respond successfully; its removal from the WHA puts us all at risk.
Global safety is not China's primary concern. Suborning international institutions to its own ends is.
Every empire inherits the roads its predecessors built and shapes them to its own nature. In the ashes of World War II, the empire the victors built is, by historical standards, strange. They built structures not to extract tribute but to export hope.
Democratic accountability, open trade and rules instead of force were a reflection of our predecessors' desires to avoid war at all costs by ensuring at least tacit consent from every nation and sharing prosperity to embed peace. The United Nations and other global institutions were created to diffuse power under the norms the victorious powers made.
China, then governed by the nationalists, was a founding member.
With notable exceptions, this generation succeeded. The world has been more prosperous and peaceful in the past 80 years than in almost any other previous tract of time. Few have profited more than the People's Republic. But Beijing is now destroying the platform on which its wealth is built and returning to an imperial system Chairman Xi's predecessors in the Forbidden City would have recognized: tribute and coercion, not cooperation and engagement.
Chinese coast guard ships ram and water-cannon Philippine vessels resupplying a garrison inside Manila's own exclusive economic zone. Fishing militias form floating barriers miles long. Military jets regularly harass Taiwanese planes at the edge of its airspace.
Earlier this summer, a Chinese submarine fired a ballistic missile about 4,500 miles into the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone, which was established in a treaty whose protocols China signed in 1987. You don't have to be a hawk to find that threatening.
Just like those who signed the U.N. Charter, Beijing's rulers are mirroring abroad what they practice at home. The friction between centralizing authoritarianism and devolved cooperation risks more than an air accident.
Until recently, Beijing's officials simultaneously ran four of the 15 U.N. specialized agencies -- more than any other country -- and more when you count the client states that vote as directed. Those seats are being used to undermine both Britain's reach and America's defense.
Britain wrongly agreed to surrender the Chagos Islands, a crucial U.S. air base in the Indian Ocean, in part due to worries that the International Telecommunication Union, an agency run until 2022 by a Beijing nominee, might one day be used to challenge control of the radio spectrum that keeps the outpost operating. The argument was that once one U.N. agency denies British jurisdiction, other claims would surely follow.
This is the python's creep of encirclement. China is using organizations built to defend rights to exploit weakness.
That's why Kinmen's airport episode matters -- not for the island itself but for the message it sends. A threatened judgment scared Britain's diplomats out defending British territory. A stated policy scared ICAO members from defending Taiwan's place in the agency and protecting air traffic.
One can recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe they are part of one country while also recognizing that each administration has jurisdiction over its own affairs. And at the same time, know that the order that built today's prosperity can be defended without taking a position on Taiwan's final status.
A carefully worded acceptance of a one-China policy, which most of the West recognizes, forces no one to reject Taiwan's participation in international institutions.
Diplomacy must be able to manage ambiguity. But it should not tolerate bullying, especially when the bullying threatens us all.
Read in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/09/04/how-china-uses-global-institutions-isolate-taiwan/).
* * *
Tom Tugendhat is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute. He is also the member of parliament for Tonbridge, Kent, in the United Kingdom.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/obscure-airport-tells-you-lot-about-china-tom-tugendhat
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China
A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power.
-
There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a story ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to the Washington Post: * * * This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power. - There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a storywarning the world about China's ambition and what it's prepared to risk to achieve it.
Kinmen Island is known for its seafood and rural calm. It is home to some 140,000 people who remained loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, the nationalist leader in China's civil war. The island helped hold back the Communist Red Army, so today it is part of Taiwan, as the Republic of China is commonly known, and they have their own small airport.
The other side of a strait so narrow a dissident once swam across is the Chinese city of Xiamen. There, the new airport is being built. Xiamen's growing population of 5 million is demanding better connections, and the new international hub expected to open later this year will meet that demand.
So far, so normal. Civilian airports often sit close together -- in this case six miles apart -- and have overlapping airspace. That causes problems, but the solutions are now standard: share data, agree on procedures and set up a hotline. Taiwan's civil aviation authority has been asking to do just that for years. It has been ignored.
But this isn't some bureaucratic oversight. It isn't about airports or airspace. It's about control and China's attempts to undermine Taipei and exercise control over the rebel province, and about how it wants to shape the world.
Taiwan attended the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization as a guest in 2013. It participated in the World Health Assembly as an observer from 2009 through 2016. Beijing subsequently blocked Taiwan's participation in both bodies, claiming the one-China policy meant it was the sole voice for both the People's Republic and the Republic of China.
Both of these decisions have made life more dangerous -- for everyone. Excluding Taiwan from the international airline safety body makes Chinese airliners less safe, too. And during covid, Taiwan was one of the first countries to respond successfully; its removal from the WHA puts us all at risk.
Global safety is not China's primary concern. Suborning international institutions to its own ends is.
Every empire inherits the roads its predecessors built and shapes them to its own nature. In the ashes of World War II, the empire the victors built is, by historical standards, strange. They built structures not to extract tribute but to export hope.
Democratic accountability, open trade and rules instead of force were a reflection of our predecessors' desires to avoid war at all costs by ensuring at least tacit consent from every nation and sharing prosperity to embed peace. The United Nations and other global institutions were created to diffuse power under the norms the victorious powers made.
China, then governed by the nationalists, was a founding member.
With notable exceptions, this generation succeeded. The world has been more prosperous and peaceful in the past 80 years than in almost any other previous tract of time. Few have profited more than the People's Republic. But Beijing is now destroying the platform on which its wealth is built and returning to an imperial system Chairman Xi's predecessors in the Forbidden City would have recognized: tribute and coercion, not cooperation and engagement.
Chinese coast guard ships ram and water-cannon Philippine vessels resupplying a garrison inside Manila's own exclusive economic zone. Fishing militias form floating barriers miles long. Military jets regularly harass Taiwanese planes at the edge of its airspace.
Earlier this summer, a Chinese submarine fired a ballistic missile about 4,500 miles into the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone, which was established in a treaty whose protocols China signed in 1987. You don't have to be a hawk to find that threatening.
Just like those who signed the U.N. Charter, Beijing's rulers are mirroring abroad what they practice at home. The friction between centralizing authoritarianism and devolved cooperation risks more than an air accident.
Until recently, Beijing's officials simultaneously ran four of the 15 U.N. specialized agencies -- more than any other country -- and more when you count the client states that vote as directed. Those seats are being used to undermine both Britain's reach and America's defense.
Britain wrongly agreed to surrender the Chagos Islands, a crucial U.S. air base in the Indian Ocean, in part due to worries that the International Telecommunication Union, an agency run until 2022 by a Beijing nominee, might one day be used to challenge control of the radio spectrum that keeps the outpost operating. The argument was that once one U.N. agency denies British jurisdiction, other claims would surely follow.
This is the python's creep of encirclement. China is using organizations built to defend rights to exploit weakness.
That's why Kinmen's airport episode matters -- not for the island itself but for the message it sends. A threatened judgment scared Britain's diplomats out defending British territory. A stated policy scared ICAO members from defending Taiwan's place in the agency and protecting air traffic.
One can recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe they are part of one country while also recognizing that each administration has jurisdiction over its own affairs. And at the same time, know that the order that built today's prosperity can be defended without taking a position on Taiwan's final status.
A carefully worded acceptance of a one-China policy, which most of the West recognizes, forces no one to reject Taiwan's participation in international institutions.
Diplomacy must be able to manage ambiguity. But it should not tolerate bullying, especially when the bullying threatens us all.
Read in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/09/04/how-china-uses-global-institutions-isolate-taiwan/).
* * *
Tom Tugendhat is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute. He is also the member of parliament for Tonbridge, Kent, in the United Kingdom.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/obscure-airport-tells-you-lot-about-china-tom-tugendhat
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to City Journal Entitled 'West Faces Two Islams'
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by research fellow Zineb Riboua to City Journal:
* * *
The West Faces Two Islams
A long-forecast civilizational struggle increasingly plays out not in the Middle East but in Western countries themselves.
-
Published in 1996, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations predicted that, with the end of the Cold War, global conflict would center on the divide between Islamic and Western civilizations. Thirty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by research fellow Zineb Riboua to City Journal: * * * The West Faces Two Islams A long-forecast civilizational struggle increasingly plays out not in the Middle East but in Western countries themselves. - Published in 1996, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations predicted that, with the end of the Cold War, global conflict would center on the divide between Islamic and Western civilizations. Thirtyyears later, however, and a quarter-century after 9/11, the principal fault line runs through Islam itself, separating two ideological worlds.
Within Western diaspora communities, Islam has become intertwined with Third-Worldism and postcolonial theory, both of which see Western imperialism as the great evil of the modern era. Meantime, much of the Middle East and Asia has turned toward pragmatism, normalization, and acceptance of Western predominance as a geopolitical reality. The gap between these rival outlooks now exceeds the divide between Islam and the West that Huntington anticipated when his book first appeared.
After 9/11, American strategy focused on political Islam. Al-Qaeda and its eventual Islamic State offshoot, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran's Islamic Republic differed sharply in theology and tactics but shared a revolutionary ambition to overturn the Western led order. Today, that Islamist challenge has fragmented. Al-Qaeda has splintered, the Islamic State has lost its caliphate, Egypt has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Gulf monarchies increasingly treat Islamist movements as threats.
Iran remains the principal revolutionary holdout. The Islamic Republic defines itself through opposition to the United States and Israel while sustaining a regional network of armed proxies. Yet the foundations of that project have weakened. Hezbollah has suffered major battlefield losses, Iranian influence in Syria has contracted, nationwide protests in 2019 and 2022 exposed deep domestic disillusionment, and the ideals of the 1979 Iranian Revolution command little enthusiasm among younger generations. Tehran still exports its revolutionary ideology, but its influence across the broader Middle East continues to wane.
Much of the Middle East has chosen a different course. The Abraham Accords institutionalized security cooperation and trade with Israel. Morocco expanded ties with Jerusalem to strengthen diplomacy, defense, and economic growth. The United Arab Emirates built partnerships spanning artificial intelligence, aviation, finance, and defense. Saudi Arabia evaluates normalization through the lens of security guarantees, advanced technology, its Vision 2030 modernization program, and regional stability. Across the region, partnerships are judged less by ideology than by the capabilities they deliver.
This transformation reflects a broader shift in how Arab and Muslim states understand statecraft. Scientific discovery, industrialization, and institutional innovation have long rewarded societies that adopt the world's most advanced technologies, regardless of their origin. Middle Eastern governments have embraced the same logic after experiencing the costs of resisting Western innovations--most notably, the Ottoman Empire's centuries-long restriction on printing in Arabic script until 1727, which left the region lagging in the spread of knowledge long after Europe had surged ahead.
That historical stagnation gave rise to a century of Arab intellectual discourse centered on the crisis of modernity: the painful question of why Islamic societies had fallen behind the West. Thinkers such as Shakib Arslan, in works like Our Decline: Its Causes and Remedies, diagnosed cultural isolation and technological backwardness as the root of the problem and urged selective emulation of Western advances. Leading-edge technologies have become strategic assets because they determine military capability, economic competitiveness, and geopolitical influence. Leaders once legitimized through anti-Western resistance now measure success through modernization.
Western intellectual life has followed a different trajectory. Universities interpret the Middle East through postcolonial theory, with Edward Said's Orientalism becoming one of the field's canonical texts. Within that framework, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as the paradigmatic story of settler colonialism and resistance. After October 7, these ideas spread beyond academia into campus protests, divestment campaigns, professional associations, philanthropic organizations, and elections. Palestine became the organizing symbol for broader critiques of American influence, capitalism, and the liberal international order. Muslim identity merged with narratives of dispossession and resistance.
The consequences extend well beyond the campus. Anti-Israel activism once largely confined to Islamist organizations now operates comfortably within progressive politics. Zohran Mamdani's appointment of Ramzi Kassem--who represented Ahmed al-Darbi after his conviction for the al-Qaeda-linked MV Limburg bombing--as New York City's chief counsel illustrates that institutional migration. University encampments, municipal resolutions invoking "from the river to the sea," and coalitions organized around decolonization reflect the same evolution. Revolutionary Islam now finds expression through postcolonial theory rather than religious doctrine. Iranian-aligned clerical networks in places such as Dearborn, Michigan, frame public life around opposition to American influence and solidarity with Tehran.
The same rift has hardened in Europe, where diaspora activism contrasts with the pragmatism of Middle Eastern governments. Universities and progressive institutions have embraced postcolonialism, entrenching narratives of permanent resistance and contributing to a sharp rise in anti-Semitism, particularly on British campuses, where incidents increased more than fourfold after October 7. Gulf states view these environments as incubators of radicalization. The UAE, for example, removed British universities from its state scholarship program--even though nearly 9,000 Emirati students had studied in the U.K. in recent years--while still funding study in Israel.
These trajectories suggest sustained confrontation. The version of Islam that has emerged within Western universities, activist groups, and progressive politics clashes with both the Western societies in which it operates and the Middle Eastern governments now abandoning revolutionary politics.
Three forces drive this collision. First, the opposing sides draw political legitimacy from different sources. Much diaspora activism is rooted in historical grievance, anticolonial struggle, and opposition to Western influence, producing an anti-system worldview in which cooperation with the U.S.-led order can itself signify submission or betrayal. Pragmatic Middle Eastern governments increasingly see cooperation with the United States and Israel as a means to strengthen security, attract investment, acquire technology, and accelerate economic growth. This divide now plays out across Western democracies, where boycotts, campus protests, municipal resolutions, and electoral campaigns target both Arab governments pursuing these partnerships and the Western institutions that support them.
Second, priorities have diverged between governments in the Middle East and North Africa and some of their diasporas in the West. Regional governments increasingly prioritize investment, technology, military strength, and economic growth. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for example, are investing heavily in AI and data centers. Meantime, several pro-Palestinian movements in the West have expanded their campaigns from opposition to Israeli technology contracts to opposition to the data centers and cloud infrastructure supporting them. The divide increasingly places diaspora activism at odds with the economic and technological priorities of regional governments and complicates relations with the United States.
Third, Western institutions amplify the diaspora vision far beyond its demographic weight. Universities, philanthropic foundations, professional associations, media organizations, and segments of electoral politics have absorbed postcolonial ideas that recast Middle Eastern affairs through the lens of decolonization and racial justice. By contrast, Gulf restrictions on Islamist financing and expanding cooperation with Israel reflect a deliberate effort to contain the same ideological currents sweeping across Western public life. The United States and Europe thus face pressure from two directions: an ideological movement extending its institutional reach at home; and regional allies that regard that same movement as a direct threat.
Huntington was right that culture would matter after the Cold War, but he misidentified the principal fault line. Political evolution within civilizations matters more than the boundaries between them.
The United States will continue to confront Islamism in the twenty-first century. But the principal challenge will not come from Huntington's civilizational Islam, but instead from the version the West has itself helped cultivate: a diaspora Islam molded by Third-Worldism, postcolonial grievance, and a politics of permanent resistance.
Read in City Journal (https://www.city-journal.org/article/islam-middle-east-iran-israel-west).
* * *
Zineb Riboua is a research fellow with Hudson Institute's Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East. She specializes in Chinese and Russian involvement in the Middle East, the Sahel, and North Africa, great power competition in the region, and Israeli-Arab relations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/west-faces-two-islams-zineb-riboua
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
The West Faces Two Islams
A long-forecast civilizational struggle increasingly plays out not in the Middle East but in Western countries themselves.
-
Published in 1996, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations predicted that, with the end of the Cold War, global conflict would center on the divide between Islamic and Western civilizations. Thirty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by research fellow Zineb Riboua to City Journal: * * * The West Faces Two Islams A long-forecast civilizational struggle increasingly plays out not in the Middle East but in Western countries themselves. - Published in 1996, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations predicted that, with the end of the Cold War, global conflict would center on the divide between Islamic and Western civilizations. Thirtyyears later, however, and a quarter-century after 9/11, the principal fault line runs through Islam itself, separating two ideological worlds.
Within Western diaspora communities, Islam has become intertwined with Third-Worldism and postcolonial theory, both of which see Western imperialism as the great evil of the modern era. Meantime, much of the Middle East and Asia has turned toward pragmatism, normalization, and acceptance of Western predominance as a geopolitical reality. The gap between these rival outlooks now exceeds the divide between Islam and the West that Huntington anticipated when his book first appeared.
After 9/11, American strategy focused on political Islam. Al-Qaeda and its eventual Islamic State offshoot, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran's Islamic Republic differed sharply in theology and tactics but shared a revolutionary ambition to overturn the Western led order. Today, that Islamist challenge has fragmented. Al-Qaeda has splintered, the Islamic State has lost its caliphate, Egypt has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Gulf monarchies increasingly treat Islamist movements as threats.
Iran remains the principal revolutionary holdout. The Islamic Republic defines itself through opposition to the United States and Israel while sustaining a regional network of armed proxies. Yet the foundations of that project have weakened. Hezbollah has suffered major battlefield losses, Iranian influence in Syria has contracted, nationwide protests in 2019 and 2022 exposed deep domestic disillusionment, and the ideals of the 1979 Iranian Revolution command little enthusiasm among younger generations. Tehran still exports its revolutionary ideology, but its influence across the broader Middle East continues to wane.
Much of the Middle East has chosen a different course. The Abraham Accords institutionalized security cooperation and trade with Israel. Morocco expanded ties with Jerusalem to strengthen diplomacy, defense, and economic growth. The United Arab Emirates built partnerships spanning artificial intelligence, aviation, finance, and defense. Saudi Arabia evaluates normalization through the lens of security guarantees, advanced technology, its Vision 2030 modernization program, and regional stability. Across the region, partnerships are judged less by ideology than by the capabilities they deliver.
This transformation reflects a broader shift in how Arab and Muslim states understand statecraft. Scientific discovery, industrialization, and institutional innovation have long rewarded societies that adopt the world's most advanced technologies, regardless of their origin. Middle Eastern governments have embraced the same logic after experiencing the costs of resisting Western innovations--most notably, the Ottoman Empire's centuries-long restriction on printing in Arabic script until 1727, which left the region lagging in the spread of knowledge long after Europe had surged ahead.
That historical stagnation gave rise to a century of Arab intellectual discourse centered on the crisis of modernity: the painful question of why Islamic societies had fallen behind the West. Thinkers such as Shakib Arslan, in works like Our Decline: Its Causes and Remedies, diagnosed cultural isolation and technological backwardness as the root of the problem and urged selective emulation of Western advances. Leading-edge technologies have become strategic assets because they determine military capability, economic competitiveness, and geopolitical influence. Leaders once legitimized through anti-Western resistance now measure success through modernization.
Western intellectual life has followed a different trajectory. Universities interpret the Middle East through postcolonial theory, with Edward Said's Orientalism becoming one of the field's canonical texts. Within that framework, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as the paradigmatic story of settler colonialism and resistance. After October 7, these ideas spread beyond academia into campus protests, divestment campaigns, professional associations, philanthropic organizations, and elections. Palestine became the organizing symbol for broader critiques of American influence, capitalism, and the liberal international order. Muslim identity merged with narratives of dispossession and resistance.
The consequences extend well beyond the campus. Anti-Israel activism once largely confined to Islamist organizations now operates comfortably within progressive politics. Zohran Mamdani's appointment of Ramzi Kassem--who represented Ahmed al-Darbi after his conviction for the al-Qaeda-linked MV Limburg bombing--as New York City's chief counsel illustrates that institutional migration. University encampments, municipal resolutions invoking "from the river to the sea," and coalitions organized around decolonization reflect the same evolution. Revolutionary Islam now finds expression through postcolonial theory rather than religious doctrine. Iranian-aligned clerical networks in places such as Dearborn, Michigan, frame public life around opposition to American influence and solidarity with Tehran.
The same rift has hardened in Europe, where diaspora activism contrasts with the pragmatism of Middle Eastern governments. Universities and progressive institutions have embraced postcolonialism, entrenching narratives of permanent resistance and contributing to a sharp rise in anti-Semitism, particularly on British campuses, where incidents increased more than fourfold after October 7. Gulf states view these environments as incubators of radicalization. The UAE, for example, removed British universities from its state scholarship program--even though nearly 9,000 Emirati students had studied in the U.K. in recent years--while still funding study in Israel.
These trajectories suggest sustained confrontation. The version of Islam that has emerged within Western universities, activist groups, and progressive politics clashes with both the Western societies in which it operates and the Middle Eastern governments now abandoning revolutionary politics.
Three forces drive this collision. First, the opposing sides draw political legitimacy from different sources. Much diaspora activism is rooted in historical grievance, anticolonial struggle, and opposition to Western influence, producing an anti-system worldview in which cooperation with the U.S.-led order can itself signify submission or betrayal. Pragmatic Middle Eastern governments increasingly see cooperation with the United States and Israel as a means to strengthen security, attract investment, acquire technology, and accelerate economic growth. This divide now plays out across Western democracies, where boycotts, campus protests, municipal resolutions, and electoral campaigns target both Arab governments pursuing these partnerships and the Western institutions that support them.
Second, priorities have diverged between governments in the Middle East and North Africa and some of their diasporas in the West. Regional governments increasingly prioritize investment, technology, military strength, and economic growth. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for example, are investing heavily in AI and data centers. Meantime, several pro-Palestinian movements in the West have expanded their campaigns from opposition to Israeli technology contracts to opposition to the data centers and cloud infrastructure supporting them. The divide increasingly places diaspora activism at odds with the economic and technological priorities of regional governments and complicates relations with the United States.
Third, Western institutions amplify the diaspora vision far beyond its demographic weight. Universities, philanthropic foundations, professional associations, media organizations, and segments of electoral politics have absorbed postcolonial ideas that recast Middle Eastern affairs through the lens of decolonization and racial justice. By contrast, Gulf restrictions on Islamist financing and expanding cooperation with Israel reflect a deliberate effort to contain the same ideological currents sweeping across Western public life. The United States and Europe thus face pressure from two directions: an ideological movement extending its institutional reach at home; and regional allies that regard that same movement as a direct threat.
Huntington was right that culture would matter after the Cold War, but he misidentified the principal fault line. Political evolution within civilizations matters more than the boundaries between them.
The United States will continue to confront Islamism in the twenty-first century. But the principal challenge will not come from Huntington's civilizational Islam, but instead from the version the West has itself helped cultivate: a diaspora Islam molded by Third-Worldism, postcolonial grievance, and a politics of permanent resistance.
Read in City Journal (https://www.city-journal.org/article/islam-middle-east-iran-israel-west).
* * *
Zineb Riboua is a research fellow with Hudson Institute's Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East. She specializes in Chinese and Russian involvement in the Middle East, the Sahel, and North Africa, great power competition in the region, and Israeli-Arab relations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/west-faces-two-islams-zineb-riboua
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Arab News: Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight Over the Falklands
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News:
* * *
Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands
Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands.
The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereignty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News: * * * Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereigntyover the islands, based on historical precedent and, more importantly, the fact that their roughly 3,600 inhabitants overwhelmingly want to remain British. Argentina, meanwhile, claims the islands as its own and regards Britain as an occupying power.
The US has traditionally sympathized with the British, even providing crucial support to the UK after Argentina invaded and occupied the islands for 74 days in 1982. President Donald Trump has now said that his administration is reviewing America's position, following earlier reports about Washington's frustration over Britain's perceived lack of support during the war against Iran.
The timing is puzzling. There is already enough tension in the transatlantic community over the US interest in Greenland and the trade dispute with the EU. Injecting another unnecessary crisis into an already fraught relationship makes little sense, especially when the transatlantic community needs unity and cohesion.
More importantly, it is difficult to understand the claim that the UK has failed to provide meaningful assistance during US military operations against Iran.
Britain has allowed the US to use its bases and overseas territories in support of the recent Iran operations. For example, Gibraltar hosted a US nuclear submarine visit during the conflict. At the time it was thought that this was done to signal a message to Tehran. The US has also long used British bases in Cyprus for intelligence gathering. Most importantly, the US was allowed to use Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to conduct bombing runs into Iran.
The UK has also allowed the US to use RAF Fairford for operations connected to Iran. British forces have played an important role across the region defending countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan against Iranian missiles and drones.
The American use of British bases is particularly significant because military cooperation has been one of the foundations of the US-UK special relationship for generations. During his famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill described the close military links that should underpin the relationship between the two countries, including the use of each other's military bases around the globe.
Therefore, it seems particularly hypocritical for the Trump administration to rely on British bases and overseas territories during its military operations against Iran, while simultaneously questioning British control over another overseas territory in the South Atlantic.
History also makes a compelling case for the British position.
The first recorded siting of the Falkland Islands was made by an English sailor in 1690. At the time, the islands were uninhabited, and there is no historical or archaeological evidence that an indigenous population had previously lived there.
Britain made its first formal claim to the islands in 1765 and maintained settlements there sporadically during the following decades. In 1833, a British force arrived and removed an Argentine military penal colony that established itself on one of the Falkland's 776 islands. Even though the soldiers were expelled, civilians were allowed to remain -- and most did.
The islands have been under continuous British administration since 1833, with the exception of 74 days in 1982 during the war.
But however interesting the historical claims might be, the history is secondary to the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands.
In 2013, Falkland islanders held a referendum on their status. Turnout was 92 percent, and 99.8 percent voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. Only three people voted against. The referendum was overseen by international observers, even from Latin America, and was considered free and fair.
What matters most is not the opinion in London, Washington or Buenos Aires, but the opinion in Stanley, the territory's capital. For as long as the Falkland islanders want to remain British their wishes should be respected.
The Falkland Islands are also a very emotive political issue in the UK. Support for the islanders' right to remain British stretches across almost the entire British political spectrum. Picking a fight with London over the islands would therefore needlessly create a crisis with one of America's closest allies.
Even viewed narrowly through the lens of American interests, changing the US position makes little sense. There is also a straightforward strategic argument for maintaining the status quo. The Trump administration has proposed stability and security in the western hemisphere. British control over the islands does just that. With the British presence, there is no immediate threat of armed conflict due to the UK's military presence on the islands deterring Argentine aggression. There is also no civil unrest or oppressed population there demanding political change. If Argentina gained control, this would not be the case.
The US was founded on the principle that people should have a say in how they are governed. Applying that principle to the Falkland Islands is a no-brainer. If the islanders want to remain British, Washington should respect their decision.
At a moment when the US needs dependable allies, picking an unnecessary fight with the UK over the Falklands would accomplish nothing. America should support the wishes of the islanders and recognize British control of the territory. This is the best way to maintain stability in the South Atlantic and the western hemisphere.
Now is not the time to create a problem where none exists.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/opinion/trump-is-picking-a-needless-fight-over-the-falklands-3000475).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, where he analyzes European security, transatlantic relations, and foreign policy with a focus on Europe, Eurasia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Arctic security, and Russian imperialism. For his work in support of Ukrainian sovereignty, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded him the Order of Merit, Third Class, in August 2024.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/trump-picking-needless-fight-over-falklands-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands
Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands.
The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereignty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News: * * * Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereigntyover the islands, based on historical precedent and, more importantly, the fact that their roughly 3,600 inhabitants overwhelmingly want to remain British. Argentina, meanwhile, claims the islands as its own and regards Britain as an occupying power.
The US has traditionally sympathized with the British, even providing crucial support to the UK after Argentina invaded and occupied the islands for 74 days in 1982. President Donald Trump has now said that his administration is reviewing America's position, following earlier reports about Washington's frustration over Britain's perceived lack of support during the war against Iran.
The timing is puzzling. There is already enough tension in the transatlantic community over the US interest in Greenland and the trade dispute with the EU. Injecting another unnecessary crisis into an already fraught relationship makes little sense, especially when the transatlantic community needs unity and cohesion.
More importantly, it is difficult to understand the claim that the UK has failed to provide meaningful assistance during US military operations against Iran.
Britain has allowed the US to use its bases and overseas territories in support of the recent Iran operations. For example, Gibraltar hosted a US nuclear submarine visit during the conflict. At the time it was thought that this was done to signal a message to Tehran. The US has also long used British bases in Cyprus for intelligence gathering. Most importantly, the US was allowed to use Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to conduct bombing runs into Iran.
The UK has also allowed the US to use RAF Fairford for operations connected to Iran. British forces have played an important role across the region defending countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan against Iranian missiles and drones.
The American use of British bases is particularly significant because military cooperation has been one of the foundations of the US-UK special relationship for generations. During his famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill described the close military links that should underpin the relationship between the two countries, including the use of each other's military bases around the globe.
Therefore, it seems particularly hypocritical for the Trump administration to rely on British bases and overseas territories during its military operations against Iran, while simultaneously questioning British control over another overseas territory in the South Atlantic.
History also makes a compelling case for the British position.
The first recorded siting of the Falkland Islands was made by an English sailor in 1690. At the time, the islands were uninhabited, and there is no historical or archaeological evidence that an indigenous population had previously lived there.
Britain made its first formal claim to the islands in 1765 and maintained settlements there sporadically during the following decades. In 1833, a British force arrived and removed an Argentine military penal colony that established itself on one of the Falkland's 776 islands. Even though the soldiers were expelled, civilians were allowed to remain -- and most did.
The islands have been under continuous British administration since 1833, with the exception of 74 days in 1982 during the war.
But however interesting the historical claims might be, the history is secondary to the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands.
In 2013, Falkland islanders held a referendum on their status. Turnout was 92 percent, and 99.8 percent voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. Only three people voted against. The referendum was overseen by international observers, even from Latin America, and was considered free and fair.
What matters most is not the opinion in London, Washington or Buenos Aires, but the opinion in Stanley, the territory's capital. For as long as the Falkland islanders want to remain British their wishes should be respected.
The Falkland Islands are also a very emotive political issue in the UK. Support for the islanders' right to remain British stretches across almost the entire British political spectrum. Picking a fight with London over the islands would therefore needlessly create a crisis with one of America's closest allies.
Even viewed narrowly through the lens of American interests, changing the US position makes little sense. There is also a straightforward strategic argument for maintaining the status quo. The Trump administration has proposed stability and security in the western hemisphere. British control over the islands does just that. With the British presence, there is no immediate threat of armed conflict due to the UK's military presence on the islands deterring Argentine aggression. There is also no civil unrest or oppressed population there demanding political change. If Argentina gained control, this would not be the case.
The US was founded on the principle that people should have a say in how they are governed. Applying that principle to the Falkland Islands is a no-brainer. If the islanders want to remain British, Washington should respect their decision.
At a moment when the US needs dependable allies, picking an unnecessary fight with the UK over the Falklands would accomplish nothing. America should support the wishes of the islanders and recognize British control of the territory. This is the best way to maintain stability in the South Atlantic and the western hemisphere.
Now is not the time to create a problem where none exists.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/opinion/trump-is-picking-a-needless-fight-over-the-falklands-3000475).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, where he analyzes European security, transatlantic relations, and foreign policy with a focus on Europe, Eurasia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Arctic security, and Russian imperialism. For his work in support of Ukrainian sovereignty, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded him the Order of Merit, Third Class, in August 2024.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/trump-picking-needless-fight-over-falklands-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: To Save Medicare, Congress Must Cut Fraud
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 5 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
To save Medicare, Congress must cut fraud
Written by Matt Dean
From Rochester to the communities around Red Lake Reservation, Minnesotans depend on reliable, local care options. Our state has earned a reputation as one of the healthiest in the nation, with strong health outcomes and lower costs compared to similar states.
But that success is at risk. Minnesota is facing a growing physician shortage, ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 5 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * To save Medicare, Congress must cut fraud Written by Matt Dean From Rochester to the communities around Red Lake Reservation, Minnesotans depend on reliable, local care options. Our state has earned a reputation as one of the healthiest in the nation, with strong health outcomes and lower costs compared to similar states. But that success is at risk. Minnesota is facing a growing physician shortage,with an estimated 19% of Minnesota's medical workforce planning to retire or switch careers in the next few years. For Minnesota families, that will mean longer wait times and farther drives for essential medical care.
What's worse is that federal policies hammered out in Washington risk adding fuel to the fire of our statewide doctor shortage. One in five Minnesotans rely on Medicare to cover their doctor visits, but payment to physicians through this vital program has been cut year after year, compounding the financial pressure on local practices.
As Biden-era inflation ran rampant since 2021, physicians have faced repeated reimbursement cuts from Medicare. President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill offered a welcome one-year reprieve for physicians, but this year, doctors are once again staring down another cut. It's time Congress addresses this chronic issue, which seriously threatens competition in healthcare, disrupts patient choice, and harms our rural communities.
Unlike other healthcare providers, independent physicians do not receive automatic, annual inflationary updates like hospitals do. As costs rise, physicians are being forced to do more with less. As a result, many practices must choose between operating at a loss, reducing the number of Medicare patients they see, merging with a health system, or closing altogether.
Minnesota is expected to see population growth in several rural counties by 2055, with adults older than 65 outnumbering younger populations. This drastic increase, coupled with an increasing number of older adults, requires better accessibility to local doctors, especially primary care. If Medicare can't cover the cost of providing care, there will be fewer doctors to serve Minnesota's growing rural population, furthering medical deserts and the death of rural health access.
Minnesota's patients and physicians deserve better. We can no longer tolerate a system that imposes government price caps on care. By failing to meet the cost of maintaining a practice, the current system ignores the free market and discourages doctors from staying in private practice, leading to unwarranted mergers with large health systems. Worse, it could force doctors out of the field altogether or forego expanding into rural Minnesota.
This type of payment system consistently undercuts physician practices, discourages entrepreneurship, and accelerates healthcare consolidation. Worst of all, it leaves patients with fewer local options when they need it most.
States should urge Congress to build a system that adequately and efficiently reimburses physicians under Medicare. Lawmakers could really help patients by moving beyond annual short-term "fixes" to Medicare cuts and advance legislation to cut fraud, the most preventable form of medical cost inflation. When asked how to best combat the affordability crisis, Minnesotans selected "cutting fraud" as their top priority. Ultimately, this will help stabilize physician practices, address the shortage of doctors across the country, and protect Americans' access to care.
Minnesota's physicians are counting on Congress. Achieving long-term Medicare payment reform gives physicians the support they need and the help Minnesota patients deserve.
* * *
Matt Dean is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
matt.dean@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/to-save-medicare-congress-must-cut-fraud/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
To save Medicare, Congress must cut fraud
Written by Matt Dean
From Rochester to the communities around Red Lake Reservation, Minnesotans depend on reliable, local care options. Our state has earned a reputation as one of the healthiest in the nation, with strong health outcomes and lower costs compared to similar states.
But that success is at risk. Minnesota is facing a growing physician shortage, ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 5 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * To save Medicare, Congress must cut fraud Written by Matt Dean From Rochester to the communities around Red Lake Reservation, Minnesotans depend on reliable, local care options. Our state has earned a reputation as one of the healthiest in the nation, with strong health outcomes and lower costs compared to similar states. But that success is at risk. Minnesota is facing a growing physician shortage,with an estimated 19% of Minnesota's medical workforce planning to retire or switch careers in the next few years. For Minnesota families, that will mean longer wait times and farther drives for essential medical care.
What's worse is that federal policies hammered out in Washington risk adding fuel to the fire of our statewide doctor shortage. One in five Minnesotans rely on Medicare to cover their doctor visits, but payment to physicians through this vital program has been cut year after year, compounding the financial pressure on local practices.
As Biden-era inflation ran rampant since 2021, physicians have faced repeated reimbursement cuts from Medicare. President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill offered a welcome one-year reprieve for physicians, but this year, doctors are once again staring down another cut. It's time Congress addresses this chronic issue, which seriously threatens competition in healthcare, disrupts patient choice, and harms our rural communities.
Unlike other healthcare providers, independent physicians do not receive automatic, annual inflationary updates like hospitals do. As costs rise, physicians are being forced to do more with less. As a result, many practices must choose between operating at a loss, reducing the number of Medicare patients they see, merging with a health system, or closing altogether.
Minnesota is expected to see population growth in several rural counties by 2055, with adults older than 65 outnumbering younger populations. This drastic increase, coupled with an increasing number of older adults, requires better accessibility to local doctors, especially primary care. If Medicare can't cover the cost of providing care, there will be fewer doctors to serve Minnesota's growing rural population, furthering medical deserts and the death of rural health access.
Minnesota's patients and physicians deserve better. We can no longer tolerate a system that imposes government price caps on care. By failing to meet the cost of maintaining a practice, the current system ignores the free market and discourages doctors from staying in private practice, leading to unwarranted mergers with large health systems. Worse, it could force doctors out of the field altogether or forego expanding into rural Minnesota.
This type of payment system consistently undercuts physician practices, discourages entrepreneurship, and accelerates healthcare consolidation. Worst of all, it leaves patients with fewer local options when they need it most.
States should urge Congress to build a system that adequately and efficiently reimburses physicians under Medicare. Lawmakers could really help patients by moving beyond annual short-term "fixes" to Medicare cuts and advance legislation to cut fraud, the most preventable form of medical cost inflation. When asked how to best combat the affordability crisis, Minnesotans selected "cutting fraud" as their top priority. Ultimately, this will help stabilize physician practices, address the shortage of doctors across the country, and protect Americans' access to care.
Minnesota's physicians are counting on Congress. Achieving long-term Medicare payment reform gives physicians the support they need and the help Minnesota patients deserve.
* * *
Matt Dean is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
matt.dean@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/to-save-medicare-congress-must-cut-fraud/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: It's Time for Teacher Salary Reform. What are Minnesota's Options?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 5 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
It's time for teacher salary reform. What are Minnesota's options?
Written by Josiah Padley
Minnesota teacher pay is broken. It's time to refresh the entire system and pay teachers as professionals.
The average Minnesota teacher makes a salary of $77,655 (plus benefits), according to the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB). This number may be higher than many would ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 5 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * It's time for teacher salary reform. What are Minnesota's options? Written by Josiah Padley Minnesota teacher pay is broken. It's time to refresh the entire system and pay teachers as professionals. The average Minnesota teacher makes a salary of $77,655 (plus benefits), according to the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB). This number may be higher than many wouldassume, but it's still not as high as what teachers could be paid if Minnesota restructured. Merit pay and salary floors are two high-quality reforms that should be considered.
There's money in the budget for salary reform; the state is projected to spend $25.9 billion on education in 2026 and 2027, more than any other budget priority. But that money hasn't been funneled directly to teachers in the past. As my colleague Catrin Wigfall has written,:
"Statewide, per-pupil dollars adjusted for inflation increased 25 percent from 2002 to 2020. But the average teacher salary declined nearly 4 percent (3.7 percent), according to calculations by the Reason Foundation."
So, if per student revenue is increasing, but teacher salaries are declining, where's the money going?
One answer might be that Minnesota has been hiring far more staffers than in years past. My colleague Catrin Wigfall found that district administrative staff in Minnesota public schools is up over 132 percent since 2000, and principal and assistant principal growth over the same time period is up 50 percent. Student growth and teacher growth haven't kept pace, at 2 percent and 5 percent.
Wigfall's work shows that when school spending goes up, Minnesota districts don't increase teacher salaries. They simply hire more staff. This creates an ecosystem of program coordinators, paraprofessionals, district literacy coaches, and other figures. Some of these are needed positions, but some certainly aren't. The tradeoff of a new staff member that can make teachers' lives easier is that those teachers then can't be paid more.
The old Minnesota tactic of simply raising general revenue and hoping it'll trickle down to teacher salaries doesn't work. Reforming average teacher pay in Minnesota will require a targeted piece of legislature.
Changing tactics
When it comes to student achievement, research has said that teachers matter more than any other aspect of schooling. If Minnesota wants to get serious about reversing poor academic norms, the state will have to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. Efforts don't need to focus on firing low-performing teachers, which has often proved unpopular and ineffective elsewhere. Instead, Minnesota should ensure that the best of the best are happy where they work. Just after the pandemic, one in three Minnesota teachers said they were considering quitting their jobs. In a low-trust, high-flux environment, it's imperative that Minnesota hang on to quality instructors.
Salary reform retains quality teachers, but it could also attract different types of candidates. According to PELSB data, only one in four (25.5 percent) of Minnesota's teachers are men. About 86 percent (85.7) of those male teachers are white men. It's probable that the stigma attached to perceived low salaries causes men to avoid the teaching profession. That's a shame; young men of all races thrive in an education system that provides male role models, preferably when those role models share life experiences.
Minnesota currently provides grant money for teacher preparation programs through the Grow Your Own (GYO) Grant. GYO programs are currently facing legal complaints for the requirement that 80 percent of awarded funds go to candidates of color or Indigenous candidates. Assuming that GYO will respond to the worrying complaints by removing race as a grant qualification, it's not a bad way for districts to further the recruiting process. But a GYO Grant only covers a prep program. It doesn't sell the teaching profession as a worthy career choice that rewards individual effort. Salary reform could do that.
To recruit high-quality, diverse candidates, it's necessary to professionalize teaching --treating it as a rigorous, important job with opportunities for recognition, not a life donated to a missionary-esque charity cause. Treating teachers like professionals can go a long way for teacher recruiting and retention. In the long run, that improves morale, teacher quality, and the school system as a whole.
Professionalization requires a salary commensurate with professional skills, and consistent, high-quality professional development. It also requires a flexible salary schedule that rewards hard work. Professionals, of course, don't just get paid based on how many years they've stayed in their position, but performance and excellence. That gives real bargaining power to competent professionals, who can and should demand better workplace treatment and bigger salaries.
Almost every other profession functions through merit pay. But teaching doesn't do so. We can dream bigger for our teachers.
Minnesota has had a program initially hailed as merit pay, called Q Comp, since 2005. Today, it is "a voluntary program that allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain a plan that meets the four components of the law." Districts receive funds to promote professional development, or to create a career ladder that rewards teachers that take on extra responsibilities (like becoming a grade-level lead). In the past, some districts have used Q Comp to provide bonuses for such teachers, but such efforts are sporadic.
The program gives up to $260 per student to participating districts. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's nowhere close to a win. It's not very effective at putting money in specific, deserving teachers' pockets, and it's certainly not merit pay in any real sense. A successful merit pay system across Minnesota will require state agency coordination and guidance.
Professionalizing teacher pay sounds complicated, and merit pay more so. How does one even begin to measure teacher excellence, considering that teachers educate students with vastly different academic baselines? Interestingly, several states have found solutions.
Arkansas and New Jersey raise the floor
Setting aside merit pay for the moment, one easy way for states to professionalize teaching salaries is to raise the salary floor.
In New Jersey, a union-led campaign established a $50,000 starting salary for districts across the state. A recent working paper found that when districts committed to the new starting salary, they made trade-offs in other areas. Generally, they chose to increase class sizes slightly and allocate money away from other staff positions. The choice seems to have been worthwhile. Math and ELA scores increased, and graduation rates were boosted slightly.
In 2023, Arkansas passed the LEARNS Act, which raised the floor from $36,000 to $50,000. Plus, it guaranteed all teachers a raise of at least $2,000 if they were above the minimum. LEARNS coupled the salary reforms with expanded school choice, literacy support, and cell phone bans. This was a huge, state-funded investment, and the salary boost cost Arkansas $183 million.
Researchers at the University of Arkansas have seen good fruit. The salary increases boosted teacher retention and lowered retirement and transfer rates. Poor rural districts benefited the most, with teacher salaries becoming essentially equivalent to other types of districts. Unsurprisingly, the pairing of increased salary floors and stronger professional development has boosted teacher recruitment.
Minnesota does not have a state mandated salary floor for teachers. According to MinnesotaTeach, the average teacher starting salary in Minnesota is $44, 995.
Fiscally speaking, the goal of the public education system is to give students as good of an education as possible at the lowest cost possible. That doesn't mean that every cost has to be low, but that the overall cost to taxpayers should be as low as possible. New Jersey's experience proved that districts can find a way to pay teachers more if they put their minds to it.
Paying one good teacher a higher salary is ultimately cheaper than paying a mediocre teacher, a reading therapist, and a district math interventionist. Districts shouldn't be penny wise and pound foolish. Raising the salary floor doesn't specifically benefit exceptional teachers, but it does increase the likelihood that quality candidates will enter the teaching pipeline, and eventually, the classroom.
Texas gives a good bonus
The best way for Minnesota to reform teacher salaries is to copy Texas, as the Lone Star State possesses a best-in-class merit pay system. The Texas Incentive Allotment (TIA) began in 2019, designed to give educators a path to a six-figure salary.
It's an opt-in system. Jessica Poiner summarizes:
TIA gives districts and open-enrollment charter schools the option to create and use a local designation system to identify top educators and label them as "Recognized," "Exemplary," or "Master" teachers for a five-year period. Employing designated teachers generates additional state funding for participating districts, as they receive an annual allotment based on a teacher's designation level. Greater funding is available for those who work at high-needs or rural campuses.
TIA has its own stream of funding from the Texas legislature, and there is no cap on allotment funds or the number of teachers who can receive a designation. Districts receive the funds directly when they employ a designated teacher, and 90 percent of the money has to be spent on teacher salaries. Think of TIA as a merit-driven bonus, given to teachers in addition to their regular bargained salary.
A locally-created teacher designation system allows districts to highlight teaching quality metrics that matter to their specific community. Teachers can earn their extra cash through student growth, which can be measured in four different ways, and classroom observation, which must be measured against an approved rubric. Districts have the freedom to add in other metrics like student surveys or teacher attendance, and can choose how to measure student growth and classroom observation.
There are checks and balances; TIA does have performance standards for teacher observation and student growth ratings at each designation level, established using statewide teacher performance data.
Teachers can earn designations if they're considered in the top 50, 33, 20, or 5 percent of Texas teachers. All teachers earn a base bonus, but certain types of schools (like poor, rural schools) qualify a teacher for a bonus multiplier. A master teacher (in the top 5 percent of all Texas teachers) who works at a very poor, very rural school will earn an extra $36,000 per year.
Source: TIA allotment
Today, about half of Texas' districts have opted into the program, with more on the way. Unsurprisingly, teacher retention, teacher morale, and student test scores have risen.
How can Minnesota support teachers?
Minnesota's current union-pushed step-and-lane system isn't a fully professionalized salary system. Yearly raises are calculated by the number of years teaching, and a raise is higher with the teacher's level of education. The step-and-lane system can't recognize hard work with a bonus or accommodate teachers who move from other, higher paid, districts. It's an inflexible system. There's no wonder that Minnesota teachers are calling for systemic change.
Salary reform will have to occur through an intentional program, like TIA. Throwing money indiscriminately at Minnesota's education system, as has been the fashion, won't help. Fiscally conservative legislators should remember not to be penny wise and pound foolish; as odd as it might sound, spending more on teacher salaries in a precise, targeted fashion will lead to a more efficient and less expensive school system.
While the numbers still have to be crunched for an estimate on how much a Minnesota version of TIA would cost, it's helpful to keep in mind that Texas spent $480 million on the program in 2025, representing 0.46 percent of the total SY 24-25 education budget of $104.9 billion. The transformative program comes at a relatively small cost. Minnesota could easily cut unnecessary administrative roles to find the wiggle room in the budget.
A recent meta-analysis found that, while all teacher merit pay programs had some measure of success, programs that had clear teacher buy-in saw the biggest gains in teacher satisfaction and student academic achievement. It should go without saying that any new merit pay program will have to be well-designed and bespoke for Minnesota's needs. One bonus of a potential merit pay program would be the inclusion of charter school teachers, who often are left out of other state funding boosts.
Reforming Q Comp to deliver real bonuses for teachers is another possibility. A 2014 Educators for Excellence report on Q Comp expressed hope that the program could be reformed and provided a roadmap, saying:
"Traditional "step and lane" pay scales...don't reflect our work with or impact on our students. In addition to not recognizing performance, these antiquated systems have back-end salary increases, meaning it takes many years within a school district to reach competitive salary levels. In sum, "step and lane" systems do not recognize or reward high-quality teaching, teachers who take on leadership roles, or teachers who excel in our most challenging schools and positions...Q Comp provides an immediate opportunity to recognize performance and incentivize the retention of highly effective teachers."
The gold standard for Minnesota teacher salary reform is TIA, but there's no harm in pursuing other reforms (like starting salary floors) simultaneously. Fearful legislators should remember that reform is well-proven in other states. Starting salary floors tend to be received well politically, and opt-in provisions for teacher merit pay systems allow for only interested districts to explore teacher bonuses. Pairing both reforms as dual pieces of legislation would be a winnable policy push.
Overall, the results are in: treating teachers like professionals leads to happier teachers, better teachers, and stronger schools. Minnesota should recognize teachers as professionals and reform salary systems.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/electricity-101-or-electricity-for-dummies-like-me/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
It's time for teacher salary reform. What are Minnesota's options?
Written by Josiah Padley
Minnesota teacher pay is broken. It's time to refresh the entire system and pay teachers as professionals.
The average Minnesota teacher makes a salary of $77,655 (plus benefits), according to the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB). This number may be higher than many would ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Sept. 5 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * It's time for teacher salary reform. What are Minnesota's options? Written by Josiah Padley Minnesota teacher pay is broken. It's time to refresh the entire system and pay teachers as professionals. The average Minnesota teacher makes a salary of $77,655 (plus benefits), according to the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB). This number may be higher than many wouldassume, but it's still not as high as what teachers could be paid if Minnesota restructured. Merit pay and salary floors are two high-quality reforms that should be considered.
There's money in the budget for salary reform; the state is projected to spend $25.9 billion on education in 2026 and 2027, more than any other budget priority. But that money hasn't been funneled directly to teachers in the past. As my colleague Catrin Wigfall has written,:
"Statewide, per-pupil dollars adjusted for inflation increased 25 percent from 2002 to 2020. But the average teacher salary declined nearly 4 percent (3.7 percent), according to calculations by the Reason Foundation."
So, if per student revenue is increasing, but teacher salaries are declining, where's the money going?
One answer might be that Minnesota has been hiring far more staffers than in years past. My colleague Catrin Wigfall found that district administrative staff in Minnesota public schools is up over 132 percent since 2000, and principal and assistant principal growth over the same time period is up 50 percent. Student growth and teacher growth haven't kept pace, at 2 percent and 5 percent.
Wigfall's work shows that when school spending goes up, Minnesota districts don't increase teacher salaries. They simply hire more staff. This creates an ecosystem of program coordinators, paraprofessionals, district literacy coaches, and other figures. Some of these are needed positions, but some certainly aren't. The tradeoff of a new staff member that can make teachers' lives easier is that those teachers then can't be paid more.
The old Minnesota tactic of simply raising general revenue and hoping it'll trickle down to teacher salaries doesn't work. Reforming average teacher pay in Minnesota will require a targeted piece of legislature.
Changing tactics
When it comes to student achievement, research has said that teachers matter more than any other aspect of schooling. If Minnesota wants to get serious about reversing poor academic norms, the state will have to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. Efforts don't need to focus on firing low-performing teachers, which has often proved unpopular and ineffective elsewhere. Instead, Minnesota should ensure that the best of the best are happy where they work. Just after the pandemic, one in three Minnesota teachers said they were considering quitting their jobs. In a low-trust, high-flux environment, it's imperative that Minnesota hang on to quality instructors.
Salary reform retains quality teachers, but it could also attract different types of candidates. According to PELSB data, only one in four (25.5 percent) of Minnesota's teachers are men. About 86 percent (85.7) of those male teachers are white men. It's probable that the stigma attached to perceived low salaries causes men to avoid the teaching profession. That's a shame; young men of all races thrive in an education system that provides male role models, preferably when those role models share life experiences.
Minnesota currently provides grant money for teacher preparation programs through the Grow Your Own (GYO) Grant. GYO programs are currently facing legal complaints for the requirement that 80 percent of awarded funds go to candidates of color or Indigenous candidates. Assuming that GYO will respond to the worrying complaints by removing race as a grant qualification, it's not a bad way for districts to further the recruiting process. But a GYO Grant only covers a prep program. It doesn't sell the teaching profession as a worthy career choice that rewards individual effort. Salary reform could do that.
To recruit high-quality, diverse candidates, it's necessary to professionalize teaching --treating it as a rigorous, important job with opportunities for recognition, not a life donated to a missionary-esque charity cause. Treating teachers like professionals can go a long way for teacher recruiting and retention. In the long run, that improves morale, teacher quality, and the school system as a whole.
Professionalization requires a salary commensurate with professional skills, and consistent, high-quality professional development. It also requires a flexible salary schedule that rewards hard work. Professionals, of course, don't just get paid based on how many years they've stayed in their position, but performance and excellence. That gives real bargaining power to competent professionals, who can and should demand better workplace treatment and bigger salaries.
Almost every other profession functions through merit pay. But teaching doesn't do so. We can dream bigger for our teachers.
Minnesota has had a program initially hailed as merit pay, called Q Comp, since 2005. Today, it is "a voluntary program that allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain a plan that meets the four components of the law." Districts receive funds to promote professional development, or to create a career ladder that rewards teachers that take on extra responsibilities (like becoming a grade-level lead). In the past, some districts have used Q Comp to provide bonuses for such teachers, but such efforts are sporadic.
The program gives up to $260 per student to participating districts. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's nowhere close to a win. It's not very effective at putting money in specific, deserving teachers' pockets, and it's certainly not merit pay in any real sense. A successful merit pay system across Minnesota will require state agency coordination and guidance.
Professionalizing teacher pay sounds complicated, and merit pay more so. How does one even begin to measure teacher excellence, considering that teachers educate students with vastly different academic baselines? Interestingly, several states have found solutions.
Arkansas and New Jersey raise the floor
Setting aside merit pay for the moment, one easy way for states to professionalize teaching salaries is to raise the salary floor.
In New Jersey, a union-led campaign established a $50,000 starting salary for districts across the state. A recent working paper found that when districts committed to the new starting salary, they made trade-offs in other areas. Generally, they chose to increase class sizes slightly and allocate money away from other staff positions. The choice seems to have been worthwhile. Math and ELA scores increased, and graduation rates were boosted slightly.
In 2023, Arkansas passed the LEARNS Act, which raised the floor from $36,000 to $50,000. Plus, it guaranteed all teachers a raise of at least $2,000 if they were above the minimum. LEARNS coupled the salary reforms with expanded school choice, literacy support, and cell phone bans. This was a huge, state-funded investment, and the salary boost cost Arkansas $183 million.
Researchers at the University of Arkansas have seen good fruit. The salary increases boosted teacher retention and lowered retirement and transfer rates. Poor rural districts benefited the most, with teacher salaries becoming essentially equivalent to other types of districts. Unsurprisingly, the pairing of increased salary floors and stronger professional development has boosted teacher recruitment.
Minnesota does not have a state mandated salary floor for teachers. According to MinnesotaTeach, the average teacher starting salary in Minnesota is $44, 995.
Fiscally speaking, the goal of the public education system is to give students as good of an education as possible at the lowest cost possible. That doesn't mean that every cost has to be low, but that the overall cost to taxpayers should be as low as possible. New Jersey's experience proved that districts can find a way to pay teachers more if they put their minds to it.
Paying one good teacher a higher salary is ultimately cheaper than paying a mediocre teacher, a reading therapist, and a district math interventionist. Districts shouldn't be penny wise and pound foolish. Raising the salary floor doesn't specifically benefit exceptional teachers, but it does increase the likelihood that quality candidates will enter the teaching pipeline, and eventually, the classroom.
Texas gives a good bonus
The best way for Minnesota to reform teacher salaries is to copy Texas, as the Lone Star State possesses a best-in-class merit pay system. The Texas Incentive Allotment (TIA) began in 2019, designed to give educators a path to a six-figure salary.
It's an opt-in system. Jessica Poiner summarizes:
TIA gives districts and open-enrollment charter schools the option to create and use a local designation system to identify top educators and label them as "Recognized," "Exemplary," or "Master" teachers for a five-year period. Employing designated teachers generates additional state funding for participating districts, as they receive an annual allotment based on a teacher's designation level. Greater funding is available for those who work at high-needs or rural campuses.
TIA has its own stream of funding from the Texas legislature, and there is no cap on allotment funds or the number of teachers who can receive a designation. Districts receive the funds directly when they employ a designated teacher, and 90 percent of the money has to be spent on teacher salaries. Think of TIA as a merit-driven bonus, given to teachers in addition to their regular bargained salary.
A locally-created teacher designation system allows districts to highlight teaching quality metrics that matter to their specific community. Teachers can earn their extra cash through student growth, which can be measured in four different ways, and classroom observation, which must be measured against an approved rubric. Districts have the freedom to add in other metrics like student surveys or teacher attendance, and can choose how to measure student growth and classroom observation.
There are checks and balances; TIA does have performance standards for teacher observation and student growth ratings at each designation level, established using statewide teacher performance data.
Teachers can earn designations if they're considered in the top 50, 33, 20, or 5 percent of Texas teachers. All teachers earn a base bonus, but certain types of schools (like poor, rural schools) qualify a teacher for a bonus multiplier. A master teacher (in the top 5 percent of all Texas teachers) who works at a very poor, very rural school will earn an extra $36,000 per year.
Source: TIA allotment
Today, about half of Texas' districts have opted into the program, with more on the way. Unsurprisingly, teacher retention, teacher morale, and student test scores have risen.
How can Minnesota support teachers?
Minnesota's current union-pushed step-and-lane system isn't a fully professionalized salary system. Yearly raises are calculated by the number of years teaching, and a raise is higher with the teacher's level of education. The step-and-lane system can't recognize hard work with a bonus or accommodate teachers who move from other, higher paid, districts. It's an inflexible system. There's no wonder that Minnesota teachers are calling for systemic change.
Salary reform will have to occur through an intentional program, like TIA. Throwing money indiscriminately at Minnesota's education system, as has been the fashion, won't help. Fiscally conservative legislators should remember not to be penny wise and pound foolish; as odd as it might sound, spending more on teacher salaries in a precise, targeted fashion will lead to a more efficient and less expensive school system.
While the numbers still have to be crunched for an estimate on how much a Minnesota version of TIA would cost, it's helpful to keep in mind that Texas spent $480 million on the program in 2025, representing 0.46 percent of the total SY 24-25 education budget of $104.9 billion. The transformative program comes at a relatively small cost. Minnesota could easily cut unnecessary administrative roles to find the wiggle room in the budget.
A recent meta-analysis found that, while all teacher merit pay programs had some measure of success, programs that had clear teacher buy-in saw the biggest gains in teacher satisfaction and student academic achievement. It should go without saying that any new merit pay program will have to be well-designed and bespoke for Minnesota's needs. One bonus of a potential merit pay program would be the inclusion of charter school teachers, who often are left out of other state funding boosts.
Reforming Q Comp to deliver real bonuses for teachers is another possibility. A 2014 Educators for Excellence report on Q Comp expressed hope that the program could be reformed and provided a roadmap, saying:
"Traditional "step and lane" pay scales...don't reflect our work with or impact on our students. In addition to not recognizing performance, these antiquated systems have back-end salary increases, meaning it takes many years within a school district to reach competitive salary levels. In sum, "step and lane" systems do not recognize or reward high-quality teaching, teachers who take on leadership roles, or teachers who excel in our most challenging schools and positions...Q Comp provides an immediate opportunity to recognize performance and incentivize the retention of highly effective teachers."
The gold standard for Minnesota teacher salary reform is TIA, but there's no harm in pursuing other reforms (like starting salary floors) simultaneously. Fearful legislators should remember that reform is well-proven in other states. Starting salary floors tend to be received well politically, and opt-in provisions for teacher merit pay systems allow for only interested districts to explore teacher bonuses. Pairing both reforms as dual pieces of legislation would be a winnable policy push.
Overall, the results are in: treating teachers like professionals leads to happier teachers, better teachers, and stronger schools. Minnesota should recognize teachers as professionals and reform salary systems.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/electricity-101-or-electricity-for-dummies-like-me/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026:
* * *
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 parties research ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026: * * * 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 parties researchto 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:
* Whitman-Walker Institute is a research organization based in Washington D.C. that provides health policy recommendations and conducts clinical trials and investigations. The Institute is listed as a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a left-of-center network of over 240 organizations that advocates and lobbies on civil rights legislation and presidential appointments. The Institute has previously received grants from George Washington University, the Ford Foundation, the Gill Foundation, and the Greater Washington Community Foundation.
* Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation is a private grantmaking foundation whose grantees include left-of-center organizations promoting environmentalist and abortion access policies. As of 2025, the Foundation was listed as a signatory of "Meet the Moment," a pledge for increased grantmaking in response to federal government cuts organized by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, the National Center for Family Philanthropy, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. The Foundation's grant recipients have included the Hopewell Fund, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Clean Energy Fund of Texas.
* Allstate Foundation is a private foundation affiliated with the insurance company Allstate whose grantees include left-of-center activist organizations. In 2024, the Foundation's "Racial Equity" grant program provided funding to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Prosperity Now, the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Additional funding that year went to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, PolicyLink, the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, and UnidosUS.
* Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a research and advocacy organization that focuses on state policy issues such as child welfare, race, the economy, and immigration. Its 2024 funders included the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Arkansas Community Foundation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its donors have also included Community Catalyst, the Economic Policy Institute, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, and the Marguerite Casey Foundation.
* Community Organizing and Family Issues is a Chicago-based organization that provides training to low-income residents on influencing public policy. In 2022, the organization received a $2 million grant from MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos, which was reportedly the largest single donation it had received in its history at the time. It has also received funding from the Chicago Community Trust, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the K. Kellogg Foundation, the New Venture Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-09-04-2026/
[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 parties research ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026: * * * 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 parties researchto 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:
* Whitman-Walker Institute is a research organization based in Washington D.C. that provides health policy recommendations and conducts clinical trials and investigations. The Institute is listed as a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a left-of-center network of over 240 organizations that advocates and lobbies on civil rights legislation and presidential appointments. The Institute has previously received grants from George Washington University, the Ford Foundation, the Gill Foundation, and the Greater Washington Community Foundation.
* Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation is a private grantmaking foundation whose grantees include left-of-center organizations promoting environmentalist and abortion access policies. As of 2025, the Foundation was listed as a signatory of "Meet the Moment," a pledge for increased grantmaking in response to federal government cuts organized by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, the National Center for Family Philanthropy, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. The Foundation's grant recipients have included the Hopewell Fund, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Clean Energy Fund of Texas.
* Allstate Foundation is a private foundation affiliated with the insurance company Allstate whose grantees include left-of-center activist organizations. In 2024, the Foundation's "Racial Equity" grant program provided funding to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Prosperity Now, the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Additional funding that year went to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, PolicyLink, the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, and UnidosUS.
* Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a research and advocacy organization that focuses on state policy issues such as child welfare, race, the economy, and immigration. Its 2024 funders included the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Arkansas Community Foundation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its donors have also included Community Catalyst, the Economic Policy Institute, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, and the Marguerite Casey Foundation.
* Community Organizing and Family Issues is a Chicago-based organization that provides training to low-income residents on influencing public policy. In 2022, the organization received a $2 million grant from MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos, which was reportedly the largest single donation it had received in its history at the time. It has also received funding from the Chicago Community Trust, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the K. Kellogg Foundation, the New Venture Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-09-04-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to The Hill: Europe's Digital Agenda is a Gift to China
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by Juan Andres Caro, senior fellow for American Justice Policy, to The Hill:
* * *
Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China
Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open.
Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting.
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by Juan Andres Caro, senior fellow for American Justice Policy, to The Hill: * * * Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open. Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting. TheDigital Markets Act is sold in Brussels as a competition and consumer measure. It is neither. It imposes costs, mandates, and compliance burdens triggered by arbitrary thresholds: market capitalization instead of proven dominance, user counts instead of demonstrated harm.
To read the full article, click here (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/6070296-eu-regulation-hurts-us-ai-leadership/).
* * *
Juan Andres Caro serves as a senior fellow for American Justice Policy at AFPI. Caro most recently served as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for international and space affairs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where he served as the agency's chief international representative, directing U.S. engagement across fisheries governance, space commerce, satellite policy, deep-sea mining, and polar affairs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/europes-digital-agenda-is-a-gift-to-china
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China
Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open.
Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting.
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by Juan Andres Caro, senior fellow for American Justice Policy, to The Hill: * * * Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open. Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting. TheDigital Markets Act is sold in Brussels as a competition and consumer measure. It is neither. It imposes costs, mandates, and compliance burdens triggered by arbitrary thresholds: market capitalization instead of proven dominance, user counts instead of demonstrated harm.
To read the full article, click here (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/6070296-eu-regulation-hurts-us-ai-leadership/).
* * *
Juan Andres Caro serves as a senior fellow for American Justice Policy at AFPI. Caro most recently served as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for international and space affairs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where he served as the agency's chief international representative, directing U.S. engagement across fisheries governance, space commerce, satellite policy, deep-sea mining, and polar affairs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/europes-digital-agenda-is-a-gift-to-china
[Category: ThinkTank]