Join

Heritage Foundation - Latest News Tracking & Analysis

Latest News Politics , Business , Finance , Technology , World News & Opinion & Tracking & Analysis.

United States of America
Website
🇺🇸 english
Unknown
Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation

Primary focus: Unknown

Recent Reportage

Latest coverage from Heritage Foundation

Four Defense Export Reforms for the United States

The global threat environment that the United States and its allies face in 2026 is darker than at any point since the Cold War, with military conflicts on three continents and menacing operations by Russia and the increasingly capable Chinese military. But it is the major munitions expenditure in these current conflicts that is perhaps most concerning. Insufficient magazine depth is forcing the United States and its allies to confront the consequences of severely limited defense industrial production and the arcane rules that govern American arms sales and U.S.-origin equipment transfers. The White House, recognizing the vulnerability these conditions exacerbate, has modeled a bias toward action in two executive orders: “Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy”[REF] and “Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability,”[REF] which reiterate the importance of export reforms.In response to the current inadequacy of the U.S. domestic defense industrial base and the severe threat environment, Congress should amend the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to improve the speed and ease of arms sales,[REF] reduce the Excluded Technology List (ETL) in AUKUS and potential follow-on agreements, request that the executive branch establish regular update cadences of outdated arms-export-control mechanisms, and increase and retain control and sovereignty over arms sales, including the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).Four Central ReformsFour main principles should guide American policymakers approaching this expansive and complicated challenge. The U.S. government should (1) create a Trusted Regulatory and Unified Security Transfer (TRUST) bubble with close allies, (2) expand technological export permissions, (3) regularly update outdated arms-export regulations, and (4) maintain American optionality under revised arms-export approaches by discarding outdated understandings that no longer serve American interests.The U.S. Should Create a Trusted Regulatory and Unified Security Transfer (TRUST) Bubble. Despite mutual defense treaties and extensive political cooperation, many American allies continue to face daunting challenges to cooperating with America on defense industrial matters—but there is a better way. In 2021, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom initiated and gradually implemented AUKUS, a trilateral agreement that created a pathway for the Australian acquisition of nuclear submarines (Pillar I) and a pathway to remove weapon system co-development barriers (Pillar II).Broadly, Pillar II required that the U.K. and Australia enact legislation similar to the U.S. AECA, in exchange for creating a “bubble” under which most AECA requirements do not apply, with the aim of removing barriers to cooperation, reducing duplicative effort, and maximizing comparative advantages. Since its implementation, Pillar II has facilitated development of drone and military AI applications,[REF] among other areas.Although implementation has required significant time, efforts are now accelerating. The initiative has garnered strong bipartisan support in the United States and broad backing from major political parties in Australia and the United Kingdom. This momentum was reflected in the May 2026 launch of the first signature project to develop undersea attack drones.[REF]The trust among the Five Eyes nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) for sharing sensitive national security information[REF] was a significant foundation from which to build greater defense production collaboration. Established trust through Five Eyes made Australia and the United Kingdom ideal partners with whom to first expand cooperation, creating a model for future efforts.[REF] Next, the United States should work with other trusted allies and partners to minimize barriers to co-development and a co-production ecosystem by creating a TRUST bubble with more allies who are willing to demonstrate a high level of buy-in and effort.The TRUST bubble at its core would be a U.S.-controlled and -managed reciprocity-based tiered architecture, with participants granted different levels of exemptions from U.S. export-control architecture and privileges for co-development, co-production, and defense-relevant trade based on their positive defense industrial contributions to the U.S., alignment on export controls, and consideration for the risks of inclusion. Historical examples, such as the U.S.-led collaborative development of anti-aircraft munition fuses in World War II,[REF] show that this regulatory latitude could even extend to extraordinarily sensitive technologies.Just as the U.S. security clearance system has different levels, so would the TRUST bubble. Close partners with significant defense industrial capacity and comparable policies to those of the United States, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, could be thought of in an upper tier (similar to a Top Secret clearance), with other countries included in a middle tier (similar to Secret), and a third tier (similar to Confidential Unclassified Information).Their level of inclusion should be based on six core criteria: (1) comparable arms export controls, (2) well-managed security clearance systems, (3) positive impact on the U.S. defense ecosystem, (4) strength of alliance, (5) robust cyber defenses, and (6) seriousness about defense spending.Comparable Arms Export Controls. Allies must adopt export-control standards similar to those in the AECA and pass a legal architecture that creates reciprocity for participation without caveats for individual countries.Well-Managed Security Clearance Systems. Allies must establish protocols with equivalencies to the U.S. security clearance system with demonstrated rigor and regular review of cleared individuals and secure information-exchange protocols at a minimum level of NATO standard. Defining and overcoming the security clearance hurdle can also be modeled on the AUKUS approach in which the Department of War will certify compatibility.[REF]Positive Impact on the U.S. Defense Ecosystem. This criterion includes the strength of an ally’s defense industry: primes, such as BAE Systems, as well as sub-tier and material suppliers. It also includes any potential negative impact they could have on U.S. arms sales volume and general commercial risks of any shared intellectual property providing unfair advantages to foreign enterprises. Current widespread production shortfalls render this a lower priority concern at this time.Strength of Alliance. This criterion includes other legal arrangements that the partner country has with the United States, such as NATO membership or other mutual defense agreements, as well as proven willingness to collaborate.Robust Cyber Defenses. A country’s ability to protect itself and the information in its possession against adversarial penetration of computing and digital information systems—indigenously and with allied assistance—is crucial.Seriousness about Defense Spending. Current defense spending levels and clear progress toward meeting 3.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) defense spending by 2035 are crucial. In Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s words at the 2026 Shangri-La Dialogue:We demand 3.5 from our allies and partners. As our strategy states, we will prioritize working with model allies, those nations who are most capable, clear-eyed and ready to defend their national interests. For those nations, we are moving them to the front of the line [with] expedited arms sales, deep industrial base collaboration, expanded intelligence sharing, the list goes on that benefits many.[REF]In addition to these positive weighted factors, some other factors should be disqualifying. These include any defense-relevant trade with American adversaries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, including the facilitation of defense-related trade; inclusion of adversary-sourced components in weapon systems that may compromise them, thereby violating U.S. export controls or sanctions; history of industrial espionage; critical infrastructure investment by adversaries, such as Huawei telecommunications networks or ongoing Belt and Road Initiative projects; or levels of trade with China that provide China with meaningful coercive leverage, without efforts to mitigate this weakness, such as by developing alternative sourcing for critical supply chains. Finally, any participation is predicated on reciprocity within given tiers of the TRUST bubble: agreed upon exceptions must be reciprocal in order to facilitate defense trade.Like security clearances, countries should be subject to continuous vetting with renewal dates. Should the executive branch find that a country is no longer fulfilling its obligations, it should revoke that country’s privileges.The U.S. Should Expand Technological Export Permissions. For good reason, AUKUS does not allow the unrestricted transfer of all technologies. The prohibition on nuclear weapons–related technology does not serve as a burden on cooperation and serves U.S. nuclear non-proliferation interests. But many other technologies that AUKUS does not encompass create an unnecessary burden without providing any benefit.Among the most pressing U.S. and allied needs are increased production capacity and production of critical munitions. However, missile-related technologies are almost exclusively outside the AUKUS framework, because the ETL includes almost everything subject to the MTCR.When weighing the time and monetary costs of excluding MTCR technologies from AUKUS against the potential harms of including the MTCR technologies in AUKUS, the logical outcome is that the MTCR items should not be automatically added to the ETL.Developed in 1987 among G7 partners, and eventually expanded to 35 partner countries, the MTCR attempted to reduce weapons of mass destruction risks by sharply curtailing arms exports of delivery systems including missile and drone technology.[REF] While curtailing the proliferation of missiles was a worthy goal, the MTCR has not achieved that goal. Instead, China, Iran, and Russia have proliferated items covered by the MTCR[REF] while the United States and responsible countries sat back and watched. The end result is that the MTCR limitations embedded in statute[REF] have reduced Washington’s ability to support partners around the globe and reinforce deterrence, while irresponsible adversaries disregard the MTCR’s principles and act as agents of proliferation. This mismatch makes clear that MTCR controls are outdated, benefiting only the adversaries flouting them, and U.S. legislators should largely remove them.[REF]MTCR items are not the only items that should be removed from the ETL. Categorical restrictions on man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) technologies, cluster munitions, and other entries on the ETL also likely do not make sense and should be revisited in light of adversarial proliferation, demonstrated military use cases, and allied production capability.The U.S. Should Update Outdated Arms Export Regulations. America’s Cold War defense production not only led the world but also developed numerous capabilities across multiple domains that were unique, or relatively unique, technological advances. U.S. diplomats and lawmakers attempted to capitalize on this advantage to reduce drone and missile proliferation through the MTCR and the addition of many technologies to prohibitive export lists, such as the U.S. Munitions List and the Commerce Control List.U.S. Munitions List and Commerce Control List. One-time updates are only part of the solution to resolve defense export bottlenecks; a consistent update cycle is required when it comes to key lists established by legislation and managed by the executive branch, particularly the U.S. Munitions List and the Commerce Control List (CCL). Overseen by the U.S. Department of State and the Commerce Department, respectively, these lists too often act as a one-way valve limiting American defense exports in sensitive areas and then continuing to limit them long past global market availability. As a result, Congress has repeatedly passed legislation amending the AECA to require reviews of the U.S. Munitions List for suitability with the most recent action in the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act mandating “such reviews not less frequently than every 3 years.”[REF]The CCL has no required review timeline but is subject to more frequent, ongoing adjustments by the Commerce Department. The CCL is independent of the U.S. Munitions List, which avoids dual or overlapping controls, but it includes many dual-use goods that are relevant to defense production. Lately, the Commerce Department has rightly tightened export controls on adversaries through actions like expanding ownership rules under the Entity List to catch adversarial companies’ subsidiaries,[REF] but the CCL and other lists deserve consistent timelines for review of included items and entities to ensure that they remain up to date. Allied support and capabilities are critical to deterring adversaries.The U.S. Should Maintain Control of the New Export Architecture. A core lesson from all the reforms contemplated here is that geopolitical conditions are subject to change, so flexibility must be maintained in arms-export regulations. At a time when adversarial threats facing the United States were lower and the technological barriers wider, it made sense to maintain tighter restrictions on arms exports. But over several generations, the United States watched as arms-export regulations created for the competition with the Soviet Union, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and MTCR, aged into obsolescence and tied America to past commitments no longer honored by U.S. adversaries, while bureaucratic barriers intended to protect U.S. defense technology no longer strike a balance among security, defense cooperation, and rearmament.Therefore, it is critical that America rebuild its arms export–control regime for the 21st century, while maintaining control over arms export decision-making without offshoring rules to international regimes. This flexibility will be key to enhancing allied defense industrial resilience by building on current successes, such as National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) coproduction with Norway[REF] and PAC-2 GEM-T interceptor coproduction with Germany.[REF]Not only does this flexibility entail the United States removing itself from arrangements that are no longer in the U.S. interest, but it also is directly relevant to any new arms export–control framework. Any new framework should concentrate on benefiting American national security with standards and membership subject to U.S. control to adapt as circumstances warrant.ConclusionAs America rearms to deter its adversaries and win the fights ahead, streamlining arms-export procedures and expanding coproduction will be key tools in reclaiming the mantle of the arsenal of freedom. Working together in this way will only make the United States and its allies stronger. As Secretary Hegseth remarked at the 2026 Shangri-La Dialogue: “We take very seriously our responsibility as the foundation for Western defense, but the more [that] rich countries who have robust manufacturing capabilities get into the defense business because of the reality of the moment, the more options we’re all going to have.”[REF] That could not be more true—and reforming export controls is the way to get there.Jordan Embree is Research Associate in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation. Jim Fein is Senior Research Associate for National Security and the Defense Industrial Base in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation.

1 day ago•
1

This Should Be the Next Enforcement Tool To Secure America’s Borders

Praise is due to a recent Trump administration push to nail immigration lawyers for the broadly undeterred crime of running mass asylum fraud schemes, which have let huge volumes of ineligible illegal aliens into the country.The asylum system has long acted as a powerful magnet for aspiring illegal border crossers and visa overstayers, because, until President Donald Trump sharply curtailed its use, merely claiming asylum verbally allowed millions of ineligible foreigners into the country almost indefinitely.But targeting lawyers with fines is more of a beginning than a finish. To prevent the next mass migration crisis, we need the whole world to feel real asylum fraud deterrence. That means the Trump Department of Justice, headed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, must prosecute and imprison individual claimants, known in the business as “single scope” cases. These would be just the average foreign economic migrants who, perhaps coached online or by friends and relatives, lied under oath on U.S. government forms, to federal agents, and to immigration court judges, claiming that they suffered asylum-eligible government persecution back home.>>> ICE Detention Is Safer Than a British PrisonClaiming government persecution that never happened to gain asylum and its attendant public welfare and work authorization is a prosecutable felony crime.The problem is that appointed U.S. Attorneys in all 94 offices have never wanted, and won’t take, such cases unless told to. The time for that is now.Acting A.G. Blanche should appoint a “Special Attorney” (under 28 USC 543) to elevate asylum fraud prosecutions against individual aliens to a high-tier priority nationwide and within Department of Homeland Security component agencies. They won’t want to do it because presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys don’t regard busting individual aliens for criminal asylum-lying as worth the squeeze, so they decline most criminal referrals that come their way. That roadblock in turn disincentivizes investigations by the responsible agencies: ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS). After all, why would any HSI or FDNS agent bother investigating crimes they know prosecutors will ignore?This (somewhat dated) December 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report details how the processing blockage serves non-lawyer individuals who commit asylum fraud.According to the report, U.S. Attorneys had long preferred to see individual suspects of asylum fraud “not generally criminally prosecuted.” In turn, the agents of HSI “felt constrained becauseprosecuting asylum fraud is a low priority for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”Until very recently, FDNS could not directly refer their own fraud cases to U.S. Attorneys; the old policy required them to ask HSI agents to do it for them. HSI would reject FDNS cases, which, in turn, dampened FDNS interest in originating investigations. It’s a vicious, feckless circle.FDNS officers in six of eight asylum offices, the GAO report stated, reported that HSI declined their case referrals and, for those the agency did accept, would close them without further investigation. As a result, half of the eight FDNS offices referred either zero or only one fraud case to HSI from 2010 to 2014.One HSI office had not accepted an FDNS referral in two years because the area’s U.S. Attorney’s Office would only accept asylum fraud referrals involving at least 100 asylum applications, a circumstance that provides for sentencing enhancements, the report stated, which prosecutors love. Another asylum office reported that its U.S. Attorney had accepted no asylum fraud referrals in five years.“Because HSI does not prioritize investigations of single instances of asylum fraud, FDNS immigration officers we interviewed in seven of the eight asylum offices stated they generally do not submit single-scope cases” the report stated.Skill atrophy was another cost. A 2008 GAO survey of all the nation’s then-256 asylum officers and 56 supervisors in the nation’s eight USCIS division field offices found the majority felt themselves ill-trained to detect fraud or assess the credibility of asylum seekers. Seventy percent confessed they found it moderately or very difficult to identify document fraud and could not assess credibility in more than half the cases they adjudicated.>>> The UN’s Refugee Agency Seems to be Using Weasel Words to Hide Its Open Borders AgendaWhile these reports have aged, sources inside FDNS and USCIS told me recently that nothing has changed in the nearly 10 years since, despite the unprecedented mass border crossings of 10 million foreign nationals and a related surge in asylum claims from 172,000 in 2019 to 860,000 in 2024. A great many of those were no doubt filed by people encouraged by the knowledge that they would face no consequence for lying.This must be fixed.An appointed Special Attorney must require the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices to understand that single-scope asylum fraud cases are far more valuable as crucial fraud deterrents than previously thought, and must accept some in every judicial district each year. Almost as important is that every one of these cases gets publicized and broadcast around the globe.That’s because the world of aspiring immigrant wrong-doers pays almost obsessive attention to all immigration-related enforcement in the United States and will alter its behavior if prison time for regular people becomes a possibility. It’s notable that last September, the Trump administration gave its FDNS agents guns and investigative referral authority that bypasses HSI. A whole new corps of officers is now geared up to refer individual asylum fraud cases to—hopefully willing—prosecutors. And they should get orders to be willing.At stake is no less than another mass-migration border crisis that voters have already said, loud and clear in the last national election, they don’t want.

1 day ago

How the U.S.-Europe Rift Got Balkanized

Transatlantic disputes over trade, climate policy, defense spending, Iran, and free speech have certainly stressed the U.S.-Europe alliance. In the past, deft diplomacy has found ways to navigate those differences. Yet that comity is being severely tested as Europe takes steps to stifle American involvement in the Balkans.Last month, for the first time, Europe and the United States failed to agree on the next international envoy to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). This comes on the heels of the Trump administration signaling last year that it was ready to end 30 years of “heavy-handed international intervention” and transfer sovereign authority to the country’s elected leaders.Europe pushed back. When it came time to vote for the new envoy, European diplomats rejected the Italian candidate backed by the United States in favor of a French official who prefers the status quo. It was a clear snub to Washington that anyone it supported, even a distinguished European diplomat, was a no-go for this job.The State Department rebuked Europe for the “abdication of its own duty toward BiHforcing the United States to reconsider its rolein Bosnia-Herzegovina.” Another recent try produced yet another standoff.>>> Blaming Trump for the Latest Outbreak of Ebola Is AbsurdDisagreement over Bosnia’s future has also spilled over into European Union efforts to undo a major U.S. gas pipeline project in the country. The investors, politically tied to President Donald Trump, lead a project to deliver American LNG (liquefied natural gas) and to displace regional dependence on Russian gas, an EU strategic imperative. No matter, the EU ambassador to Sarajevo warned Bosnia’s leaders that the project jeopardized its prospect for EU membership and 1 billion (1.1 billion) in aid.EU efforts to scuttle U.S. Bosnia policy, while self-defeating, are fair game. Scuttling American investors close to Trump risks a diplomatic row. But targeting investment projects of a sitting U.S. president’s family members is reckless.In neighboring Serbia and Albania, U.S. Special Envoy for Peace Jared Kushner mobilized multi-billion-dollar projects in a capital-starved part of Europe. The involvement of President Trump’s son-in-law led EU officials to take a hostile interest, upending one project last December and seeking to upend the other.In Serbia, Kushner planned to build a high-end hotel in Belgrade on the site of the ruined Yugoslav General Staff building bombed by NATO during Serbia’s brutal war against Kosovo’s Albanian majority. The project would help Serbs look beyond their war losses and focus on economic renewal.Normally, Europe is quick to support reconciliation initiatives among former warring peoples. Not this time.Instead, European institutions coordinated to kill the project, forcing Kushner to withdraw last December. Brussels’ gang-up began earlier that year when the European Parliament issued a resolution expressing “grave concern” over the Serbian government’s “removal of the [building’s] protected status as a cultural monument.”Then, Brussels-based NGO Europa Nostra, primarily funded by the EU, issued its “firm opposition” to “paving the way for the construction ofthe Trump Tower Belgrade.” A month later, the EU-funded Serbian Public Prosecutor’s Office sought jail time for the minister of culture for “abuse of office” by supporting the project.>>> U.S. First Principles vs. European Bureaucratic OverreachThe military headquarters in question was built by Yugoslavia’s communist regime. By the 1990s it was the nerve center of the Yugoslav People’s Army’s genocidal campaigns against Kosovar Albanians, Bosnian Muslims, and Croats. Instead of celebrating the erasure of this sentinel of evil, Europa Nostra deems it an architectural “masterpieceand cultural monument of national importance.”A similar playbook is underway in Albania, where Kushner leads another luxury real estate project, this one on an uninhabited island that hosts a communist-era military base. Again, EU-funded NGO-led protests, labeling the project “incompatible with EU membership,” are enjoined by EU warnings.The EU announced its “concerns to the minister of environment about the potential shortcomings of this project” and demanded it “terminate” the law on strategic investments. On cue, Albania’s special anti-corruption prosecutor’s office, funded by the EU, opened an investigation into the project.Albania’s leftist Prime Minister Edi Rama fired back: “If it wasn’t Jared, they wouldn’t give a shit.”In contrast, the EU is mum on the Spanish government’s plans to “transform” the Basilica of Fallen—the world’s longest basilica, with the world’s tallest cross—into a state museum. No communist military base is there, unfortunately for the monks.This piece originally appeared in The National Interest

1 day ago

Publishing Activity

Daily article output trend

The Red-Blue Energy Divide: How Overregulation Inflates Prices

Though recent events have made Americans in all parts of the country acutely aware of energy issues, stubbornly high prices in blue states illuminate policy challenges that have become impossible to ignore.Particularly, overly regulated California and New York face persistently high costs due to burdensome state-level energy policies. Residents are paying more because state governments have layered costly climate mandates, fuel restrictions, progressive taxes, and regulatory barriers on top of an already strained energy market. The result is sky-high prices, reduced affordability, and greater vulnerability to energy shocks.The average price for regular gasoline in America is just under 4 per gallon, as per AAA data. California drivers are paying about 5.40 per gallon, whereas many red states remain well below the national average. Texas, Oklahoma, and Indiana continue to post some of the lowest fuel prices in the country, while California, Washington, and New York consistently rank among the highest.This disparity reflects structural differences in energy market regulation, refining capacity, and taxation.>>> Why Congress Needs to Act Now on Permitting ReformCalifornia’s Energy Regulations Drive Higher Gas PricesCalifornia provides perhaps the clearest example of how overregulation inflates energy costs. The state inflicts the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, in addition to excise taxes, underground storage tank fees, and sales taxes. This totals roughly 90 cents per gallon in additional costs when accounting for state, local, and federal impositions.Climate mandates further inflate prices. The California Energy Commission estimated in January 2026 that the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard adds approximately 17 cents per gallon while the cap-and-trade program adds another 25 cents. Compliance costs with environmental regulations added 54 cents a gallon in March 2025.These policies, which were designed by progressive regulators to curb emissions and accelerate the transition away from conventional fuels such as gas, oil, and coal, actually increase compliance, production, and distribution expenses that are then passed on to consumers. These regulations have reduced the state’s refining capacity and discouraged domestic energy investment, while simultaneously failing to contribute meaningful environmental benefits.Reports indicate California could lose roughly 20 percent of its refining capacity in the short-term due to refinery closures and conversions driven by regulatory pressure and climate mandates. This tightens local fuel supply, unnecessarily increases reliance on imports, and heightens price volatility during energy market disruptions. Economists project that these closures alone present substantial risks for West Coast gas prices.New York’s Climate Policies Increase Household Energy CostsNew York is pursuing a similar strategy. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act establishes aggressive emissions targets and renewable energy requirements. Full compliance could raise household energy costs by 3,500 to 4,100 annually—an average month’s rent in New York City—and increase gas prices by as much as 2.23 per gallon. Independent analysts and state officials have warned about the mounting costs associated with compliance.New York is simultaneously pushing punitive measures against traditional energy producers. The state recently enacted a massive climate liability law designed to extract billions from gas, oil, and coal companies over alleged “climate damages.” Businesses and energy groups caution that those costs will ultimately be passed along to consumers through higher utility bills and fuel prices.Why Red States Generally Have Lower Energy PricesIn contrast, red states such as Texas and Oklahoma generally maintain market-oriented solutions, including lower taxes, fewer fuel mandates, and a favorable regulatory environment for domestic production and refining. These conditions promote abundant supply, efficient infrastructure, and greater insulation from supply shocks—resulting in persistently cheaper and more reliable energy for consumers.>>> Democrats in Sacramento Want to Make Energy Even More ExpensiveAmid ongoing economic pressures, self-inflicted energy constraints on reliable domestic production compound challenges for American households in blue states. Progressive policymakers often frame these sacrifices as necessary for a clean-energy transition. However, families struggling to afford groceries and gas are not interested in ideological experiments that leave them paying the highest energy prices in the nation.Blue states should not worsen the problem by pursuing regulatory agendas that deliberately constrain reliable domestic energy production while increasing dependence on costly alternatives. Eliminating excessive regulatory barriers, preserving refining capacity when feasible, and prioritizing energy abundance remain critical parts of the path toward affordability, reliability, and economic stability.While prices may continue fluctuating amid global events, state-level policies remain a controllable driver of the observed energy price gap between red and blue states. Lawmakers must ultimately pursue policies that relieve cost-of-living pressures, not exacerbate them.This piece originally appeared in The National Interest

1 day ago

Right-Sizing the U.S. Department of Education Before Closure

The second Trump Administration is carrying out the President’s executive order to close the U.S. Department of Education.[REF] To manage that process, Education Department officials have entered into interagency agreements (IAAs) with other Cabinet-level agencies to share responsibility for certain federal education programs. Members of Congress are now advancing a series of proposals that would codify 10 of those agreements. If the Education Department were sunset, these bills would allow selected federal programs to continue under other agencies.These agreements and new legislative proposals do not change Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides taxpayer money to districts serving children in low-income areas and is the largest spending item for K–12 schools in the federal budget. The Education Department’s fiscal year (FY) 2027 budget includes funding for Title I and for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with special needs.[REF]Education Department policymakers have also preserved the enforcement of civil rights statutes. On June 16, the agency entered into an IAA with the U.S. Department of Justice under which DOJ will assume a larger role in civil rights investigations and enforcement as Education maintains its statutory responsibilities.[REF]As of this writing, the Education Department has signed 14 IAAs with federal agencies to share implementation of education programs. On July 15, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce approved a package of proposals that would codify 10 of these agreements and transfer authority from the Department of Education to the other federal agencies.[REF]Proposals Codifying IAAsFederal lawmakers are considering provisions to right-size the Department of Education. Collectively, these proposals would create conditions for the department’s closure.H.R. 9607 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act)[REF] and H.R. 9610 (Less Bureaucracy, Better K–12 Education Act).[REF] These proposals would codify interagency agreements between the Education Department and the U.S. Department of Labor. However, as with the rest of the proposals in the legislative package, the responsibilities for the programs would be transferred from the Department of Education to the new agency and no longer simply shared between the offices.These two legislative proposals contain provisions that would transfer federal adult and family literacy services such as Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; career and technical education (CTE) programs including the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; and a set of initiatives operated by the Education Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education including state literacy and civics grants.[REF] The Labor Department already offers workforce training and professional development for job applicants, and this transfer would reduce the level of duplicative federal activity.H.R. 9611 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act).[REF] This proposal would codify an IAA between the Department of Education and Department of Labor that transfers from Education to Labor the implementation of postsecondary programs including provisions governing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); TRIO programs (efforts to help low-income and first-generation college students); and military veteran education services.[REF]H.R. 9605 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act).[REF] Under this proposal, the Education Department would transfer responsibility for review of medical standards for foreign medical schools to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[REF] The proposal would codify HHS’s oversight of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, which is authorized by statute under the Higher Education Act.H.R. 9604 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act).[REF] Under this proposal, the Education Department would transfer services for students living on tribal lands to the U.S. Department of the Interior. These programs include (among others) professional development grants, grants for Alaskan and Hawaiian natives, and CTE programs for these populations.[REF]H.R. 9606 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act).[REF] This proposal would transfer oversight of child care programs for the children of college students from the Department of Education to HHS.H.R. 9603 (Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act)[REF] and H.R. 9602 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Gift Transparency Act).[REF] H.R. 9603 would transfer responsibilities for international postsecondary programs, including the Fulbright–Hays program (a scholarship program for U.S. students to study in other countries), from the Department of Education to the U.S. Department of State. The bill would also sunset the Institute for International Public Policy, which promotes the training of ethnic minority individuals for work in foreign service.H.R. 9602 would transfer responsibilities for foreign gift reporting requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act from Education to State. This oversight is essential to taxpayers because foreign entities exert influence on postsecondary institutions through financial gifts. China is the second-largest foreign financial contributor to U.S. universities, and students have reported contact from Chinese interests that try to extract information about research that students are performing.[REF]H.R. 9608 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act).[REF] This proposal would transfer authority for school safety programs and services that attempt to help school officials communicate with and engage parents from the Department of Education to HHS.[REF]H.R. 9609 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act).[REF] This last proposal would transfer oversight and operation of student loans from the Education Department to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, codifying an IAA established in March 2026.[REF] Because student loans account for approximately two-thirds of the Department of Education’s budget, this proposal is obviously one of enormous consequence for students nationwide. Treasury already has responsibilities for part of the student loan system, and moving oversight to this agency would consolidate authority for these loans in a single federal office.Critics of efforts to close the Department of Education argue that the interagency agreements merely split responsibilities across multiple agencies.[REF] These legislative proposals answer this claim by transferring full responsibilities for programs from Education to other offices. These transfers can serve as a model for future proposals to shift full authority over remaining initiatives out of the Department of Education.Others who oppose closing the department say that Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is “compromising the ability of the department to fulfill its duties.”[REF] As stated above, however, the Trump Administration has included taxpayer spending on statutory education programs such as Title I and the IDEA in the education agency’s budget. The legislation codifying interagency agreements demonstrates that Education officials are preventing confusion and instability among participants as the department is sunset.Policy RecommendationsMembers of Congress should:Continue to advance legislation that codifies existing interagency agreements between the Department of Education and other federal agencies.Consider measures to formalize the remaining agreements, including a proposal to transfer responsibility for federal education civil rights enforcement to the U.S. Department of Justice.ConclusionThe Department of Education’s recent interagency agreements have initiated a process by which responsibilities can gradually be transferred to other agencies without jeopardizing continuity for students, schools, and program participants. Instead of eliminating programs, these agreements have allowed federally authorized services to continue during the transition. The proposed legislation would take the next step in closing the department by permanently reassigning those functions, reducing the Department of Education’s role and moving its responsibilities to other agencies.Jonathan Butcher is Acting Director of the Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

4 days ago•
1

School Choice for Me, But Not for Thee

Randi Weingarten and Becky Pringle, presidents of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, respectively, sent a letter last month to Democratic governors urging them not to opt into President Donald Trump’s new federal tax credit boosting school choice.Weingarten and Pringle’s message was unequivocal: Keep the money inside the traditional public school system and shut down a path that would let families direct their resources elsewhere.At the same time, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) is leading an effort to repeal that program. But over half of the lawmakers backing Kelly’s bill, the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act, have had the privilege of opting out of public schools: They either attended private school growing up or sent their children to private schools.That includes at least 19 out of the 34 total sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill. The figure reveals a pattern of lawmakers who benefited from educational options they now want to keep out of reach for many families across the country.>>> Children Deserve Education, Not Gender IdeologyThe bill targets the school choice provisions tucked into last year’s reconciliation package. Those provisions created a program that lets individuals receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit of up to 1,700 for donations to scholarship-granting nonprofits. Those donations would support school choice scholarships, such as for private or religious school tuition, or for public school expenses, such as tutoring or classroom supplies. Any taxpayer can donate, but only students living in states that have opted in will be eligible for scholarships.Kelly and his allies framed their repeal effort as a defense of public education. Yet the personal records of many backers suggest their confidence in public schooling is not so strong.Kelly sent his daughter to a private school. The senator’s own background includes public schooling, but the choice he made for his child stands in contrast to the opposition he now leads to making similar options available for more families.Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) graduated from the private Emma Willard School and sent both of her sons to a private school in Washington.Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) sent one of her two children to private schools—and then said she did not in 2019 at an event during her presidential campaign. A Black mother from Memphis told Warren she wanted the same kind of choice Warren had exercised for her own child. “I read that your children went to private school,” the mother said in an exchange captured on video. Warren responded, “No, my children went to public school.”I first spotted the inconsistency in an Education Week report that confirmed that Warren attended public schools in Oklahoma but left the question about her children’s schooling unanswered. That omission stood out, because most candidates shared their family’s education choices. Warren’s silence on her family’s decisions and the later video exposed the gap between her public rhetoric and private actions.Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), another supporter of Kelly’s bill, attended St. Albans School, an elite private prep school in Washington. But Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), whom Bennet ran unsuccessfully to succeed, has already opted the state into the new federal school choice program and said that he would be “crazy not to” participate.Colorado is one of 31 states that have opted in or signaled they intend to participate in the nationwide tax credit.>>> The Florida Teachers’ Union’s Flimsy Lawsuit Against School ChoiceSome are taking advantage of the federal bill’s provision that allows for increasing spending on public schools. In Vermont, for instance, Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed legislation that aims to steer the taxpayer scholarship contributions toward public school expenses.Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vermont) is on Kelly’s co-sponsor list. Welch graduated from Cathedral High School, now known as Pope Francis Preparatory School, a private Catholic institution in Massachusetts. He was privately educated, yet he opposes efforts to make such options more accessible to less advantaged families.The Treasury Department said that state lawmakers cannot restrict scholarships to apply only to public schools. The program was designed to offer modest scholarships to students in all education sectors, not simply to create another public school subsidy. Attempts to rewrite the rules after the fact undermine the legislation’s purpose.The pattern is consistent. Lawmakers who benefited from private schooling or chose it for their children now work to keep these doors closed for other families. Their hypocrisy reflects a broader disconnect between the policies these senators promote and the decisions they make when their own families are involved. All families deserve the same opportunities that many of these lawmakers took for granted.

6 days ago

The UN’s Refugee Agency Seems to be Using Weasel Words to Hide Its Open Borders Agenda

If the open-borders activists running Joe Biden’s immigration policy while he was U.S. president had simply admitted they wanted to let in every foreigner who arrived at the American border, they might have faced blowback earlier. So they hid what they were doing in an envelope of inscrutable euphemisms and diversions.The mass release of migrants arriving at the border became a “lawful pathway.” Biden’s state department shoveled millions into creating 13 “Safe Mobility Offices” in Latin America to channel illegal migrants to the U.S.The United Nations uses the same weasel wording on a global scale. The 2026 Global Appeal of the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is 156 pages that prints out in a tiny font that should be known as Times New Glasses. It is riddled with NGO-speak that obscures what appears to be their mass migration agenda.Here’s an example: they advocate “route-based approaches to mixed movements of refugees and migrants [that] will focus on protection-sensitive entry and admission.” Huh? What that really seems to mean is that they want countries to accept all migrants, not just qualified refugees but also those merely looking for better jobs and improved lives.>>> Europe’s Migration “Crackdown” Still Pulls Its PunchesUNHCR was founded in 1950 to coordinate the response to emergencies causing mass exodus. The precedents were Jews fleeing Nazi extermination and dissidents fleeing Communist persecution.Barham Salih was named High Commissioner in 2026. According to a speech he gave to donor countries in February, the three “pillars of UNHCR’s mandate” are “protection, life-saving assistance, and advancing durable solutions.” All three goals sound worthy but are opaque.“Life-saving assistance” is the clearest. It suggests providing shelter, food, medicine, and clothing for displaced people. Few voters in donor countries would take issue with this. But it does not address the duration of the assistance, which in some cases has gone on for decades.“Protection” seems to mean physical safety for people fleeing for their lives. But for Salih, protection means “not only advocacy,” but “ensuring access to territory, legal status documentation.” The Global Appeal speaks of “inclusion” and “pathways out of displacement.” In plain English: this seems to mean either immediate host countries such as Egypt, Kenya, or Turkey must permanently absorb refugees (which pro-migration campaigners now refer to as “person[s] with refugee experience”) or third countries must take them.“Access to territory” appears to mean that the UNHCR wants countries like Spain and the United States to allow in anyone who physically reaches their borders. Yes, they would then have to apply for “protection” through asylum. But everyone knows that few of those denied—because they don’t qualify—will ever be removed. The European Union countries grant asylum around half the time but expel nowhere near all of those ruled ineligible. That means a foreigner with a bogus asylum claim has a significant chance of remaining in the EU once they get in—odds well worth the risk.In the U.S., rates vary by year but historically only around 15 per cent of asylum applications end in approval. But like in Europe, few of those refused asylum are ever removed. That makes “access to territory” a Trojan horse for permanent settlement.Salih’s big strategic goal for UNHCR is to reduce the number of refugees living in “protracted displacement” by half by 2035, through “durable solutions.”The most obvious “durable solution” is for refugees to go home. Salih says he supports this, but that return must be “voluntary, safe, and sustainable.” But even if places such as Ghana and India are “safe,” they are still poor. Requiring their nationals to volunteer to return, once ensconced in a richer country with benefits, would surely result in very few going home even when denied asylum.“Durable solutions” must therefore be a euphemism for facilitating mass migration. Echoing Biden, Salih has spoken of “pathways to rights, inclusion, and solutions” for refugees or asylum claimants once they are in safer countries.If it doesn’t mean return, then “durable solutions” appears to mean, in Salih’s words, “freedom of movement and the right to work,” and “expanded access to resettlement.” He also advocates for “complementary pathways”—which sounds like a euphemism for ways to get around visa caps or numerical limits voted in by host populations.Through its staff in American-funded Safe Mobility Offices, UNHCR spent 67.1m of U.S. taxpayer money in 2023-24 to advise aliens on such “complementary pathways” to enter the U.S. according to a congressional report. Biden is accused of using immigration parole as one such “pathway” to bring in over 1.5 million inadmissible migrants.>>> Swiss Miss Out on Chance To Save Their Nation From Immigrant InvasionSalih speaks of “responsibility sharing,” echoing the European Union’s recent Pact on Migration and Asylum. The EU deal, in effect, implies endless mass migration due to high asylum approval rates and low deportation rates. It requires that each EU member state take an assigned share of total annual illegal arrivals into the bloc, regardless of the wishes of their own populations.To encourage “responsibility sharing,” UNHCR uses donor money to advocate “opening more resettlement places.” What they seem to mean by this is moving refugees from frontline states such as Kenya or Turkey to Europe, the U.S. and other developed countries with more generous welfare benefits.So, in a donor-funded double whammy, UNHCR lobbies for “inclusive national laws, policies and systems” in desirable receiving countries, and pays for legal assistance to help migrants access them.The goals of UNHCR should be to: (1) protect refugees as close to home geographically and culturally as possible; (2) provide emergency assistance; and (3) return refugees home as soon as the crisis causing exodus is over. They should do so while mindful of donor-country interests, too, leaving each to set its own limits and policies on “pathways” to third-country settlement. The UN should not be in the business of facilitating mass economic migration from poor and dysfunctional countries to more prosperous ones while laundering it as refugee protection.Charity is given freely, not compelled. Every country gets to decide which foreign populations to admit or support, and to what extent. Ceding that sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats should be anathema to the United States and all self-respecting nations.

6 days ago•
1

Teachers’ Unions Are Losing One of Their Government Perks

State lawmakers are limiting the special advantages that let teachers’ unions lobby on the public dime.Teachers’ unions have long enjoyed access to public payroll systems and facilities that no private entity receives. Recent legislation in three states demonstrates a better path: public funds are redirected toward improving student outcomes, not strengthening union infrastructure.Idaho got the ball rolling on April 10, when Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 516a. The law prohibits the use of public resources and facilities for union activities. Districts are now barred from collecting dues through payroll systems, hosting union meetings or trainings at school sites during work hours, or granting paid leave for political advocacy. The bill’s supporters argue that public resources should be directed toward educational functions rather than union operations.Florida was next: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1296 on May 1. Beyond requiring meaningful participation thresholds for union certification and recertification elections, the legislation held teachers unions accountable by stopping taxpayer-funded union time for political activities.Unions must now show genuine support from members rather than relying on automatic access to public payroll and facilities. These changes promote transparency, reduce unions’ reliance on public administrative systems, and require them to demonstrate support through voluntary member participation.>>> Arizona Republicans Give Teachers Union an Education Lesson They Won’t ForgetNow it’s Arizona’s turn. Republicans there passed House Concurrent Resolution 2040 on June 12. Because the measure proposes a constitutional amendment, it bypassed Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and heads directly to voters in November. HCR 2040 would add language to Article XVIII of the Arizona Constitution prohibiting school districts from using any public monies or public resources to support the operations of a labor organization.Specifically, it bars the use of school email systems and equipment to recruit members or distribute union materials, ends automatic payroll deductions for union dues, and prohibits union meetings on school property during school hours when students are present. Taxpayer-supported institutions should be neutral, not used as union organizing hubs that lobby the same government that funds them.This concern predates contemporary debates over education policy. Decades ago, a leading progressive articulated the fundamental conflict of public sector unions, as taxpayers occupy both sides of the negotiating table. In a 1937 letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote:All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.Public-sector unions differ fundamentally from private-sector ones because the employer is the taxpayer. Collective bargaining in government pits employees against the public, rather than against private profit motives. Roosevelt continued:The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.Opponents sometimes argue that restricting taxpayer support for union activities violates teachers’ First Amendment rights. The claim does not hold. Teachers retain full freedom to form voluntary associations, pay dues from their own pockets, and engage in political speech on their own time and with their own resources. No constitutional provision grants any group the right to extract compulsory subsidies from the general public or from non-members through government payroll mechanisms. Ending forced taxpayer support simply restores voluntary association and government neutrality.Teachers unions have increasingly served as reliable extensions of the Democratic Party agenda. The National Education Association killed a resolution in 2019 that would have rededicated the organization to increased student learning as its central priority. In 2025, the same body adopted numerous political resolutions that functioned more as attacks on the Trump administration than as statements about classroom practice.The political flavor of the organization’s actions is pronounced: NEA President Becky Pringle remains an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee. In the most recent election cycle, over 98 percent of the NEA’s political contributions flowed to Democratic candidates and causes. The pattern doesn’t look like independent advocacy on behalf of educators.The issue is not unique to teachers unions. Whenever a public institution provides resources to an organization that seeks to influence public policy, a principal-agent problem emerges. Taxpayers fund the institution, but its leaders may use public resources to advance the interests of the narrow group, rather than those of the broader public.>>> Florida Bills Ensure That Teachers Unions Put Educators, Students FirstSimilar patterns appear at the American Federation of Teachers. Its president, Randi Weingarten, reportedly directed more than 1.4 million in union resources toward promoting her book—which brands mainstream conservatives as “fascists.” She also leveraged the union’s substantial pension fund holdings to pressure retailer Target into publicly opposing federal immigration enforcement. Using retirement assets accumulated from teachers’ paychecks to pursue unrelated political objectives constitutes a clear departure from fiduciary responsibility.Every state could replicate Idaho’s approach, requiring government to remain neutral, not backing specific advocacy organizations with public funds. Taxpayers already finance public schools: a trillion dollars in total per-pupil spending. They should not be compelled underwrite the political operations of organizations that consistently prioritize partisan influence over measurable improvements in student achievement.The question is not whether teachers unions should exist, but whether taxpayers should subsidize organizations that subsequently seek more taxpayer subsidy, often for actions the taxpayer wouldn’t otherwise support.Removing public subsidies forces unions to rely on voluntary member support, increases accountability, and keeps government resources focused on their proper purpose: educating children. The reforms in Idaho, Florida, and Arizona mark the beginning of a necessary correction.

6 days ago•
1

This July 4, at 250 Years, Let Us Rededicate Ourselves to Protecting Our Elections

America has much to celebrate this July 4, but also much to do. Even after 250 years, the task of conserving the Republic given to us by our Founding Fathers is a never-ending struggle.Fortunately, we have a wellspring of wisdom from those Founders we can tap. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, outlined the responsibility of citizens:The price of liberty is not just the blood of past Americans, but a responsibility and duty as a citizen, and a willingness by patriots to set up and do more. There are civic duties such as participation in American civil life. Not everyone is called to be a representative to a county or state, but we are all called to serve our nation where we can.One way we can do that: rededicate ourselves to prioritizing the importance of voting, civic involvement in local elections, and protecting the integrity of our elections.Exercise your right to free speech or lose it. Do not be silent in the ongoing political debate on the great issues of the day, particularly on the security and integrity of elections and the need to increase transparency in our election process.>>> USPS Releases Proposed Security, Transparency Standards for Mail-In BallotsToday’s American leaders can take lessons from the bravery of the Founders by leading the debate today on the critical issues of the day—first and foremost, be bold in the persuasion of your countrymen.Only by practicing the art of persuasion can we build a strong election process capable of persisting for another 250 years. Educate your sphere of influence on the important policy goals necessary to strengthen our voting process. Stress the fundamental importance of elections where the vote is secure and verified, and worthy of the confidence of all Americans.Focus on the fundamentals first, then look to do more. Citizens need to ensure they are properly registered to vote, and their registration is accurate and up to date. We should be prepared to exercise their duty in voting, no matter how busy we may be.Voting is a civic duty, a responsibility of citizenship. Your political voice and vote are a powerful tool in a constitutional republic, granting authority to your representatives. Be intentional to vote in all federal, state, and local elections.With your vote, you are honoring the early Americans who shed the blood, sweat, and tears necessary to build this country. Voters directly honor the fallen Americans and veterans, who have served and risked everything and sometimes gave their life to maintain the freedom to vote.If those men and women can give it all in defense of the Republic, as a citizen you can find the motivation and energy to cast a ballot like a proud American.Get involved locally and participate in local elections. Citizens often overlook these races, but they offer one of the best ways to make a meaningful impact and see the results of your efforts. Local elections enable you to express your voice on a range of issues, including property taxes, education reforms, and election integrity, and they offer you a chance to be a part of civic life at the local level.Another way to go the extra mile: step up and be a poll worker for your community and nation.>>> Democrats Go Ballistic after Virginia Redistricting Failure with Erratic IncompetenceBecause of shortages, Americans need more poll workers to facilitate the right to vote of their fellow citizens. Many veterans serve as poll workers because they again want to serve their nation and be part of something bigger than themselves.Regardless of political party or ideology, this service is vital to the confidence in the fundamental fairness of elections. It is a small sacrifice of time and energy to do what is necessary to maintain the integrity of our election process nationwide.To keep our Republic, go to the Election Assistance Commission’s website and sign up to be a poll worker and then help get the word out about the need for poll workers on August 11, which is National Poll Worker Recruitment Day.Patriots, like the Founding Fathers, do not sit on the sideline and wait for others to shoulder the mantle of leadership when things look bleak. Patriots rise determined to do the challenging work of defending liberty for their community and for their nation.Don’t wait for others. Get involved in the integrity of your elections today.Liberty only survives if citizens actively maintain it. Freedom is not self-sustaining—the people must preserve it through effort and responsibility.

6 days ago•
1

Supreme Court Must Rein in D.C. Court of Appeals

To paraphrase the Bard, something is rotten in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court is starting to notice.Since 2018, the D.C. Court of Appeals has issued controversial criminal-law decisions that have narrowed police authority, strained Fourth Amendment doctrine, and drawn criticism from judges within its own ranks. Although the Supreme Court rarely reviews cases from that court, recent interventions by the high court suggest a legitimate concern that its habit of straying from binding precedent likely requires additional scrutiny. It’s about time.Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were among the first to sound the alarm. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Court of Appeals in District of Columbia v. R.W. in a pithy per curiam decision, rebuking the court for its departure from the “totality of the circumstances” approach to reasonable suspicion.More recently, Alito, joined by Thomas, dissented from the denial of certiorari in United States v. Donte J. Carter, criticizing the court’s decision to incorporate race into Fourth Amendment seizure analysis. Together, these developments show a troubling reality: The D.C. Court of Appeals is charting its own constitutional course.>>> The Supreme Court Slaps the D.C. Court of AppealsThe Supreme Court’s concerns are well-founded. When a lower court repeatedly departs from Supreme Court precedent in cases involving searches, seizures, and reasonable suspicion, the court has a duty to restore consistency and reaffirm that constitutional rights mean the same thing in Washington as everywhere else.The clearest example is the District of Columbia v. R.W. There, the trial court found reasonable suspicion, but the D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed. Instead of considering all the facts together, it discounted key evidence, including the police’s dispatch and the fact that two young men fled from the back of R.W.’s car when the police approached. The Supreme Court reversed. In a brief per curiam opinion, it warned against “reviewing facts piecemeal and without context” and reiterated that courts must examine the “whole picture.”The significance of R.W. extends beyond one juvenile defendant. The decision exposed a recurring problem: The D.C. Court of Appeals often dissects facts individually, rejects each in isolation, and then concludes that reasonable suspicion does not exist. That methodology conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent.The same pattern appeared in Mayo v. United States. Officers saw Landon Mayo make suspicious movements near his waistband, suggesting that he was hiding or moving a gun. When they approached and asked whether he had a gun, Mayo fled. Police later recovered firearms and narcotics.Yet the D.C. Court of Appeals held that Mayo’s movements, flight, and presence in a high-crime area failed to establish reasonable suspicion. Judge Roy McLeese dissented, arguing that the majority ignored Illinois v. Wardlow, which recognized unprovoked flight as highly relevant. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “headlong flight” is “the consummate act of evasion.” Flight does not prove guilt, but it must be weighed as part of the totality of the circumstances.Instead, the D.C. Court of Appeals minimized factors the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to consider. As McLeese observed, reasonable suspicion does not require every fact to point unmistakably toward criminal conduct. Innocent explanations do not eliminate suspicion when the facts, viewed together, suggest otherwise.Then came United States v. Donte J. Carter. There, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that courts should consider a defendant’s race when determining whether a police encounter is a seizure. The court asked whether an “objective and reasonable person sharing the defendant’s generalized lived experiences arising out of their racial status” would have felt free to end the encounter. McLeese expressed uncertainty “as to whether the race of a suspect can permissibly be considered in assessing whether police conduct constitutes a seizure.”>>> The D.C. Carjacking Crisis: A Tale of Two AdministrationsAlito viewed that reasoning as troubling enough to warrant Supreme Court review. Joined by Thomas, he dissented from the denial of certiorari, warning that the decision raised fundamental questions about Fourth Amendment doctrine. Traditionally, seizure analysis has relied on objective standards that apply equally to all citizens. The D.C. Court of Appeals appears to be moving toward a framework that varies according to race and subjective experience.Given the court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and in Louisiana v. Callais, which forbid the use of race in college admissions and drawing congressional districts, respectively, it is hard to imagine the court would endorse the use of race for Fourth Amendment purposes.Taken individually, R.W., Mayo, and Carter might be dismissed as ordinary disagreements over difficult constitutional questions. Together, however, they reveal a court increasingly willing to depart from Supreme Court precedent. The concern is no longer speculative: the Supreme Court has already reversed the D.C. Court of Appeals once this year, and two justices have publicly warned that another decision warrants review.The Supreme Court exists to ensure that constitutional protections are applied uniformly throughout the nation. When a lower court repeatedly charts its own course, correction becomes necessary. Alito and Thomas have recognized the problem. The reversal in R.W. confirms it. The Supreme Court should grant review in more criminal cases from the D.C. Court of Appeals, eliminate the rot, and restore the consistency the rule of law demands.

1 week ago•
1
Heritage Foundation — News Tracking & Analysis | Real Narrative News