R Street Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization. We are a free market think-tank with a pragmatic approach to public-policy challenges. Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. We work extensively on both state and national policy and are dedicated to building broad coalitions and working with a wide array of groups who share specific policy goals.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
a group of windmills in the sky above the clouds
Photo by Sander Weeteling on Unsplash
We Can Save Our Earth: Environment Opportunities 2025
Jul 06, 2025
On May 8th, 2025, the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) convened a session to discuss the future of the transition to clean energy in the face of some stiff headwinds caused by the new US administration led by Donald Trump. The panel included Dale Bryk, Director of State and Regional Policy at the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program and a Senior Fellow at the Regional Plan Association, and Dan Sosland, President of the Acadia Center. The discussion was moderated by Richard Eidlin, National Policy Director for Business for America.
The actions of the Trump administration are somewhat surprising, given the campaign rhetoric at face value. While the administration promised an end to burdensome Federal regulation and an era of new Federalism, the current policy regarding clean energy and the environment has been anything but. The president’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy”, issued on January 20th, 2025, is, in fact, a heavy-handed intrusion by the Federal government into state and local energy policies, and reads, according to Bryk, like a “mindless assault on anything that sounds clean.”
While the acts of the current administration will make a transition to clean energy more difficult, the message from Bryk was that “the arc of history bends towards clean energy.” The transition will happen because, politics aside, the science is now clear and not in dispute. So what can be done in the face of an administration that is antagonistic to this transition? As described by the panel, US states in fact have a tremendous amount of jurisdiction over not only energy policies, but over the industries that primarily contribute to climate change, such as transportation and housing. And the advice from Bryk to those state and local governments is “not to chase the chaos.” Most states and communities have affirmative agendas for their energy policies, and those need to be defended, including in the courts.
There is a long history of Federal and state collaboration on various programs, and many states also cooperate among themselves to agree on, for example, emission limits from power plants operating within those states. Historically, these efforts have broad bipartisan support. One of the points repeatedly mentioned during this presentation was that there is more agreement on the need for an energy transition than might be apparent based on the highly polarized talking points visible at the national level. But how is this possible?
Part of the reason is that the discussion at the state and local levels is not necessarily about “climate change.” In fact, how we discuss the transition to clean energy is a complicated issue itself, and what we say can also obscure what is happening in many states. Bryk emphasized that in many states, “climate is not the driver. Job creation is the driver.” Or, reducing energy costs is the driver, or just trying to keep energy dollars local is the driver. It can be surprising for people steeped in climate change discussions to learn that the US states that generate the most wind power (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) or have the most widespread use of heat pumps (South Carolina) do not have the most aggressive climate policies. They have other priorities that align with the desire to make a transition to clean energy, and the climate impact may be just a side benefit, for now. On the topic of the transition to clean energy, the American electorate has more in common than it has differences. Even conservatives argue that the Trump energy policy is interfering in the market, and is not allowing renewable energy sources to move to the forefront. However, it is often economically advantageous for them to do so.
So, how we talk about this issue matters. As Sosland emphasized, we are all paying for the costs of the energy choices we are currently making. We pay not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the impact on the climate and our own health. “We need to do a better job in the climate community of framing a message that works. We talk so much about cost, so much about utility and other kinds of economics…we are really talking about human beings in flood zones, coughing, getting sick. We are talking about humans here. The human impact of this issue is not even being addressed. That has to change. It has to turn around.” As Bryk put it, “The underlying values that we have are not controversial, and that’s a place where we can start and have conversations about these things with our families and our friends.”
If the transition is going to happen, however, it’s not the case that unleashed market forces by themselves will get us to where we want to be. As Bryk recognized, we know that there are “communities across the country that have been overburdened by pollution and underserved by the clean energy solutions.” There is a disconnect, and it’s important to think about what, as she says, a “just and orderly transition looks like, economic sector by economic sector. To make that transition orderly, we will need policies to be put into place that avoid the failures that often occur in the market. “That’s part of what we have to think about when we are thinking about equitable transition … all of those opportunities to intervene and help it work better and prevent the bad things from happening that can happen in a transition.”
The approach of the current administration will pose the greatest challenges to our ability to create just policies. Although states and communities have power, states cannot do everything when plans involve, for example, Federal leases, and the government may renege on those contracts. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct business. “What can you rely on if you can’t rely on the signature of the US government on a signed contract?” Bryk asked. The opposition of the Federal government to enabling a clean energy transition is especially surprising, given that data shows economic forces are already pushing in that direction. Sosland reminded us that in the Northeast region of the country, energy production was 21% based on coal just 10-15 years ago. It is now less than 1% coal. Market pressures are driving the shift away from fossil fuels. This is why the panel believes that the transition is inevitable, but the opposition of the Federal government will delay the transition timeframe, and that may or may not be the time that we have. International agreements aim to achieve goals by 2030, 2035, and 2050. If we are not on track to meet the first targets, we will either not meet or it will be much more expensive to meet the 2050 target. So, while the technology and ingenuity is in place, the policies of the current administration are incredibly damaging. “This isn’t a blip, necessarily, that is affordable. Losing four or more years is really going to be damaging to meeting the 2030, 2035 targets as we head to 2050,” Sosland reminded us. “There is an enormous amount to worry about,” Bryk said. We are currently in a very precarious position. I have confidence in the states, cities, communities, and some businesses. But, we are not meeting many targets that many states and companies have set. And now we are being hamstrung in a way … that’s out of our power. But there are always other places where we can make a lot of progress,” said Bryk.
And this last comment highlighted the areas of optimism that the panel wanted to emphasize. While the stance of the current US administration can be disheartening, the panel believes that considerable good can be achieved at the state and local levels.
For example, small communities are doing quite a bit. Putting solar farms on landfills. Creating bike paths as alternatives to cars. Massachusetts has incentives to adopt very stringent energy codes, so new buildings are being constructed to very high standards. Many states with climate policies are demonstrably improving the quality of life in their communities. Almost all states (44) participate in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, a policy initiated under the IRA. Whether or not these states have explicit climate policies doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they see good reasons to pursue a migration to a clean energy infrastructure. They have recognized that we are always spending money on energy infrastructure, so we can choose to allocate it to options that will yield greater benefits and longer lifespans.
If there is so much agreement on the underlying principles, why does it still seem so difficult to talk about it? The answer to that seems to be that, at the current level of polarization in our society, it is challenging to discuss anything that has become a political litmus test. How to talk about this issue was branded by Bryk as the “question of our time.” The advice given by this panel was to adopt the old aphorism, “think globally, and act locally.” It is hard to have these conversations at the national level, but easier at the state level, and even easier at the community level. And there is something happening in almost every community that is part of a clean energy transition. So, getting involved at the local level, for example, with local faith organizations, was described as one of the best ways to engage in this issue while avoiding much of the damaging political rhetoric.
Leigh Chinitz is a Board Member of the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP).
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Primary voting, Michigan
Elaine Cromie/Getty Images
The Responsibility of the First Vote
Jul 06, 2025
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Nathaly Suquinagua, a bilingual multimedia journalist with a B.A. in Journalism and a minor in Dance from Temple University, and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.
Here’s her insight on the topic.
Democracy can mean many things, especially given the state of the world over the last few months. That word is unraveled into multiple categories, and what it also means to the people closest to you. To me, democracy means equality, representation, and the chance to build a better world together. Having the opportunity to vote and elect people who share the same values as the individual allows for a genuine decision about who has the best intentions for what matters most and what is crucial in civic engagement.
Being a first-generation American with my immigrant parents from Colombia and Ecuador to me also means voting is more than a personal choice; it is a way to represent my family that doesn't have a voice at the ballot box. This perspective brings the meaning of democracy into focus and raises an important question: What does democracy truly mean for those who can’t vote but still call this country home, like my parents?
Speaking with Lauren Cristella, president and CEO of the Committee of 70, a 121-year non-partisan, nonprofit based in Philadelphia serving the commonwealth, focusing on making sure that the elections are free, fair, safe, and secure, mentioned that our system of government among the people is at a historic low.
“I think all the polling that we've been seeing recently, especially among people like 35 and younger, is really troubling that they don't have faith in our system of government. They don't believe that democracy is necessarily the best form of government.” Cristella said.
According to the Committee of 70, approximately 17% of registered voters in Philadelphia participated in the primary election on May 20, 2025. This makes us question why this is occurring, and now, I believe, it is more crucial than ever to vote and make a difference.
If Philadelphia continues to lose its share of the turnout, it can diminish the state's influence in national politics. More importantly, it reflects a troubling reality: I believe many people who once thought that their voices mattered by voting have given up. These people have given up on democracy, feeling unheard and powerless.
This just shows how much people have lost their faith in the system. As a voter myself who continues to vote and stay involved as an activist, I’ve felt that the power of democracy has diminished, and issues that I care about and vote for have felt overlooked and reversed. One of the most prominent issues is the immigration status in the US and deporting hard-working immigrant families, and the gutting of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Act (DEI), just to name a few of the prime examples. Representation and equality are what I truly believe in, and it is what drew me to journalism. Being the voice of the voiceless and seeing others like myself in the media is what I strive to be.
Having the responsibility of thinking of my loved ones when voting has been frustrating, and it makes me wonder if the cause is not that people don’t care, but rather that they feel unheard and stuck. With so many executive orders getting cut back and gutted, it can feel like no one is listening to you. I often feel overwhelmed by the amount of information available, whether it’s on my phone or during a conversation with someone. Revisiting the core of democracy, it’s clear that meaningful conversations are key to driving change and motivating people to take action.
It's about ensuring that people have access and are informed about what's happening in their local politics. Providing translations in multiple languages can help create a sense of unity and inclusion in the political process. When people are informed, regardless of their voting status, they can still engage in meaningful discussions and even encourage others who can vote to take action.
According to Pew Research, “Naturalized citizens–immigrants who hold U.S. citizenship-who – who voted in the election split their votes about evenly, which shows that naturalized citizens are a politically diverse group and can make a difference when voting to make their home a better place to live in.
As challenges intensify both in the U.S and around the world, it's crucial to stick together and ensure that we are the ones holding people accountable for what we see is wrong. Whether sharing your story, voting, or even reporting issues online, having that sense of community is essential for you and for the people who may not have the luxury of voting and having their say in the place they call home.
I believe that there's some hope in all this; it's the people who care that give me hope about democracy and organizations like the League of Women Voters and the Committee of 70. Doing little things is a huge help in promoting democracy and ensuring unity in all this. Being able to discuss government and democracy, even among grade school-age children, is important to ensure that people who can, can have a say in it by voting and making a difference in local politics. I believe that this is what America is all about: being able to express your concerns and being united, regardless of one's political stance.Nathaly Suquinagua has reported for Billy Penn/WHYY, NJ Urban News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Slice of Culture, covering community, culture, social issues, and public interest stories. As a first-generation Hispanic journalist, she’s dedicated to telling underrepresented stories with depth and cultural nuance.
Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
United States flag, Red representing the Republican party, and the Blue representing the Democratic party.
Getty Images//Stock Photo
From Red vs. Blue to Common Sense: Solving Money in Politics Together
Jul 05, 2025
Despite the division in our politics, Americans across the aisle agree on two essential issues: there’s a problem with the role of money in politics (the public’s #1 concern), and there is too little cooperation between our leaders in solving the nation’s problems (the #5 concern). These two issues erode trust in our institutions and the integrity of our elections, and leave communities and voters across the country feeling sidelined.
That’s why we, two state legislators from opposite sides of the aisle, have come together. Unchecked political spending and partisan gridlock hurt government where it is intended to be most accessible: in our local communities.
Consider Wyoming. In 1870, Louisa Swain of Laramie cast her vote in a local election half a century before the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote nationally. Wyoming’s early commitment to civic participation was crucial in keeping local and state government closely tethered to its people.
But today, that connection between government and the people it’s meant to serve is under siege, not just in Wyoming but nationwide. The overwhelming influx of out-of-state money into local and state elections silences the voices of everyday citizens. In the 2024 election cycle, A projected $4.6 billion was spent on state elections for candidates and ballot measures, surpassing previous records.
This has a corrosive impact. Voters feel powerless, and our jobs as elected representatives are becoming increasingly challenging. Public servants face mounting pressure to appease national donors rather than their constituents. Campaigns that once focused on community priorities are now battlegrounds for national special interests, injecting divisive rhetoric and millions of dollars of dark money into races that were once decided around kitchen tables and in town halls.
This nationalization of local elections is no longer the exception—it’s the rule. Just look at Wisconsin, where more than $100 million flooded this year’s state Supreme Court race. Billionaires and Washington D.C. power players weren’t investing because they cared about the judicial needs of Wisconsin residents. They were using the race as a political proxy war, a trend currently playing out in statehouses, school board contests, and mayoral elections across the country.
It wasn’t always this way. For most of our nation’s history, states have had the authority to set reasonable limits on campaign finance to protect the integrity of their elections. However, a series of Supreme Court decisions ruled that political spending constitutes a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, thereby stripping states of the ability to protect their elections from outside influence.
Those Supreme Court cases were, and still are, wrong. They not only elevated the voices of the wealthiest donors over the average voter but also violated the long-standing principle of states’ rights to limit political spending. This has resulted in the nationalization of our elections, which has stifled discussion on the issues that impact citizens at both the local and state levels.
The path forward is clear: we need a constitutional amendment that restores states’ and local communities’ authority to set their own rules on money in politics. Amending the Constitution is the only way to reverse Supreme Court decisions, and has been the instrument commonly used throughout American history to strengthen the will of the people at the ballot box. If the damage is being done at the state level, then it’s the states that must lead the way toward a solution.
Twenty-three states, from Utah and Nevada to West Virginia and New Hampshire, have already passed resolutions in support of this amendment. Six states—including our state of Wyoming—introduced resolutions supporting a constitutional amendment just this year. Polls show that more than three-quarters of Americans support returning this power to the people. Bipartisan momentum to address this issue is growing.
As lawmakers from different parties, we don’t agree on everything. But we do agree on this: government works best when it elevates the voices of citizens, not special interests. When it invites cooperation, not conflict. And when it allows communities—not billionaires or out-of-state operatives—to shape the future of our towns and our states. That vision isn’t new; it’s rooted in our founding. As the late U.S. Senator Alan Simpson wisely explained: “We need to get back to basics with our Constitution and our political system. As a nation, we cannot accept the law of aristocracy, where the political rights of people are based on their wealth.”
This movement to amend the Constitution gets us back to the basics. It returns power to the states and the people, ensuring our government is accessible, responsive, and focused on the issues that voters actually care about.
Andrew Byron is a Republican state representative in Wyoming.
Mike Gierau is a Democratic state senator from Wyoming.
Keep ReadingShow less
Voted printed papers on white surface
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series
Jul 05, 2025
In Part 1, Pat Merloe examines the impact of the political environment, the necessity of constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the detrimental effects of proof of citizenship on voting.
Part One: Bellicose Environment, Constitutional Infringements, and Disenfranchisement by Proof of Citizenship
The intense MAGA barrage against genuine elections, leading up to 2024’s voting, paused briefly after Election Day - not because there was diminished MAGA hostility towards typically trustworthy processes and results, but mainly because Donald Trump won. Much valuable work took place to protect last year’s polls, and much more will be needed as we head toward 2026, 2028, and beyond.
While some would like us to believe that “all’s quiet on the election front”, multipoint attacks are underway with just 17 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy.
While Donald Trump’s July 2024 statement may not be a MAGA roadmap, it remains a threat to free and fair elections that should be heeded: “We’ll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote”. Just as there was Project 2025, we can be certain that there is a project to maintain and expand power by “fixing” elections or perhaps even keeping power despite them.
Effects of the Political Environment
American elections are taking place in an increasingly bellicose political environment, amid a presidential power grab. The deployment of military troops to Los Angeles despite opposition from its Mayor and Governor, threats to use “very big force” against protests of Trumps’ June 14th military parade, and tactics used in stepped up immigration raids in cities aimed to break Democratic power centers portend a more confrontational atmosphere as the summer and pre-election periods develop.
Power grabbing includes: subverting judicial and congressional checks and balances; prodding for an anti-constitutional third presidential term; pressuring news media, law firms, judges, and universities to tow the line politically; issuing executive orders that undermine trustworthy elections; as well as targeting political “enemies”. Such enemies encompass officials who told the truth about the 2020 presidential election and others currently working to protect voting rights.
Those factors are mixing with five years of Big-Lie propaganda claiming that the 2020 presidential race was stolen – a fabrication that is still being propagated, including by people in key roles in the Administration. Repeating the falsehood is part of justifying current actions and softening the ground for false claims about future MAGA election losses.
Added to the mix is hype around the fiction that voting by non-citizens is a significant threat that warrants overly burdensome proof of citizenship and other barriers to exercising voting rights. Such barriers are incorporated into the SAVE Act, state bills, and EO 14248, the presidential executive order on elections. MAGA-related groups like True The Vote and Election Integrity Network are using such issues to develop local organizations that are advocating for voting barriers and questioning electoral processes. Plus, election officials continue to face harassment and threats, as are many judges.
In short, we are living in a distressed election environment that is under siege and in need of reinforcements. That includes robust, honest journalism, truthful sources speaking out across social and other digital platforms, community forums that bridge divides where possible, and broad citizen engagement. Fortunately, there are such efforts that merit attention and support.
Defending Constitutional Electoral Protections
Irrespective of notable shortcomings in the electoral arena, the U.S. Constitution protects against the presidential usurpation of electoral powers. Article I, Section 4 is explicit: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.…”
There is no constitutional role for a president to dictate electoral rules, and Article II’s definition of a president’s powers requires an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” not subvert it under the pretext of executing laws passed by Congress or to address fabricated crises.
Yet, President Trump has done just that and will likely try to dictate more rules favoring MAGA power – and MAGA congressional actions, such as those through the SAVE Act or otherwise, could clear the way.
President Trump’s Executive Order 14248, ironically titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of Elections”, overrides constitutional powers provided to the states and Congress. It offends the principle of universal and equal suffrage by creating unwarranted barriers to voting in person and by mail, requires unworkable electoral administration actions, breaches citizen privacy rights, and mobilizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) for political advantage. It thus illustrates important elements of the MAGA elections project.
The Order overlooks that the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent body established by Congress as a nonpartisan entity. An earlier Executive Order (14215) claims the power to negate the independence of agencies like the EAC, Federal Election Commission (FEC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which also has an electoral impact. And, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management could also undermine their independence. In addition, the FEC’s federal campaign finance oversight role is also being obstructed by an orchestrated quorum deficiency.
If the EAC and other independent agencies created by Congress are allowed to become political tools of the presidency, future Executive Orders could easily be issued to tilt the electoral playing field or even interfere in determining election results. Court actions to limit such orders would be curtailed if the MAGA congressional agenda is enacted. Plus, the power of lower federal courts to restrain such actions was severely limited by the recent Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v CASA. At the outer edge of the interference spectrum, declaring emergencies and deploying military force to protect those “performing federal functions” should such vaguely defined actions become normalized.
Attorneys general from 19 states are suing in federal court seeking to block many provisions of EO 14248. On June 13, the court issued a preliminary injunction against five subsections of the EO, though several harmful provisions of the EO remain unaddressed. Two of the subsections addressed concerned proof of citizenship, which a different court also enjoined. The ruling restrained three other provisions: a constraint on military voting; the US Attorney General enforcing the EO’s Election Day mail ballot deadline; and instruction to the EAC to condition funding to states on their accepting that deadline (though EO Section 4(a) on withholding EAC funding was not addressed).
While further proceedings and appeals will follow, the suit illustrates the importance of attorneys general in defending constitutional protections. That role is heightened by Trump v. CASA decision, which restricts lower federal courts from issuing universal (i.e., nationwide) preliminary injunctions except in very limited circumstances where “complete relief” is necessary for the specific parties to the case (e.g., to states that are plaintiffs) or broad relief is gained through class action cases that are expensive and slow moving. The impact of the CASA decision in the election arena, where swift court action is crucial, could be detrimental.
Proof of Citizenship Requirements Disenfranchises Eligible Voters
Section 2(a) of EO 14248 instructs the EAC to modify its national mail voter registration form to include documented proof of citizenship, which would unnecessarily block large numbers of eligible voters from registering and burden state and local officials with onerous record-keeping of details. The EO’s acceptable documents only include a US passport, Real ID, or a military, state, or federal photo ID that indicates US citizenship. According to the State Department’s 2024 data, just under 50% of the total US population holds a valid passport, and this percentage applies to voters, excluding duplicate holders and children.
The list does not include a birth certificate, which is often the basis for the listed IDs, thus manufacturing a likely two-stage process. Obtaining a government-certified birth certificate itself can be expensive and time-consuming, and thus can be a voting barrier to potentially millions of people. Such barriers particularly affect young people and minority communities.
The Order’s Section 2(d) requires federal agencies like the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of the Interior to assess citizenship before providing the federal voter registration form to persons in public assistance programs.
State officials would need to modify voter registration databases and take other measures within an unrealistic timeframe to comply with using the revised federal registration form. The Order also requires the FEC to cut funding to states that do not, among other matters, use the form, though Congress authorized such funding.
The proof of citizenship requirements in Sections 2(a) and (d) were preliminarily enjoined by a federal court ruling in response to a suit brought by the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of Women Voters, Democratic National Committee, and others. This ruling will also now work its way through further hearings and appeals in light of the Trump v. CASA ruling, while federal and state legislative proof-of-citizenship requirements remain part of the electoral battlefield.
The SAVE Act – which may soon come to a Senate vote – does many of the same things as EO 14248, including codifying proof of citizenship for voting and putting unrealistic, unfunded demands on election officials. Plus, the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) new Process and Procedures Taskforce is promoting to state legislatures the SAVE Act and other voting restrictions, as are efforts like the August 2025 “Only Citizens Vote Month” lobbying campaign by the Tea Party Patriots. Countering such efforts through education and mobilization are pro-voter organizations, including the Brennan Center, IssueOne, the Center for American Progress (CAP), and VoteRiders.
The MAGA election attacks are also being launched on other fronts. Some spring from additional provisions of EO 14248. The salvos entail weaponizing the Justice Department, including its Voting Rights Section, as well as assaults on the courts and other facets of trustworthy elections, which are explored in parts two and three of this series. They emphasize the urgency of building an effective defensive effort that requires taking a position on the ramparts.
Part Two, which will be published on Saturday, July 12, examines the detrimental effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department's stance on voting rights, and the consequences of political retribution.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More