Search Results

Human trafficking remains one of the most urgent moral and social crises of our time, inflicting untold suffering on children, families, and entire communities. Children are often the most vulnerable when family structures collapse due to poverty, instability, or the absence of safety nets. Traffickers exploit these weaknesses, preying on desperation and disconnection. Despite growing awareness, the United States continues to face major gaps in prevention and enforcement. The path forward begins by understanding the problem: instability at home, unchecked online exploitation, and a culture that fails to hold exploiters fully accountable. At the heart of the vulnerability human traffickers exploit lies family instability. When families lack the resources to remain secure—whether through job loss, housing insecurity, addiction, or untreated mental health challenges—children face far greater risk. Too many parents are left without the means or support to protect their children from predators who exploit hardship. Faith-based and community organizations must lead the effort to restore family stability, offering programs in job training, housing assistance, and crisis intervention. But even as families strengthen, parents must take proactive responsibility: monitoring technology use, setting firm boundaries, and having open conversations about safety and morality. Public awareness campaigns should reinforce the authority of parents and equip them to recognize grooming and exploitation early. Social media has become one of the most dangerous platforms for trafficking. The digital media platforms allow predators to reach children where they live, learn, and play—often right under the noses of parents. Social media and gaming platforms have created an environment where grooming and recruitment thrive, largely unchecked. Big Tech companies prioritize profit over protection, and weak oversight allows traffickers to operate anonymously. Without stronger online safety standards and corporate accountability, the problem will only worsen. Parents and educators must be equipped with the knowledge and tools to identify these digital threats before they escalate. Human trafficking persists not only because of vulnerability and access but also because of demand. When society fails to challenge those who purchase sex—especially from minors—it enables this exploitation to flourish. The myth of “victimless” participation fuels an underground economy built on suffering. Confronting this demand requires cultural and legal change. Public campaigns must expose the harm behind commercial sexual exploitation, while the justice system enforces laws that make purchasing sex a serious and stigmatized crime. Only by confronting demand for human trafficking head-on and addressing family and digital vulnerabilities can we begin to dismantle the trafficking networks that prey on our children and communities.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Trafficking Survivor's Relief Act Monday evening in a move that will make a difference for survivors of modern day slavery around the nation. Human trafficking victims are often coerced into committing crimes, such as prostitution, fraud, and identity theft, by their traffickers but once in the justice system, receive no recognition of their victim status, only a criminal record that damages their chances of escaping trafficking and the cycle of crime. This bill advocates for human trafficking victims by proposing expungement or sentence mitigation only for the crimes committed as a direct result of their trafficking, while ensuring survivors continue to work alongside law enforcement to hold the criminals behind these horrific crimes accountable.   The Trafficking Survivor’s Relief Act offers hope for trafficking victims by offering a pathway to break free from traffickers – while also breaking the cycle of crime that results from this version of modern day slavery. CPAC's Center for Combating Human Trafficking has supported this bill since its inception including its passage in the   House Judiciary Committee in September  and urges the continued progress of the bill toward becoming federal law. Thanks to the leadership of Representative Russell Fry, Representative Ann Wagner, and Speaker Mike Johnson, the Trafficking Survivor's Relief Act successfully passed in the House of Representatives. Now, CPAC calls on Senate leadership to follow suit and send this historic survivor-led legislation to the Oval Office for President Trump to sign into law.

To maintain global dominance in artificial intelligence, the United States must pivot toward a competitive, market-driven infrastructure ecosystem that prioritizes private-sector innovation over top-down government control. Current challenges limiting data center expansion—such as energy shortages, permitting delays, and rising demand for reliable power—cannot be solved by centralized planning but rather by unleashing market forces. By leveraging the free market framework put forth by the Trump Administration, America can empower private developers to build efficient, secure, and cost-effective data centers that advance national priorities in defense, energy, and transportation. This approach relies on locally driven partnerships and economic viability to dictate where infrastructure is built, ensuring that decisions remain in the hands of the communities and industries best positioned to maintain them. A primary pillar of this strategy is the unleashing of American energy to fuel the rapid growth of AI compute requirements. To overcome energy grid bottlenecks, the U.S. must invest heavily in modular, on-site energy systems, including small modular reactors (SMRs), advanced natural gas systems, and solar-battery hybrids. Deregulation and strong incentives are necessary to accelerate the deployment of these technologies and encourage energy entrepreneurship. Furthermore, developers should actively track emerging technologies to utilize Department of Energy (DOE) land assets, as the federal government looks to leverage its property to support the demand for AI infrastructure. This focus on abundant, domestically produced energy is essential for strengthening energy grid efficiency and ensuring that the AI economy is powered by American resources. The U.S. must establish a National Compute and Energy Partnership that unites federal agencies, universities, and private industry under a shared strategic goal. This public-private initiative would be designed to expand high-performance computing capacity nationwide, reducing costs while safeguarding sensitive national data. By creating shared infrastructure, the United States can ensure that its researchers and companies have the necessary computing power to outpace rivals such as China, which is currently pouring billions into state-controlled power systems and supercomputing. This partnership model would not only accelerate innovation but also protect America's technological lead by reducing reliance on foreign entities. To ensure America remains competitive, Congress must pass legislation that establishes a national AI infrastructure framework focused on accelerating data center permitting and incentivizing private investment in U.S.-based compute capacity. Concurrently, the Trump Administration must direct the DOE, Department of Commerce, and Department of Defense to coordinate a unified strategy that prioritizes domestic manufacturing, grid modernization, and supply chain independence. State lawmakers also have a critical role to play by partnering with federal agencies to host AI infrastructure hubs, thereby leveraging regional energy strengths to create jobs and reinforce the nation’s economic security. The global race for AI supremacy is underway, and the outcome will define economic and military leadership for decades to come. With authoritarian competitors moving quickly to build state-backed capabilities, the United States cannot afford delays caused by red tape or energy bottlenecks. A decisive national initiative rooted in energy independence and market-driven innovation is the only path to ensure the next generation of AI is built on American soil and powered by American energy. By acting with purpose and unity now, the U.S. can secure its long-term resilience, outpace global adversaries, and shape the next century of technological prosperity. Learn more here .

This Christmas season, as we celebrate the many blessings of freedom in America, we are reminded that these gifts are not guaranteed. They must be vigorously defended. As CPAC reflects on a year of historic momentum, we invite you to invest in a conservative movement that is committed to fighting for your values and freedoms. The year began with the historic CPAC in DC 2025 conference, which proved CPAC's unmatched ability to define the national agenda by bringing together lawmakers, influencers, and activists. Standing as the largest conservative gathering in the country, it was electrified by addresses from President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Argentine President Javier Milei. This conference set the tone for the conservative agenda for the year, building off the unprecedented electoral victory of President Trump and conservatives around the country. The inaugural Combating Christian Persecution Summit this summer was pivotal in advocating for lawmakers to take action in the international crisis of widespread persecution of Christians. This critical initiative forced the reality of anti-Christian violence to the forefront of American foreign policy. The impact of the summit was immediate: shortly after the summit, the Trump Administration designated Nigeria a "Country of Particular Concern" and further brought the national spotlight on this critical issue. This long-overdue step was a direct result of the pressure and evidence CPAC brought to bear on the national stage. Later in the year, the CPAC Circle Retreat and Gala at the Mar-a-Lago Club served as the crucible for the movement, bringing together the most ardent defenders of liberty in America. An extraordinary roster of leaders, including Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Argentine President Milei, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, spoke, giving attendees invaluable advice in advancing the next stage of America First. This momentous event offered forward-thinking strategies for success by calling on conservatives to unite and fight even harder for the liberty-loving values that make America great. These achievements were fueled by energized supporters who recognize CPAC as the preeminent leader of the conservative movement. Your generous contribution propels us forward to unite the movement, amplify our message, and translate conservative ideals into policy victories. Consider a generous gift to an organization that not only shares your values but defends them this holiday season and play a part in securing the future of liberty in America. Give today to CPAC at CPAC.org/give .

Thanksgiving week is usually a time for Americans to slow down, reconnect with family, and reflect on the blessings and opportunities we enjoy as a nation. But this year, it also offered something else—something the Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) is especially thankful for: real, meaningful, badly-needed regulatory reform coming out of Washington. For too long, federal agencies drifted from core missions, ignored statutory limits, indulged in opaque decision-making, and piled endless compliance burdens onto American workers, businesses, and taxpayers. But the shift underway in late 2025—driven by the new administration’s commitment to border security, public safety, energy expansion, and regulatory transparency—marks a decisive turn back toward common sense. And during Thanksgiving week, CRF was busy filing comments across multiple agencies, each aimed at helping restore the rule of law, reduce bureaucratic drag, and steer the federal government toward simple, responsible, citizen-focused policymaking. Here’s awhat CRF submitted, why these issues matter, and why—this year especially—we’re grateful for a federal government finally taking regulatory reform seriously again. 1. USDA’s SNAP Food Standards: A Chance to Improve Nutrition Without Hurting Food Access One of the major Thanksgiving-week proposals came from the Department of Agriculture, which is revising the rules for what foods SNAP retailers must keep in stock. USDA wants to ensure that taxpayer-supported food benefits actually support healthier, less processed dietary options. CRF agreed with that goal—but urged the agency to avoid creating unintended consequences for small neighborhood stores. The last thing low-income families need is for Washington to impose rules that large chains can absorb easily but small stores cannot. When compliance costs rise, small retailers close. And when small retailers close, entire communities lose access to food—nutritious or otherwise. CRF also pointed out that USDA must be careful in how it categorizes plant-based alternatives, protein sources, and dairy substitutes. Science should guide these decisions, not activist pressure or market trends. Thanksgiving takeaway:  The United States should encourage better nutrition, but not at the expense of the very communities SNAP is supposed to help. Thoughtful reform—not bureaucratic rigidity—is something to be thankful for. 2. DHS Biometric Screening: Finally Fixing a Border-Security Gap That Should Never Have Existed CRF also filed comments on the Department of Homeland Security’s new rule requiring photographs and other biometric checks for all aliens entering or exiting the United States. This action replaced the lax border practices of the prior administration with a system worthy of a country serious about national security. Millions of visitors enter the United States legally every year—but without biometrics, DHS has no reliable way to confirm who overstays, who returns home, or who attempts to re-enter under false pretenses. For years, that gap served as an open invitation for bad actors. CRF supported the new rule and recommended tightening enforcement language to prevent discretionary loopholes that border personnel could interpret too broadly. Thanksgiving takeaway:  A government finally committed to securing the border and enforcing immigration laws is something every American should appreciate. 3. Visa Waiver Program Oversight: Fixing a Program That’s Been Exploited for Years Closely related to the biometric rule was a separate DHS request involving Form I-775—the paperwork that governs the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). This program allows citizens of select countries to enter the U.S. without a visa. In theory, it’s convenient. In practice, it’s been exploited. CRF highlighted the uncomfortable truth: even a tiny overstay rate translates into tens of thousands  of unauthorized individuals remaining in the United States each year. Worse, the program relies on biographic  (not biometric) screening, and it allows people to skip the in-person interviews that traditional visa applicants must undergo. In an era of global terror threats, that’s irresponsible. CRF urged DHS to reassess participating countries, strengthen safeguards, and modernize vetting requirements to stop security risks from slipping through. Thanksgiving takeaway:  America should welcome travelers—but only when the system protects our national security first. DHS correcting these long-ignored weaknesses is something to celebrate. 4. Restoring Integrity in Commercial Driver Licensing: Keeping Dangerous Drivers Off American Roads One of the most significant safety rules released during Thanksgiving week came from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The agency tightened its rules on non-domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs)—the licenses foreign nationals must hold to operate commercial trucks in the U.S. For years, individuals without lawful immigration status were obtaining CDLs. Some were later involved in tragic, high-profile crashes. CRF supported FMCSA’s decision to restrict CDL eligibility to individuals lawfully present under specific employment-based visa categories. We also endorsed new verification steps, in-person renewals, and real-time immigration status checks. Bad actors should not be able to weaponize a commercial truck—or use a CDL as a foothold to linger unlawfully in the United States. Thanksgiving takeaway:  Strong border enforcement isn’t just about immigration—it’s about keeping American families safe on the road. 5. VA Disability Fraud Prevention: Protecting Veterans and Taxpayers from Abuse The Department of Veterans Affairs also issued an important proposal aimed at tightening standards for disability claims involving painful scars and other subjective conditions. CRF supported the reform wholeheartedly. Subjective pain-based claims have seen massive increases in recent years, driven in part by bad-faith “claims consultants” who coach veterans on how to game the system. Every fraudulent claim drains resources from veterans who truly need  and deserve  care. CRF praised the VA for insisting on objective medical evidence, clearer diagnostic criteria, and firmer verification standards—steps that will protect both taxpayers and genuine claimants. Thanksgiving takeaway:  A VA committed to integrity, fairness, and stewardship of public dollars is something Americans can be grateful for. 6. EPA’s Use of Focus Groups: Calling Out “Regulatory Dark Energy” Before It Grows The Environmental Protection Agency requested renewed approval to use focus groups in the early stages of developing surveys for economics projects. EPA insists these focus groups are harmless. CRF disagreed. We warned that focus groups—small, non-representative, undocumented conversations—inevitably shape how questions are written, how benefits are described, and how assumptions enter economic analyses. They function as de facto  policymaking tools without public oversight. CRF compared these hidden influences to “regulatory dark energy”: invisible, unaccountable forces that shape policy without going through the checks and balances required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Thanksgiving takeaway:  Transparency is a pillar of democracy. Agencies recognizing and correcting hidden policymaking channels is something reformers should cheer. 7. Renewable Fuel Standard Reform: Reducing Paperwork and Exposing a Broken Program EPA also proposed a major reduction—nearly 140,000 hours —in the paperwork associated with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). CRF supported this step because it will save industry more than $10 million annually and free the equivalent of roughly 187 full-time workers from bureaucratic busywork. But CRF also reminded EPA: paperwork isn’t the only problem. The RFS itself is a deeply flawed mandate that distorts markets, inflates fuel and food prices, and forces refiners into compliance pathways that don’t align with modern energy realities. EPA’s willingness to cut unnecessary paperwork is encouraging—but the program still needs wholesale reform. Thanksgiving takeaway:  Any step toward freeing Americans from pointless red tape is progress—and something to be thankful for. 8. Rebuilding America’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle: A Long-Overdue National Priority Finally, CRF submitted comments on the Department of Energy’s proposed voluntary agreement under the Defense Production Act aimed at restoring the domestic nuclear fuel cycle. For decades, America allowed key parts of this supply chain—conversion, enrichment, fabrication—to drift overseas. Now, rising electricity demand, data center expansion, AI power needs, and geopolitical competition have made one truth unavoidable: America cannot remain an energy superpower if it depends on foreign nations for nuclear fuel. CRF supported DOE’s use of the Defense Production Act while urging the agency to tighten definitions, enforce guardrails, improve transparency, and ensure antitrust protections are applied correctly. A strong nuclear sector is essential for national defense, industrial growth, grid reliability, and America’s global tech leadership. Thanksgiving takeaway:  Rebuilding strategic industries at home is one of the most consequential reforms underway—and CRF is grateful to see it finally happening. A Thanksgiving Season of Real Reform Thanksgiving week might be a quiet period for most Americans, but it marked a major moment for regulatory sanity in Washington. Across agencies—USDA, DHS, DOT, VA, EPA, and DOE—the federal government signaled a willingness to confront outdated rules, fix broken programs, and strengthen America’s security and prosperity. CRF is thankful for: A government finally committed to enforcing the law Agencies willing to cut red tape A renewed focus on national security Real efforts to restore transparency Policies that actually help small businesses, not crush them A return to evidence-based decision-making Rebuilding America’s energy and industrial strength Making sure America is AFFORDABLE again! Thanksgiving is about gratitude—and this year, CRF is grateful that regulatory reform is not just a slogan, but a reality.

"Thanksgiving has become a day when Americans extend a helping hand to the less fortunate. Long before there was a government welfare program, this spirit of voluntary giving was ingrained in the American character. Americans have always understood that, truly, one must give in order to receive. This should be a day of giving as well as a day of thanks."- President Ronald Reagan, Thanksgiving Day, 1981. Americans have a lot to be thankful for this year. 2025 has been filled with so many blessings as President Trump restores America to greatness. We are thankful this year for a secure border, safer communities, a prosperous economy, and the restoration of our constitutional freedoms, especially our freedoms of speech and religion. As we reflect on these blessings, we remember how exceptional America is, and we strengthen our resolve to fight for the same freedoms around the world. From the Pilgrims to the brave founding fathers of our nation, who fought for our freedom, to the many patriots who call America home today, America has been a place of bountiful harvest. Today, families across America continue the tradition of Thanksgiving, gathering with loved ones to share meals and fellowship. This Thanksgiving is the perfect opportunity to give thanks for the extraordinary gift of liberty that defines America and resolve to preserve it for generations to come. CPAC wishes you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving!

If you’ve glanced at the news cycle this week, you have probably seen headlines claiming that the U.S. Department of Education has declared nursing “not a professional degree.” Social media reacted immediately—with anger, disbelief, and a fair amount of political opportunism. Nurses and nursing students understandably felt insulted. Commentators rushed to frame the situation as yet another example of Washington “not valuing” frontline health-care workers. But the viral narrative is wrong. It’s based on a misunderstanding of federal loan statutes—not on any judgment about the legitimacy of nursing as a profession. Here’s what actually happened: the Department of Education finalized a rule implementing a statute written by Congress, one that caps federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans for most graduate students at $20,500 per year. Congress created a short list of degrees that qualify for a higher cap—$50,000 per year, and nursing was not included. The Department did not create that list. It merely codified what Congress wrote. And thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright  decision, the Department had no legal room to reinterpret or expand Congress’s definition even if it had wanted to. So, no: the Department of Education did not “declare nursing isn’t a real profession.” It implemented the law exactly as Congress required. The real story is about legislative choices, regulatory limits, and the deeper policy failure to recognize health care as a sector already struggling with resource shortages. And behind that lies an even bigger conversation—about why tuition has skyrocketed and why financing essential degrees has become increasingly difficult. 1. What the Rule Actually Did On its face, the rule is simple. Federal law sets an annual borrowing limit for graduate and professional students using Direct Unsubsidized Loans. That limit is $20,500. A higher cap—$50,000—applies only to certain fields Congress explicitly designated as “professional degrees” for loan purposes. These include medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, law, and a handful of others. Congress did not add nursing to the list. In the past, agencies might have stretched statutory definitions or created regulatory exceptions to accommodate fields Congress overlooked. But Loper Bright v. Raimondo  fundamentally changed administrative law. The Supreme Court held that agencies may not use interpretive discretion to expand or modify statutes in ways Congress did not authorize. In this context, that means: The Department could not reinterpret “professional degree” to include nursing. It could not add new degree categories. It could not create special exceptions. It could only implement the list Congress provided. This is a statutory issue, not a value judgment. Congress controls the loan caps. The Department of Education cannot change them. 2. Misunderstanding the Policy Leads to Misplaced Outrage The misinformation circulating online stems from the false assumption that the Department “decided” nursing isn’t professional. But agencies do not have that kind of philosophical discretion. Their authority is functional, not symbolic. When a statute draws a line, the agency must enforce it—even if the line seems arbitrary or outdated. A more accurate critique would be that Congress failed to update the statutory list of professional degrees to reflect modern workforce realities . Nursing—one of the most essential, in-demand professions in the country—remains constrained by the lower loan cap because Congress has not amended the statute. The frustration is understandable. But the target is misplaced. 3. The Real Policy Failure: Workforce Needs vs. Loan Design The health-care system is already straining under provider shortages. Whether looking at physicians, nurses, or physician assistants, the numbers point to a widening gap between patient demand and the supply of trained professionals. This is a classic resource-economics problem: Demand for health care continues to rise—fueled by demographic shifts, expanded coverage policies, and aging populations. Supply of providers has not kept up. Educational pipelines—nursing programs, residencies, clinical placement capacity—remain constrained. Meanwhile, the degrees necessary to enter these professions have become more expensive at a staggering pace. This mismatch is not new, but has been a topic many have raised over the past 20 years: when policy decisions increase demand for health care (as the Affordable Care Act did) without increasing provider supply, shortages worsen. Those shortages make health care less accessible, less affordable, and more strained. Federal loan policy should be aligned with workforce needs. Instead, Congress designed a loan cap structure that treats degrees essential to the nation’s health-care stability as though they were ordinary postgraduate credentials, rather than critical components of our public-service infrastructure. This is the real policy failure—not any judgment about the prestige or professionalism of nursing. 4. The Tuition Explosion: The Broader Structural Problem There is another dimension that has gone almost entirely unmentioned in the media coverage: the staggering rise of tuition over the past two decades. The national data are unequivocal: Tuition has increased far faster than inflation. Tuition has increased far faster than wage growth. Tuition has increased far faster than the maximum levels of federal aid. Across public institutions, tuition and fees have more than doubled—sometimes tripled—since the early 2000s. Nursing programs, in particular, have become significantly more expensive due to clinical training requirements, equipment costs, accreditation standards, and the administrative expansion that has swept across higher education broadly. This raises a natural question: Why are students bumping into federal loan caps in the first place? Because tuition has skyrocketed to levels Congress never imagined when these caps were first designed. This is where the Bennett Hypothesis enters the conversation. Proposed by former Education Secretary William Bennett, the hypothesis suggests that increases in federal student aid enable institutions to raise tuition, because colleges know that students can borrow more to cover the difference. Over time, a growing body of empirical research has reinforced the basic pattern: When the federal government increases aid, colleges increase prices. This does not mean federal aid should not exist. But it does mean the structure of federal aid matters deeply—and that poorly designed loan caps, unlimited borrowing categories, and forgiveness programs can create perverse institutional incentives. The result: students pay more, borrow more, and graduate owing more. And when Congress fails to modernize statutory caps to reflect actual tuition levels, students in essential fields—like nursing—find themselves squeezed. 5. Why This Misinformation Matters You might ask: if the criticism is misdirected, does it really matter whether the public blames the Department of Education or Congress? Yes. Absolutely. Because public anger aimed at the wrong entity leads to pressure for the wrong reforms. If people believe the Department of Education “devalued nursing,” they will demand changes the Department cannot legally make—changes that would require it to violate Loper Bright  or exceed its statutory authority. That is a dead end. But if people understand that Congress designed the loan caps—and that Congress omitted nursing from the higher-cap list—there is a clear path forward: Congress must amend the statute. No regulatory redefinition. No workaround. No agency rulemaking “fix.”Only legislation. This distinction is essential if we are going to solve the underlying problem instead of generating another unproductive outrage cycle. 6. What Policymakers Should Do Next To address the real issue, not the invented one, policymakers should pursue three concrete reforms: A. Update the statutory definition of “professional degrees.” Congress should explicitly add nursing to the list of degrees eligible for the higher loan cap. The health-care workforce has evolved dramatically since the original list was drafted, and federal loan policy must evolve with it. B. Confront the role of tuition inflation and the incentive structure driving it. No amount of tweaking federal loan caps will solve the underlying problem if higher education continues to raise tuition at unsustainable rates. Policymakers must examine: The link between federal aid and institutional pricing decisions Administrative bloat across higher education Accreditation structures that limit competition Regulatory burdens that drive up institutional costs Ignoring these drivers guarantees that students will continue to hit loan ceilings, no matter how high Congress raises them. C. Treat health-care workforce shortages as a national strategic concern. The United States cannot meet future health-care demands without expanding the pipeline of trained providers. That means: Removing financing barriers Expanding clinical training capacity Reforming licensing and scope-of-practice rules Incentivizing provider retention Federal student-loan policy is not a side issue here—it is foundational. Conclusion The claim that the Department of Education “declared nursing isn’t a profession” makes for flashy headlines, but it collapses under even minimal scrutiny. The Department did not make a value judgment. It implemented a congressional statute. Congress wrote a narrow list of degrees eligible for a higher loan cap. Nursing was not included. After Loper Bright , the Department has no legal authority to expand that list. The real problem is much bigger: federal loan policy hasn’t kept up with the realities of modern workforce needs, and the cost of higher education has risen far faster than congressional loan caps or family incomes. Tuition inflation—enabled in part by poorly designed federal aid structures—has made even essential degrees increasingly difficult to finance. If America wants more nurses, the solution is not outrage at the wrong target. The solution is legislative reform, tuition restraint, and a health-workforce strategy grounded in resource economics rather than political theater. The misinformation of the week will fade. The structural problems will not—unless Congress and higher education choose to fix them.

The fight against human trafficking cannot end with identifying the problem—it must move toward real, lasting solutions. Protecting children and families requires a coordinated approach that blends prevention, justice, and accountability. Family support systems must be strengthened, tech companies held responsible, and traffickers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Survivors, especially child victims, deserve a justice system that empowers rather than retraumatizes. Ending human trafficking means not only rescuing victims but rebuilding the structures that prevent exploitation in the first place. Children who survive trafficking deserve restoration, not a legal system that exacerbates their suffering. Legal systems must treat them as victims, not offenders, and provide them with compassionate support throughout the judicial process. This includes guaranteed legal representation, trauma-informed counseling, and confidentiality protections that shield them from further harm. Courts should adopt child-sensitive procedures that preserve privacy while maintaining justice, ensuring survivors never face their abusers unprotected. Beyond the courtroom, laws must prevent exploitation before it begins—requiring age verification for online platforms, expanding parental monitoring rights, and protecting parents who report suspected trafficking. Justice that prioritizes compassion gives survivors a chance to reclaim their futures. Accountability must extend to the perpetrators of trafficking themselves, and true justice demands meaningful penalties and full restitution for victims. Traffickers should be required to pay for medical care, psychological treatment, and long-term recovery costs. Seized assets and fines should fund survivor services and prevention programs, ensuring punishment contributes to healing. Governments must also modernize data systems that track trafficking cases, making progress measurable and transparent. Reliable data guides smarter policies, closes protection gaps, and holds agencies accountable for enforcement. With consistent oversight, anti-trafficking initiatives can shift from reactive to proactive, breaking cycles of exploitation before they begin. To make real progress, the United States must unite around a comprehensive anti-trafficking strategy. States should adopt consistent laws that recognize trafficked children as victims, not criminals. Faith-based and nonprofit organizations should expand family assistance, prevention education, and survivor recovery programs. Law enforcement must strengthen online investigations and partner with tech companies to identify and remove harmful content. Every sector—public, private, and faith-based—has a role to play in protecting children. Ending trafficking will require persistence, compassion, and collaboration. By combining prevention, accountability, and survivor-centered justice, America can build a future where no child grows up in fear and every family stands free from exploitation.

Artificial intelligence is the defining technology of the 21st century; however, the United States is currently in danger of ceding its lead in the emerging industry. While China and other rivals are aggressively building state-backed AI infrastructure at an unprecedented rate, America’s growth is being choked by an aging electrical grid and regulatory gridlock that cannot keep pace with the growing demand. Data centers—already consuming more than 4% of U.S. electricity—are on track to double that share by 2030. Yet utilities in many regions of the country are imposing multi-year delays on new connections, forcing major tech companies to build their own private power plants just to remain operational. Without immediate, decisive action to expand reliable domestic energy production and computing capacity, technological and economic power will irreversibly shift overseas, jeopardizing America’s competitiveness and national security. America's data centers power not only AI but the entire digital economy—cloud services, telecommunications, streaming, databases, and social platforms—yet the rapid rise of AI workloads is dramatically accelerating overall demand. In key regions, the dated infrastructure is simply unable to approve new load requests quickly enough, leaving hyperscalers and startups alike facing 3–7-year wait times or outright denials. Companies are responding by self-funding gas turbines, nuclear reactors, and behind-the-meter generation at massive cost, a clear signal that the public electrical grid has become a strategic liability. The Trump Administration has correctly identified a stronger, more reliable electric grid as a top priority and has already taken executive action to begin dismantling regulatory obstacles; the private sector must now move aggressively to capitalize on this deregulatory momentum before the window closes. The consequences of continued delay are stark: prolonged regulatory reviews and endless litigation are handing competitors a significant head start while American innovation is forced to slow, relocate, or shut down. The Trump Administration’s July 2025 “America’s AI Action Plan” provides the essential roadmap—expediting environmental permitting for data centers, optimizing existing grid resources, and reorienting federal policy toward rapid AI infrastructure buildout. A comprehensive national strategy that combines deregulation, private-sector coordination, and strategic investment in energy generation is no longer optional; it is the only way to ensure the United States remains the global leader in artificial intelligence and preserves its technological and economic primacy for generations to come. Learn more here .

The Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) took decisive action this week to ensure federal agencies are held accountable and that the United States maintains its competitive edge in the global economy. Through comments submitted to three federal agencies, the Center challenged regulators to abandon outdated assumptions in favor of policies that prioritize scientific integrity, fiscal discipline, and energy independence. These targeted filings underscore CRF’s dedication to dismantling barriers and securing a future where regulation serves as a catalyst for, rather than an obstacle to, American prosperity. Comments filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding revisions to the HFC phasedown program argued that adjusting compliance deadlines alone leaves fundamental flaws unaddressed. The current framework remains tethered to the 2009 Endangerment Finding and static global-warming-potential metrics that no longer align with contemporary science or national priorities. The filing urged the EPA to conduct a comprehensive overhaul, producing rules that are scientifically updated, legally sound, and designed to avoid unnecessary harm to domestic manufacturing and consumer affordability. The Center expressed strong support to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its proposed adoption of zero-based regulatory budgeting. This proposal—a rare and welcome commitment to require every existing rule to justify its continued existence—promises to eliminate obsolete requirements that clog the system. By clearing away this regulatory sediment, the Commission can strengthen energy grid reliability, enhance market efficiency, and reduce costs for producers and consumers. This approach also makes room for technological advancement, restoring the transparency and accountability the American public deserves. In response to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) request for information on accelerating grid capacity, the filing emphasized the unprecedented increase in electricity demand driven by AI data centers, electric-vehicle infrastructure, industrial reshoring, and population growth. Aging infrastructure, protracted permitting timelines, and regulatory bias against dispatchable generation now jeopardize both economic growth and energy security. The comments called for prioritization of high-impact transmission and generation projects, streamlined yet rigorous reviews, market-aligned incentives, and meaningful respect for property rights and host communities. The comments to the EPA, FERC, and DOE this week carry a unified message that the federal bureaucracy must answer to the American people through measurable results and fidelity to the law. By fighting for a regulatory environment that balances environmental stewardship with the economic reality, the Center for Regulatory Freedom is working to secure an environment where American industry can compete and win. CRF remains steadfast in its commitment to holding these federal agencies accountable, replacing reflexive government overreach with the reasoned, transparent governance necessary to sustain our nation’s energy abundance and economic competitiveness.

Earlier this month, Andrew Langer, Executive Director of the Coalition Against Socialized Medicine (CASM) , visited the Novartis Radioligand Therapy (RLT) manufacturing facility  in Indianapolis, Indiana. The visit was part of the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO) “BIO on the American Road” (BOTAR)  series—a national tour highlighting the innovations transforming American medicine and biotechnology. Standing on the production floor of the facility, surrounded by engineers, chemists, and technicians who are redefining the future of cancer treatment, Langer was reminded of a fundamental truth: American innovation continues to save lives each and every day—but it doesn’t happen by accident. It depends on deliberate public policy choices that encourage invention, protect intellectual property, and reward risk-taking. Among the most important of these choices was the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 , a bipartisan reform that set off a revolution in how publicly funded research is translated into real-world treatments. CASM and its member organizations have long championed Bayh-Dole as the single most successful innovation policy in American history—one that continues to serve as the foundation for breakthroughs like those taking place in Indiana today. Indiana: The World’s Capital of Radiopharmaceutical Manufacturing Indiana’s rise to become the radiopharmaceutical manufacturing capital of the world  was no accident. It was the product of foresight, partnership, and a willingness to align policy with opportunity. The state deliberately positioned itself to lead in this emerging field, cultivating relationships between academia, private industry, and state government. Purdue University  has even launched a graduate degree in radiopharmaceutical manufacturing , an industry-first program developed through collaboration with Novartis and other biotechnology leaders. At the Novartis RLT facility, Langer saw the results of this synergy firsthand. The facility produces precision-targeted therapies that pair radioactive isotopes with molecules designed to locate and destroy cancer cells while sparing surrounding healthy tissue.  This is not a theoretical concept—it’s a medical revolution already saving lives. These therapies exemplify the promise of theranostics , an approach that merges diagnostics and therapeutics to identify, target, and treat disease with unmatched precision. The combination of scientific excellence, private investment, and pro-innovation public policy has made Indiana a global model for biomedical advancement. Bayh-Dole: The Policy Engine of American Discovery None of this innovation would exist without the framework provided by the Bayh-Dole Act , co-authored by Senators Birch Bayh of Indiana  and Bob Dole of Kansas . Before Bayh-Dole’s passage, the federal government owned the rights to thousands of patents generated through taxpayer-funded research. Most of these discoveries never left the laboratory—buried under bureaucratic inertia. Bayh-Dole changed that. It allowed universities, small businesses, and nonprofits to retain ownership of inventions  developed with federal funding and to license them to private partners for development and commercialization. The result was nothing short of transformative. The United States became the global epicenter of biotechnology, with a thriving ecosystem that produced hundreds of breakthrough therapies and trillions of dollars in economic growth. Observers of biomedical research often describe Bayh-Dole as the “warp drive” of American innovation—an elegant policy solution that released the creative energy of scientists, entrepreneurs, and investors. By aligning incentives across the public and private sectors, the law ensured that discoveries made in university laboratories could be translated into products that save lives. But as CASM has warned, this success is now under threat. America’s growing socialist movement (and their willing dupes among progressives) have sought to twist the Bayh-Dole Act’s “march-in rights”—originally designed to ensure public access to unused inventions—into a mechanism for government price control . Such reinterpretations would represent a radical departure from the law’s original intent, create a direct assault on the very system that produced America’s biomedical dominance, and serve to create a slowdown or even “full stop” to that “innovation warp drive”. Innovation Requires Certainty, Not Bureaucratic Intervention In his conversations with researchers at Novartis, Langer heard a consistent refrain: innovation requires certainty.  The development of advanced therapies depends on the confidence that intellectual property will be protected and that the rules of the game will remain stable—and that government bureaucrats will not needlessly throw roadblocks in the way of not just research and development, but the actual delivery of lifesaving technologies to those who need them. It should be noted that with RLT therapies, time is of the essence. Each dose is manufactured for a specific patient, with a shelf-life of mere hours.  Every hour lost between manufacture and utilization runs the risk of having the effectiveness of that treatment blunted, and so many hours are lost due to extraneous paperwork and bureaucratic hoops.  This needs to change. The burden of red tape is a threat to everyone:  the patients who potentially lose out on lifesaving therapies, and the large companies working to provide them with the groundbreaking medicines.  For start-ups and smaller biotech companies—those without the deep pockets of multinational firms—this uncertainty can be fatal. The threat of government second-guessing or price interference discourages investors, delays development, and diminishes the likelihood that life-saving therapies will ever reach patients. CASM and its allies have repeatedly emphasized that the Bayh-Dole Act was designed to promote utilization, not regulation . Its purpose was to make sure inventions are used and commercialized—not to give the government the power to decide how much a life-saving drug should cost or whether a company deserves to profit from its creation. The Cautionary Tale of Trofim Lysenko The tension between science and politics is not new, and history offers a stark warning about what happens when ideology overrides evidence and a bureaucracy is co-opted. In the Soviet Union, a mid-20th-century agronomist named Trofim Lysenko  rose to prominence by promoting pseudo-scientific ideas that aligned with Marxist doctrine. Lysenko rejected the principles of genetics and insisted that environmental manipulation alone could alter heredity—a claim that fit the political narrative of his time. Under Stalin’s patronage, Lysenko’s theories became state policy. Geneticists who opposed him were silenced or executed. Agricultural production plummeted. Millions starved. Lysenko’s story is a warning against allowing politics to dictate scientific progress—and utilizing bureaucratic power to hamstring innovation. While today’s policymakers are not sending scientists to gulags, the impulse to bend science to fit ideology persists—in proposals that not only demonize those doing innovative research but also those engaging in the practice of medicine.  We already have a crisis in the gap between the number of physicians we have and the number we need—pushing policies that dismiss the vital contribution that medical practitioners make in keeping Americans healthy will only exacerbate that problem further. When government substitutes ideology for evidence, innovation dies. The lesson of Lysenkoism is that science cannot thrive under political coercion. The American innovation model has always depended on freedom—freedom to inquire, to test, to fail, and to profit from success . Laws like Bayh-Dole protect that freedom, ensuring that discovery is guided by curiosity and competition, not by central planning. Indiana’s Model of Cooperative Innovation What is happening in Indiana offers a powerful counterexample to the dangers of government overreach. The state’s bioscience community—anchored by Purdue University and strengthened by global companies like Novartis—demonstrates how public-private collaboration  can accelerate innovation when guided by sound principles. Purdue’s new radiopharmaceutical manufacturing program exemplifies this approach. It equips students with hands-on expertise in areas like isotope production, supply-chain logistics, and regulatory compliance—skills vital to sustaining America’s leadership in nuclear medicine. Graduates of this program will not only fill high-paying jobs but will also drive forward the next generation of medical breakthroughs. Indiana’s success is economic as well as moral. The state’s biomanufacturing sector supports thousands of workers and attracts billions in investment each year. More importantly, it delivers real hope to patients. The therapies being produced there are not abstract research projects; they are tangible, effective treatments for diseases once thought incurable. The Threat of Centralized Control Masquerading as Reform Yet even as states like Indiana are proving what a free innovation economy can achieve, Washington is drifting toward a very different model. Recent actions by federal agencies—including CMS’s price-setting regime under the Inflation Reduction Act , NIH’s intrusive access-plan policy , and NIST’s proposed march-in reinterpretations —represent a creeping return to centralized control. Under these frameworks, bureaucrats, not scientists or entrepreneurs, increasingly decide which drugs are developed, how they are priced, and who can bring them to market. It is a slow but steady march toward the kind of government-controlled system that CASM was founded to oppose. CASM argues that this is not simply a matter of economics—it’s a moral question. A society that punishes success and politicizes discovery will produce fewer cures, fewer breakthroughs, and fewer miracles. The radiopharmaceutical industry offers the clearest possible evidence that freedom, not force, fuels progress . Preserving America’s Innovation: “Warp Drive” The Novartis facility represents the physical embodiment of a policy success story decades in the making. From a few lines of legislation passed in 1980 has sprung an entire universe of invention—one that continues to expand the boundaries of human health and possibility. But we must recognize how fragile that ecosystem is. The balance that Bayh-Dole struck—between public investment and private ownership, between academic discovery and commercial development—must be protected. If the federal government starts signaling that innovation will not be protected, the results will be disastrous. The capital that funds research will vanish, and the next generation of therapies will remain trapped in laboratories instead of reaching patients who need them. Indiana’s biopharmaceutical renaissance tells a larger story about the United States itself. When policymakers trust innovators and protect property rights, progress flourishes. When they replace competition with control, progress withers. The lesson of Bayh-Dole—and of a system that encourages research and exploration—is that innovation does not happen in a vacuum . It happens when free minds are free to explore, when entrepreneurs can reap the rewards of risk, and when the law safeguards discovery from political interference. From the failure of Lysenkoism to the triumph of radiopharmaceutical science, the verdict of history is clear: Science serves humanity best when it is free.  The challenge before policymakers today is to keep it that way—by rejecting socialized models of control and preserving the American tradition of innovation that turns ideas into cures and imagination into life.

At CPAC, we are committed to preserving freedom, upholding its vision, and leading its efforts. That is why we invite you to join the CPAC Circle, an exclusive community of patriots whose dedication feeds the fire of the conservative movement and upholds liberty for future generations. By joining as a Circle Member, you become part of a global community of conservatives dedicated to safeguarding our shared values. As a CPAC Circle Member, you support the world's most influential gathering of conservatives, ensuring that liberty, faith, patriotism, and opportunity continue to thrive in America and around the world. CPAC Circle Members are the cornerstone of CPAC's mission to advocate for individual freedoms, oppose the growing influence of globalism and communism, and challenge radical leftist ideologies. Your Membership Matters. Each CPAC Circle Member is connected to a global network of conservative leaders, advocates, and grassroots activists who share a passionate commitment to liberty. With your support, CPAC continues to organize conferences worldwide. In 2025 alone, you brought us to Poland, Hungary, Paraguay, and Australia, and more. Your support gives a voice to figures who courageously fight to defeat tyranny while advancing conservative principles in their own countries. Circle Members also help sustain CPAC’s dedicated centers and coalitions, including: Iranians in Exile Coalition , which amplifies the voices of those resisting the Ayatollah’s oppressive regime Christian Persecution Coalition , which fights for the millions around the world who face violence for practicing their faith The Center for Regulatory Freedom , which advances policies that restore prosperity by trimming regulations The Center for Combating Human Trafficking , which held an informative summit on Capitol Hill this past July, protects the vulnerable and ensures justice for adult and child victims of modern-day slavery Your commitment empowers CPAC to fight unwaveringly against the radical left’s destructive agenda and to promote freedom worldwide. Exclusive Community, Shared Mission As a Circle Member, you will also gain access to exclusive, one-of-a-kind opportunities, including substantive briefings, limited-number invitations to special events, and direct interaction with today’s most influential conservative leaders shaping the future. You will be at the heart of our movement, connected to others who share your belief that America’s best days lie ahead. Membership Levels Circle Membership is available at seven levels, each honoring leaders who embodied CPAC’s spirit of patriotism and freedom: Margaret Thatcher Circle  – $2,500 Benjamin Franklin Circle  – $5,000 James Madison Circle  – $10,000 Thomas Jefferson Circle  – $25,000 Betsy Ross Circle  – $50,000 George Washington Circle  – $75,000 Chairman Circle  – $150,000 Every level of support fortifies CPAC’s ability to defend liberty at home and abroad. The   radical left will not relent in its push for globalism, division, and control. Together, conservatives can stand strong. By joining the CPAC Circle, you become a guardian of freedom and a builder of America’s future. Join today at CPAC.org/circle and take your place in the circle of leaders shaping tomorrow.