Search Results

Internships with CPAC are more than just another item on a resume. My internship with CPAC provided great exposure to conservative politics and the logistics of hosting one of the largest political events in the world. I got to work alongside the amazing team that makes CPAC happen, and it was truly inspiring to say the least. Afterwards, I was able to transition into a full-time role at CPAC and continue building relationships with fellow staff members, donors, and our political allies. It has been the experience of a lifetime getting to defend the values I hold dear, while also developing professional skills and relationships. If you are interested in joining a supportive and energized community of conservatives while gaining professional experience, internship applications are still open for Spring 2024. Click here for more information and to submit your application.

Today is Halloween and we here at the Center for Legislative Accountability have, in the spirit of dressing up in masks and costumes, been thinking about the many ways in which Leftist politicians use euphemisms in their bills to disguise their ideology. Leftists know that their policies, on their face, can sometimes be hard to stomach, so they adopt softer and nicer words that they can use when passing their agenda. Today, we are going to unmask some of these popular euphemisms and forms of doublespeak. Here is what progressive politicians mean when they say… “Diverse Workforce.” – Unfortunately, a diverse workforce does not mean one that is composed of a variety of people pulled from all racial groups. It can very well mean a workforce made up entirely of women, non-binary people, or the members of the same racial minority. A workforce is only deemed to be not diverse if it is composed of straight, white males. It is, therefore, usually a reference to a workforce with as few straight, white males as possible. “Equity.” – This term is used to provide cover for racist policies. Equity is a state in which all have reached the same endpoint. Its attainment often requires the enactment of policies that target and discriminate against particular groups of people. Laws that state that they promote equitable outcomes are typically designed to benefit and favor certain racial groups more than others. “Legally protected healthcare activity” – This term usually refers to abortions, radical gender surgeries, or hormone replacement therapy. “Gender-affirming care” – This term also refers to the aforementioned types of surgeries and hormone therapies. In fact, the term itself is incredibly misleading because these medical procedures do the opposite of affirming a person’s actual gender. “Election security.” You probably thought that this term was the exclusive prerogative of the Right! Not so. Some blue states like to pass election reform bills under the guise of election security that actually just make it harder to audit elections. “Assault weapons” and, more recently, “Weapons of war.” – These terms refer to any gun that the party in power wants them to refer to. An “assault weapons” ban is usually just a ban on a laundry list of weapons that pro-gun control politicians dislike.

I try not to write blog posts in the first person. But there are occasions where that's necessary - at least by way of introduction. My earliest lessons about regulatory policy were from my father, a scientist in the realm of environmental policy and occupational safety and health. A natural sceptic, he was one of the first people to teach me to look deeply at narratives. Since his primary area of research was assessing risks to public health and how to apply that research to policies that were being adopted, we used to have (still have, in fact) conversations about how people perceive risks and how those perceptions drive public policy. How a public, being panicked by overblown risks can create policies that not only don't address real risks, but, in fact, can create other, greater risks to the environment, public safety, and health. A recent example is the EPA's recent proposal to severely limit the use of a chemical called ethylene oxide - a proposal that would effectively ban the chemical. EPA claims that there are severe risks from exposure to ethylene oxide, so in order to reduce that risk, they propose to set emission standards so low that the chemical simply cannot be used. The problem is that ethylene oxide is used as a disinfectant in medicine when heat or surface chemicals cannot be used (for certain kinds of instruments, or even gauze). That one cannot have a medical procedure in America without at least one essential piece of equipment or device that requires the use of ethylene oxide to ensure that it is sterile. And EPA has offered no alternatives! The risk of harm to the general public from ethylene oxide is low. But the EPA is creating massive new risks by attempting to ban it. Thus, the need for greater comparative risk assessment in determining public policy. I mentioned my father at the beginning of this blog post because every once in a while I get the rare opportunity to work with him on something. In this case, my Dad and I co-wrote an op-ed on the need for comparative risk assessment in regulatory policy (especially as the Office of Management and Budget is proposing to fundamentally change their regulatory analytical protocols through something called "Circular A-4"). That op-ed is HERE, and can be summarized as follows: While traditional cost-benefit analyses are valuable, they only offer a partial view. Everyday actions carry inherent risks, as evidenced by unexpected accidents in homes, but people naturally weigh benefits against risks. In public decision-making, this intuitive process must be formalized. The term "safe" is often misconstrued, and absolute safety is unattainable. It's crucial to integrate comparative risk assessment into regulatory decisions for more comprehensive choices. The recent proposals by the Biden Administration have missed this angle, underscoring the need for a holistic approach in assessing benefits and risks. Comparative risk assessment, which compares the harm of a proposal to other potential risks, is essential but has been sidelined in recent debates. The Biden Administration's proposed changes to the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-4 overlook this assessment method. Though the Circular provides guidance for regulatory analysis and emphasizes cost-benefit analyses, this approach alone doesn't capture the whole picture of risks involved. While cost-benefit analyses evaluate the fiscal sense of a proposal, they don't contextualize it against other possible risks.

Did you know that the Department of Defense wrongfully accused and punished members of our armed services despite proof of innocence? As 1st Lt. Llewelyn Hughes put it, “I just don’t want to see another generation of soldiers experience what I had to experience.” The lieutenant is not the only retired veteran to suffer from a false criminal record after helping recruit new soldiers through the National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP). In 2012, the National Guard launched G-RAP during the Global War on Terror to incentivize recruitment. The program offered service members a financial bonus if they referred a friend to the National Guard. Many service members opted into the program to support their families back home. Yet, due to only a few cases of fraud coupled with mismanagement, nearly 2,000 service members were given a criminal record for participating in the program, though they did not commit fraud themselves. These criminal records stalled their careers and placed unnecessary barriers on these innocent service members. Now, states are implementing their own version of G-RAP to boost recruitment. Will they make the same mistake? Click here to learn more about the Nolan Center for Justice’s work to ensure that we protect those who protect us.

Modern day slavery is a crisis that continues to plague men, women, and children across the globe. Yet, recent law enforcement investigations remind us that human trafficking is not confined to foreign countries; it's happening right in our backyards. Over the past month, a series of undercover operations across the U.S. have resulted in hundreds of arrests linked to human trafficking. In Texas, 134 individuals were apprehended for commercial sex transactions in a five-day operation supported by multiple law enforcement agencies. Ohio’s "Operation Buyer’s Remorse" led to 160 individuals facing charges and over 100 survivors identified. In Florida, a week-long operation in Polk County led to over 200 arrests, even including Disney employees and a schoolteacher. The open-border policies under the Biden administration are practically welcoming these traffickers with open arms. The number of people arrested and charged with human smuggling over the past year has surged to over 5,046, compared to 2,762 in 2014. It is now more important than ever to prioritize border security and stop human traffickers from coming across our borders. The safety of our communities depends on it.

If you’re planning to attend CPAC and wondering where you should stay, look no further than the conference’s venue itself: the breathtaking Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center! The Gaylord National is conveniently located across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. in National Harbor, Maryland. The resort contains a variety of shopping and dining options for all interests with even more options a short walking distance away in the National Harbor. The resort’s various gathering spaces and dining options provide the perfect settings to expand your network and meet conservatives from across the country and even the world without ever leaving the center of the action. You never who you'll meet! Staying at the Gaylord National keeps you close to all the action of the conference and to fellow conservatives so you don’t miss a thing. Book your stay with CPAC here.

The highlights of CPAC conferences are the speeches from top political influencers and policymakers of the day, but our conferences also feature networking activities, vendors, and educational opportunities. Learn from the best conservative thinkers on how to advance the conservative movement in activism training sessions, panel discussions, and speeches. Support and discover strong, patriotic businesses and organizations, both big and small, at the CPAC vendor market. Most importantly, expand, or build, your personal community of patriots through our many gathering and social opportunities that include the Ronald Reagan Dinner, Shabbat Dinner, and Media Row. As the largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world, even just walking the halls of a CPAC conference can bring you close to both new and old friends and leading conservative influencers. All in all, what happens at CPAC conferences is a strengthening of the conservative movement that empowers grassroots patriots to protect and restore freedom in America.

Simultaneously with the VIP Screening of Sound of Freedom, CPAC was able to announce its launch of the Center to Combat Human Trafficking. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and his team partnered with CPAC to secure a meeting room inside of the United States Capitol building to host the CPAC International Summit Against Human Trafficking with Kaleido. Lawmakers and Leaders from both Mexico and the United States were present to discuss necessary changes that needed to be made to end modern day slavery.

Attending CPAC as a young student is one of the best ways to get connected with other young, like-minded conservatives! Networking with other students and organizations is a great opportunity to find internships or a kickstart into a career. I attended my first CPAC in 2021 and it inspired me to get involved. I left the conference motivated to do something to help the conservative movement and in return helping our country be the best it can be!

Too often, the conversation around ending modern day slavery is limited to actions the Federal government can – and should – be taking. However, new leaders are emerging in State and local governments to bring an end to the widespread criminal abuse of human rights affecting communities across the country. We saw this first hand as CPAC’s Center for Combating Human Trafficking joined Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin as each held a Summit to bring law enforcement, advocates, and policy leaders together. Criminal traffickers have infiltrated local communities, both urban and rural, which puts the burden on these community’s leaders to identify victims as quickly as possible. Thankfully, red-state Attorney Generals know the importance of meeting this challenge and have taken the steps to collaborate with CPAC and our law enforcement partners to identify innovative ways to best serve victims while we hold their traffickers accountable. As progressive states like California struggle to classify trafficking a ‘serious felony,’ conservative Governors and Attorney Generals are leading the way in bringing an end to the scourge of trafficking in the United States.

This past week, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the second of two cases focusing on "Chevron Deference" - a concept in American regulatory policy with nearly a half-century on the books. The two cases, Loper and Relentless, deal with the government's authority to mandate that fishing boats carry human monitors on them to oversee their fishing operations, and do so at the cost of the fishing businesses themselves. But since Congress never explicitly passed a law that says, "fishermen, you need to carry these monitors on your boats and foot the bill for the wages yourselves", where does the executive branch get the power to mandate this? The answer is something called "Chevron Deference," which speaks to the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches of the U.S. government. What is Chevron Deference? In 1984, the Supreme Court decided a pivotal case: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This case concerned an interpretation of the Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a federal administrative agency. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, outlined a two-step process for courts to use when reviewing agency interpretations of statutes: Step One: If the statute is clear, then both the court and the agency must follow the statute. Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, then the court should defer to the agency's interpretation, as long as it is a reasonable one. In essence, Chevron deference gives agencies wide latitude to interpret ambiguous statutes they are entrusted to administer, even if the court might interpret the statute differently. It's how, for example, when Congress passes a law like the Clean Water Act which says you cannot "pollute a navigable water of the United States", but then doesn't define "pollute", "navigable" or "water of the United States", the EPA can turn a dry patch of desert in the high desert of Nevada into a "navigable water of the United States", subject to their regulatory jurisdiction. Why is Chevron Deference Controversial? Several concerns arise from the principle of Chevron deference, especially among those wary of an expanding executive branch: Concentration of Power: With Chevron deference, agencies can both create and interpret regulations. This means that the same entity that enforces the law is also empowered to interpret it, potentially concentrating too much power in the executive branch and thereby upsetting the balance of power among the three branches of government. Accountability: Federal agencies are not directly accountable to voters in the same way elected officials are. When courts defer to agency interpretations, it can be argued that unelected bureaucrats are making important decisions without the direct oversight of the electorate. Legal Stability: When administrations change, agency interpretations might change as well. This can lead to legal uncertainty, as businesses and individuals may struggle to keep up with shifting regulations. Judicial Abdication: Critics argue that Chevron deference amounts to courts abdicating their role as the primary interpreters of the law. The judiciary, they argue, should be the final arbiter of what a statute means, not administrative agencies. The Case for Overturning Chevron Given these concerns, many believe that overturning Chevron deference (or at least reining it in) would be beneficial for several reasons: Strengthening the Judiciary: It would reestablish the judiciary as the primary interpreter of laws, reinforcing the idea of checks and balances. Enhancing Accountability: Ensuring that only clear and unambiguous laws are enacted would place the onus back on Congress to draft clear legislation, thereby making elected officials more accountable for the laws they pass. Legal Predictability: By reducing the scope for varying interpretations by different administrations, businesses and individuals can have more predictability and stability in the legal landscape. In conclusion, while Chevron deference was established with the aim of allowing agencies to effectively administer complex statutes, its implications on the balance of power and legal predictability have been a cause for concern. As the debate continues, it’s crucial for citizens to understand the stakes and engage in a balanced discourse about the future of administrative law in the U.S.

The current situation in southern Israel has rightfully dominated international news headlines over the past 6 days. Many questions remain unanswered, and the contours of the crisis are changing literally hour to hour. What we know, for now, is the following: By the numbers: 1,300 Israelis, including numerous civilians of all ages (including babies and the elderly), have been killed, and many more have been wounded. This number also includes dozens of non-Jewish residents of southern Israel, including Arab-Israeli residents and soldiers, as well as foreign workers from East Asia. 150 Israelis - again, including many men, women, and children - have been taken captive and are being held in Gaza. To put this number into perspective, only one Israeli soldier has ever been taken alive into Hamas-controlled Gaza, and it took 5 years to negotiate his safe release in exchange for over 1,000 dangerous terrorists. All of these attacks took place in undisputed sovereign Israeli territory, and the victims are regular Israelis who were peacefully going about their lives. They also took place on the Jewish sabbath which coincided with a holiday, clearly aimed at taking advantage of that to catch Israel off guard. The images and videos of the sheer bloodthirsty brutality of the killings have shocked the world. This war is a new frontier in terms of how smartphones and technology allow unfiltered insight into the level of inhumanity that is on display. 300,000 reservists were successfully called up to bolster the standing IDF presence in the South (where the attacks occurred) as well as in the North, where there is fear that Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based Iran-linked Shiite militia may join the fighting and open up 2 fronts of unconventional warfare. Who is Hamas: Palestinians are split into two areas, which are not geographically contiguous. The first, Judea & Samaria (also known as the West Bank), is the mountain region to the north and south of Jerusalem, containing familiar biblical cities like Bethlehem, Nablus, and Hebron. This region has a mixed Jewish-Arab population, and the Arab population is governed by the Palestinian Authority which is dominated by a political group called Fatah. Fatah supports terrorism against Israel; however it at least tries to maintain a veneer of western respectability and is not a fundamentalist Islamic group. In contrast, Gaza - a coastal area in Southwest Israel - only has Palestinian Arab residents (Jewish residents were unilaterally removed from Gaza in 2005 by the Israeli government, in a very controversial move). Hamas - which fully controls Gaza - is an explicitly Islamic fundamentalist group. Their charter directly calls for full destruction of every inch of Israel. They have been listed as a terrorist organization by western countries for many decades. They frequently call for the destruction of America as well as Israel. How did it happen: Many people are baffled at how Israel’s vaunted military allowed the Gaza border to be breached for several hours leading to the free passage of terrorists and captives. While it is still too early to know exactly, it appears that an over-reliance on technology may have contributed to the breach. The wall is controlled by numerous hi-tech sensors which appear to have been disabled by a combination of cyber warfare and low-tech targeting of the equipment with explosives. This will affect how border security policy is formulated for generations to come. Why now? Hamas must have known that this kind of unprecedented attack could reasonably lead to its destruction. So why did they do this? One theory is that the Arab-Israeli normalization process begun by the Trump Administration, the Abraham Accords, was being successfully continued by the Biden administration and was on the verge of claiming its biggest prize: peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia. This would have completely re-shuffled the Middle East and undermined the stated goal for Hamas’ existence. Iran in particular was concerned about the development and as a patron of Hamas may have instigated this attack. Additionally, over the past year Israel has become fractured over the flashpoint Judicial Reform issue, which led many left-leaning reservists to publicly say they wouldn’t serve under Netanyahu. Israel’s enemies may have sniffed vulnerability and figured this was their best opportunity to wreak havoc. They were wrong, as all Israelis have enthusiastically lined up to serve in this war for its survival. What this means for humanity: The scope of the barbarism perpetrated by Hamas has shaken the free world and awakened a renewed awareness of the existence of evil. Radical militant Islam, whether in the form of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Hamas, has reemerged as an existential threat to the entire civilized world. The stated goal of world dominance by these radicals has given every country in the world an opportunity to reformulate what it stands for. On the flip side, the several countries which have been equivocating and cannot call out evil right before their eyes will not be viewed as reliable and clear-eyed by the rest of the world. What this means for America: America’s most reliable ally on the planet is hurting badly. However, the morale in Israel is extremely high and Israel will undoubtedly emerge much stronger than ever before, with a clearer-eyed focus on subduing her enemies. Israel is an outpost of democracy in a dangerous neighborhood, and it is holding the line for the West. On a tactical level, Israel serves as the best research and development lab in the world for American weaponry. Israeli tech knowhow and real-time battle-tried experience with American weaponry is communicated to teams of engineers which are then able to make American military technology more reliable and lethal for any future threat to the homeland. Additionally, many of the victims and captives are American citizens. What this means for Israel: Prime Minister Netanyahu has created an emergency unity government which will remain in place until the war has been completed. The relatively insignificant political quibbles of recent months are meaningless for the time being, as all Israelis rally together and stand shoulder to shoulder. When the war is won, there will be a time of reckoning and the public will have to determine who they hold responsible for the crisis. Netanyahu is a battle-tried wartime leader. America has shown that it is a trustworthy ally that can and will assist in Israel’s time of need. The days ahead will be difficult ones, and can proceed in several different directions. The prayers and support of freedom loving people around the world will be needed for Israel to hold the line and make sure this conflict doesn’t devolve into something much larger and more dangerous. CPAC Israel Delegation participants, Ambassadors David Fox & John Rakolta, meeting with Ron Dermer, Israel's current Minister for Strategic Affairs.