Dear Friends and Partners,

After 26 remarkable years as president and CEO of SPN, I am transitioning to a new role as senior strategic advisor. This long-planned change fills me with both gratitude for our shared journey and tremendous excitement for what lies ahead.

Reflecting on these decades together, I’m struck by our accomplishments and the community we’ve built. You—our donors, affiliate members, and policy reform champions—have been the driving force behind every breakthrough that helps more people flourish.

Except for our steadfast mission, today’s SPN bears little resemblance to the organization I joined in 1999. We began with 36 think tanks in 34 states with combined revenues of about $15 million. Today, SPN serves a collaborative Network of nearly 200 policy members and partners, including 64 independent, state-focused think tanks across the country, which employ more than 1,100 staff members with combined revenues exceeding $227 million. SPN’s own revenues have grown from just under $200,000 in 1999 to more than $26 million in 2024.

We’ve weathered challenges that would have hobbled lesser organizations, seized opportunities others missed, and consistently stayed true to our mission while adapting to a rapidly changing world. Most importantly, we’ve done it together, as a powerfully cohesive Network that has driven waves of transformative policy change across the nation. From bringing unprecedented transparency to government operations and undermining the grip of public unions, to seeing Education Savings Accounts flourish across the country and telehealth passing in the majority of states, to leading a tax revolution that has lightened the burden on families and businesses—these are strong and lasting markers that are a direct result of this Network and will have lasting impacts on American society.

I must take a moment to honor Tom and Shirley Roe, whose vision and generosity laid the foundation upon which we’ve built this extraordinary organization. It has been both a privilege and responsibility to build upon their remarkable legacy, and I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to have stewarded the dream they entrusted to all of us.

I step into my new advisory role confident in SPN’s leadership and strategic direction, guided by SPN’s board and our new CEO, Chris Dauer. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to our board members for their invaluable time investment throughout this transition process—their wisdom, guidance, and unwavering commitment have been instrumental in ensuring a seamless leadership change. The team we’ve assembled is exceptional, the foundation we’ve built is rock-solid, and the vision of durable freedom infrastructure and a revival of federalism remains as relevant and urgent as ever.

To our generous donors: Your investment continues to yield dividends in ways both seen and unseen. To our affiliate members: Your partnership is essential to everything we do. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of stewarding this organization and for entrusting us with your resources and confidence.

While this marks my final message as the signer of this newsletter, it’s hardly goodbye. I’ll remain actively engaged full time at SPN, and I look forward to watching us reach new heights under fresh leadership.

The future has never looked brighter.

With gratitude and optimism,

Tracie Sharp
Senior Strategic Advisor
State Policy Network

We’ve been doing it wrong. For years, society has spread the message that voting is the most important thing an engaged citizen can do. And since young people are statistically less likely to show up to the polls, celebrities, teachers, elected leaders, and everyone else have perennially delivered the message: VOTE!!!!!

Voting and participating in government are incredibly important for people of every age, yet sometimes these actions are focused on to the exclusion of other essential topics, such as civics. And even when civics are taught, “too often today, civic education is focused solely on the structure of government or telling young people why they should vote,” explains Stan Swim, the chief program officer of the Bill of Rights Institute, and member of SPN’s board of directors. “Those things are important, but we’ve been teaching our young people that the only way to solve problems is through the government. That’s disempowering. It’s disengaging. It removes individual agency,” continued Swim. “And it leaves many students wondering the same thing about civics. What difference does this really make for me? Many students are still years away from casting their first ballots. And when they do, it will be just one part of their citizenship. What about their lives between their votes?”

In many ways, the importance of civics has been muted—if not lost altogether. Politics has increasingly taken up all the oxygen in the room. And whether it’s because of increasingly tense politics, societal or technological changes, or changing viewpoints of the nation and themselves, Americans increasingly believe the only way to affect society is through government and elected officials. But the Bill of Rights Institute is changing that.
State Policy Network

Civics ≠ Gov-ics

BRI’s vision for our nation is “an America where we more perfectly realize the promise of liberty and equality expressed in the Declaration of Independence.” To achieve that vision, BRI works to create a “civic education that helps students examine the story of our country and exercise the skills of citizenship.”

BRI has built out incredible programming and resources for teachers and students to learn about America’s history, the Constitution, and the importance of embracing constitutional principles in everyday life.

As Swim explains, BRI teaches civics by blending history, character attributes, virtues, and constitutional principles to give students a holistic and applicable view of our nation, our history, and our values. “We show young people that they can apply their citizenship skills in our nation, in their communities, and even in their interactions with each other right now. They can make a difference every day, not just when they vote.”

BRI’s revolutionary vision and approach has allowed them to work with more than 90,000 teachers who reach 9 million students, each year.

And those numbers are growing.

Providing room to learn

Data show that today’s youth face unique challenges. Social media and smartphones have made debate and discussions about liberty, freedom, civil rights, individual rights, and everything in between more complex and seemingly more high stakes. As Swim explains, “We hear from students and teachers that kids are interested in discussions about these issues, but they’re worried about losing their friends if they say the ‘wrong thing.’”

To make civic discussion and learning possible again, BRI has developed materials to not only teach students about the history and theory of these concepts, but also to encourage critical thinking and allow questions, discussions, and debates.

The highest trafficked content on BRI’s website, aimed at teachers, parents, and students, is Point/Counterpoint. These are pieces of content that take topics such as the Progressive Movement, the Vietnam War, and the Patriot Act, as well as subjects like federalism, Supreme Court authority, or political polarization, and present good-faith viewpoints of each side from trusted experts. BRI has tapped more than 100 authors from universities, think tanks, and respected organizations to draft these articles and resources. Each Point/Counterpoint teaches history and theory, but also shows students how to learn, discuss, debate, and disagree respectfully in order to grow.

And BRI’s materials are designed to not only teach but engage students of every age.

Through BRI’s civic Virtues and Vices framework, students learn about courage, honor, and integrity, along with the danger and consequences of dishonor and irresponsibility. And through the Heroes and Villains curricula, students are shown engaging historical examples of people who lived out those virtues and vices.

BRI’s Think the Vote online debate platform shows students how to research political and policy issues and engage others with civility no matter how controversial a topic. Finally, through the MyImpact Challenge, young people are given guidance on developing community service and entrepreneurship projects connected to constitutional principles.

And while this is an impressive list of programming, it leaves out dozens of other BRI resources such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; Documents of Freedom; Being an American; Presidents and the Constitution; Votes for Women; and many more.

When Stan discusses BRI’s work, it’s enlightening to see the level of thought and expertise that’s gone into their lessons, materials, and programs, as well as the organization’s overall approach to working with students and educators.

It doesn’t take much searching on YouTube to see countless videos about someone “destroying” someone else’s argument. For too many today, “winning” has replaced learning. But as Swim explains, “Debate is more than just a skill, it’s a lens. BRI’s goal—and the goal society should have—is to raise generations of educated people holding principled standards.”

And achieving this goal won’t happen by accident.

For too long, voting, government, and politics have been
viewed as the most crucial elements of societal cohesion.
The Bill of Rights Institute is working to correct that. And
in doing so, they’re putting in the work to help develop a
principled generation of young Americans.

The dust has settled in Washington after President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) was signed into law this summer. While much of the mainstream analysis has focused on tax cut extensions and Trump campaign trail promises, the real story for states is buried in the 800-plus pages. The bill dramatically reshapes how two key federally funded programs will be managed, meaning more responsibility and opportunity for states.

We sat down with SPN Senior Policy Advisor Jennifer Butler to expand on her recent National Review article unpacking the OBBB, what it means for the states, and how our Network is preparing states to weather what some experts predict is a looming state budget crisis.

1. There are a lot of provisions in the OBBB. What provisions affect states the most, and how?

OBBB delivers the most significant entitlement reform in a generation, putting states in the driver’s seat. It increases state responsibility, both operationally and fiscally, while adding new opportunities for states that choose to participate. Here are some of the key changes and what they mean for states:

• Under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), states must now cover 75 percent of administrative costs (up from 50 percent) and are responsible for a portion of benefit overpayments if their error rates are too high.
• For Medicaid, states will need to conduct more frequent eligibility checks, implement work or community engagement requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, and comply with tighter rules on certain financing gimmicks.
• On education, OBBB creates the first-ever national school choice tax credit. Beginning in 2027, taxpayers in participating states can receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit, up to $1,700, for donations to approved K–12 scholarship-granting organizations.

Together, these reforms give people real opportunities: Medicaid and SNAP are refocused on helping those truly in need and encouraging work, while the new education tax credit could offer families more choice, especially in states that haven’t yet adopted school choice programs.

2. Should states welcome or fear this change?

Whether a state celebrates or struggles will depend on its current policy landscape and how it chooses to lead moving forward.
For states that expanded Medicaid, OBBB will bring significant new pressures, including caps on provider taxes and tighter limits on state-directed payments that many hospitals rely on. These states could face tough tradeoffs and fiscal challenges as the federal share of funding becomes more conditional.

If states don’t innovate, OBBB’s changes to SNAP could add fiscal strain. With states now covering a larger share of administrative costs and a portion of benefit errors, they have real skin in the game to streamline operations, move people from welfare to work, and reduce error rates.

This shift may be uncomfortable, but for states prepared to govern with discipline and initiative, it’s an opportunity to restore integrity to safety-net programs, focus resources on the truly needy, and reassert control over how services are delivered.

3. What are some big ideas that made it into the OBBB that originated from the states?

Any meaningful Medicaid reform in the bill was only possible because of principled state leaders who understood firsthand the real-world consequences of the current system. Groups like The Buckeye Institute have been proponents of Medicaid reform for years. Additionally, Opportunity Arkansas was on the front lines in setting the record straight about Arkansas’ own brief but successful program requiring work requirements for Medicaid. Their on-the-ground experience and innovative reforms shaped provisions that put more flexibility back into states’ hands and addressed major integrity issues that have contributed to a bloated program.

4. How can states prepare now for implementation challenges in the bill? Where can this Network be a resource?

One of the earliest and most urgent deadlines in OBBB is the December 31, 2025, deadline for states to submit a plan to access the new $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund.

This fund was added late in the process in response to concerns from rural hospitals that they could not withstand some of the Medicaid funding changes included in the bill, especially new limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments. It’s meant to help states modernize rural care delivery by investing in workforce recruitment, telehealth, hospital upgrades, and innovative payment models.

The administration is looking to states to lead—developing thoughtful, state-specific plans that address local needs. But if the planning and implementation process is mismanaged, states could use the money to prop up broken systems or reward politically connected providers, missing the chance to fix what’s broken and creating an even bigger problem when the funding runs out.

This is where our Network can lead. It can support state leaders in designing clear, results-driven plans; push for transparency in how states allocate funds; and help ensure that dollars go toward long-term improvements, not short-term bailouts.

One clear example is the Alliance for Opportunity, a project of Texas Public Policy Foundation, Georgia Center for Opportunity, Pelican Institute for Public Policy, Cardinal Institute, Empower Mississippi, Illinois Policy Institute, Sutherland Institute, The Buckeye Institute, and others. The Network recently published a report discussing the steps states should follow to take advantage of the opportunities OBBB provides.

5. What have SPN-affiliated think tanks done to either directly influence this legislation or inspire ideas that have made it into the law?

For years, Medicaid reform was considered a political third rail in Washington. Many federal lawmakers lacked a deep understanding of the program’s complexities and feared the political costs of tackling it head-on. Our Network has been laying the groundwork for reform for decades, producing data, research, and real-world case studies that illustrate both the program’s challenges and the opportunities for improvement. Groups like the Foundation for Government Accountability have pushed for Medicaid reform for years, publishing reports about the benefits of and best way to implement work requirements.

That sustained effort created the conditions for federal leaders to finally take on meaningful Medicaid changes in this bill.

That groundwork paid off when the bill entered its most critical phase. During key negotiations, several of our national partners were in the thick of it, doing the heavy lifting in the face of formidable opposition from corporate lobbyists, powerful trade associations, and entrenched industries, including hospitals and the wind and solar sectors. The Foundation for Government Accountability, Paragon Institute, and the Economic Policy Innovation Center all played central roles in advancing and defending the reforms. Even SPN’s own Energy and Environment Working Group leader, Amy Oliver Cooke, contributed vital expertise that helped roll back costly green energy subsidies. These behind-the-scenes efforts, combined with the years of state-level policy development, ensured that state-driven solutions made it into the final law.

6. Looking ahead, should states prepare for federal funding cuts? How can they prepare?

Every four to eight years, we see a dramatic pendulum swing in federal priorities, driven by the White House and Congress, that eventually trickles down into grant criteria, funding formulas, and enforcement priorities.

During the Biden administration, that meant an explosion of federal grant programs tied to climate justice, equity requirements, and green energy mandates, especially through the Inflation Reduction Act. Under the current administration, the pendulum is swinging back: rescinding funds, repurposing unspent grants, and realigning discretionary dollars toward different priorities.

Unfortunately, this kind of political whiplash is becoming the norm and federal funding to states will be less reliable as the nation moves closer to a serious federal debt crisis.

That’s why SPN works to strengthen states’ fiscal policies, and why the Center for Practical Federalism has developed a 50-state Federalism Scorecard with a set of actionable policy recommendations to help states reduce their vulnerability to these shifts. The Network is encouraging state leaders to:

• Strengthen grant transparency and oversight so states know exactly what’s at stake when accepting federal money;
• Build state budget resilience through better rainy-day policies and long-term planning; and
• Reclaim authority in areas like education, healthcare, and energy, where states often follow informal or unlawful federal guidance they’re not required to, driving up costs while eroding self-governance.

The more states depend on unpredictable federal dollars and comply with federal policies that may contradict state priorities, the harder it becomes to govern responsibly. This Network helps policymakers prepare now, before the next swing hits.

7. How is SPN’s Center for Practical Federalism engaging with federal lawmakers to devolve more authority to states in light of these opportunities?

During the Biden administration, SPN’s Center for Practical Federalism (CPF) started to track and expose illegal guidance, which are directives that sidestep Congress, create new obligations for states, and often expand federal control beyond what the law allows. These guidance documents have real consequences for states, from imposing costly program changes to narrowing state discretion in core policy areas.

We have been systematically flagging these documents to federal lawmakers and the administration, with several already rescinded. In the long term, we are advocating for structural reforms to prevent this abuse, such as restoring and strengthening public guidance portals, requiring notice-and-comment for significant guidance, and using new tools (including AI) to identify and challenge unlawful directives.

Equally important, we connect state experts and policymakers with federal leaders to ensure real-world perspectives are heard inside the Beltway. Some recent examples include arranging briefings for congressional committees on union activity siphoning public funds, facilitating meetings between our network and USDA officials to address harmful federal programs, and forging collaborations between state energy experts and federal decision makers to fast-track key projects previously stalled by overregulation.

During the OBBB debates, we worked to educate members of Congress on state-level data and real-world insights, work we are continuing as the bill moves into implementation. We also serve as a “watchman on the wall,” using our unique vantage point in DC to keep state leaders informed of federal actions—good and bad—that could affect their work. By doing this systematically across policy areas and agencies, we create a two-way bridge: bringing state priorities to Washington and returning critical intelligence to the states.

The current presidential administration has signaled that we are on the verge of a massive federal deregulatory effort. For states, these shifts may feel like a disruption, but this additional responsibility comes with opportunity. This is the moment for states to reimagine how they serve their citizens; reclaim authority where Washington is pulling back; and build systems that are leaner, more accountable, and more responsive.

State Policy Network was built for this moment. By catalyzing thriving, durable freedom movements in every state, our Network equips state leaders to craft and advance solutions that address each state’s unique needs. In this time of transition, we are prepared to help states chart a new course that strengthens communities and safeguards freedom.

In the suburbs of Chicago, a young boy spent his days playing what he calls “extreme, obscure sports.” He joined the rugby team and the rowing team in college, and willingly went to practices at the crack of dawn and into the late evening hours. He liked the intensity of it all. He welcomed the competition. He enjoyed being on a team with a shared passion and goal. And of course, he loved winning.

In rugby, Christopher Dauer didn’t win by taking the ball and charging ahead of the pack. He won by developing a strategy with his team, leveraging each player’s unique strengths, and working together to reach the try line. And he has applied that approach throughout his professional life—whether as a young staffer in Congress, an MBA student at Stanford Business School, in Silicon Valley launching emerging medical technologies, or during his 14-year tenure at the esteemed Hoover Institution.

Now, as Tracie Sharp passes the baton, Chris is ready to join his next team at State Policy Network.

Rowing Against the Current

Chris grew up in a home that taught him the value of hard work and service in the pursuit of the American Dream. His parents met on a blind date on the campus of Stanford University. His father joked that his rich “Uncle Sam” paid for his education, as he later went on to serve his country in the US Marine Corps, followed by a successful career as an executive at Hewlett Packard. Chris studied economics and Russian history at Brown University—a campus known for its progressive culture, even during the late Cold War era of the 80s, when Chris was a student. The paranoia rose to the point that he recalls students demanding the university stock suicide pills in case of nuclear war.

Chris couldn’t resist exposing the absurdity. He penned a letter to the campus paper with a simple question: Would the pills be buffered for stomach upset? The Washington Post picked it up.

“That was my first taste of how humor could cut through political theater,” he said.

After working on Capitol Hill during the Reagan years, watching historic deregulation unfold in real time, he realized that he wouldn’t follow the path of many of his colleagues by going to law school. Instead, he ultimately followed in his parents’ footsteps back to Stanford, earning a business degree and launching his career in medical devices.

He and his family have called California home ever since, aside from a two-year stint in London in the 1990s, and there he and his wife, Stephanie, raised two children who are now in college. His son, Lincoln, is studying art restoration (even restoring William F. Buckley’s original typewriter), and his daughter, Allison, is a basketball player—Chris travels multiple times a year to western New York to watch her play.

Unleashing Medical Innovation in Silicon Valley

At Stanford Business School, Chris had one focused objective: remain in health care, but break into medical technology. “I didn’t have a science background, but medical devices seemed like the right fit—widgets, you could understand more easily than molecules,” he explains. It was a calculated risk that would define the next two decades of his career.

Over 20 years, Chris would help lead four different startups, learning that failure often teaches more than success. At one company developing surgical sealants, they watched their first product completely fail.

“We had to lay off two-thirds of the company,” he remembers. But instead of folding, they applied every lesson from that failure. “Our second product became THE standard for care in many procedures. A neurosurgeon recently told me ‘You can’t do brain surgery today without it.’”

This wasn’t just about pivoting—it was about understanding market needs. During his time managing European distributors, Chris developed a philosophy that would later transform how he approaches leadership: “You need to walk in the shoes of your partners and understand their local market conditions. They know their territory better than you ever will. Your job is to give them the tools to succeed.”

This distributed model of innovation—empowering local experts while providing strategic support—would become his signature approach and one that resonates with him at his new role at the helm of SPN. In Silicon Valley, where everyone talks about disruption, Chris learned something different: sustainable success comes from collaboration, not conquest.

Scaling the Hoover Institution

After two decades in the startup world, Chris brought his operational expertise to Stanford’s Hoover Institution, where he would spend 15 years, serving most recently as chief operating officer and chief program advancement officer under former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Here, he faced a different challenge: How do you apply Silicon Valley’s innovation mindset to a prestigious academic institution?

“At Hoover, staff members don’t get the spotlight—that’s for the senior fellows and scholars,” he explains. “My role was to create an environment where ideas could flourish and reach beyond academic circles to the engaged public.”

The results spoke to his business acumen. Under his operational leadership, Hoover’s budget doubled in five years—“massive for an academic institution,” he notes. But the real innovation came in distribution. Recognizing that policy research was trapped in academic journals and think tank conferences, Chris spearheaded new approaches to reach broader audiences.

For example, in 2017, Hoover launched PolicyEd with 400 short videos making complex research accessible. “We had one fellow who’d spent 25 years researching a topic. We turned it into a 90-second animation that got millions of views. He told me, ‘They took 25 years of my research and turned it into a cartoon—and I liked it!’” Hoover reached one million YouTube subscribers—more than every major think tank combined.

This wasn’t just about metrics. Chris understood something fundamental: In the marketplace of ideas, you need the same rigor as in any business. You need to understand your audience, deliver value efficiently, and constantly innovate.

“It’s what I call nimble innovation—you are resource constrained, but you still have to create extraordinary value and ROI [return on investment].”

He sees the fundamental role of think tanks in the marketplace of ideas. But importantly, taking those ideas and putting them into action.

Condoleezza Rice spoke to Chris’s legacy: “Since joining Hoover, Chris’s leadership and commitment to our mission have left an enduring mark on our institution,” she said. “He has helped to both shape and strengthen our operations, expand our impact through marketing and development, and cultivated lasting partnerships. SPN is gaining a leader with a steady hand, strong values, and a deep understanding of how to turn vision into impact.”

The Next Chapter at SPN

As he prepares to lead SPN, Chris sees the convergence of everything he’s learned about building and scaling successful organizations and companies. “What excites me most is moving the policy needle—not just generating ideas, but causing policy to be adopted and implemented,” he said.

Chris is drawn to SPN’s model because it mirrors the distributed innovation approach he perfected in business. “With the federal government so divided, the states are where innovation happens. If you look at federalism as a framework, it’s really the ultimate laboratory—you try things, measure results, and scale what works. That’s exactly how successful businesses operate.”

His highly collaborative nature also attracted him to SPN’s emphasis on bringing leaders together to solve problems. Over the next several months, his top priorities are to dive deeper into the organization’s operations and measures, and to connect with affiliates and donors across the country to understand the landscape and value that SPN provides.

But this isn’t his first connection with SPN or our Network. As a California resident, Chris has been an admirer of the California Policy Center (CPC), led by Will Swaim. Despite its residence in an overwhelmingly hostile environment, CPC has relentlessly pushed back against government overreach to the benefit of its citizens and small businesses.

Chris’s vision for SPN builds on its existing strategic framework while bringing fresh perspectives from his diverse background. “The primary feature of this opportunity is that there is such a great strategic framework already in place. It’s about writing a new chapter, not a new book.”

As a generous supporter of this Network, you’ve likely heard us quote President Reagan’s famous reminder that the states created the national government, not the other way around. Yet today, America’s federalist system is steadily eroding. One of the biggest drivers of this erosion—though it’s rarely mentioned in the news—is the growing entanglement of state and local budgets with federal dollars.

State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism (CPF) is staking its claim as a leader in this space—advocating for states to cut their dangerous dependence on money from Washington, DC. Few other organizations are even talking about this problem, but CPF is putting it front and center.

The more states depend on federal money, the less discretion and leeway they have to shape their policy priorities and govern according to the unique values and needs of their communities. In other words, the states are slowly becoming mere administrative districts of Washington, DC—a far cry from the sovereign, independent entities the American Founders designed under the Constitution.

What’s more, federal money is never free or reliable—and it often comes with strings attached. Federal agencies will use funding to advance ideological priorities that go far beyond what Congress authorized, attaching conditions related to issues like climate change, gender identity, and race equity. Lawmakers are often unaware of, or turn a blind eye to, the strings that come with this “free” money.

State Dependence on Federal Money Has Doubled Since 1990

To highlight just how urgent this problem has become, CPF recently released a report showing how much federal money flows into each state. The findings exposed just how deep state dependence has grown.

In 2023, the average state relied on Washington for 37 percent of its revenue—nearly double the 1990 average. Some states were far more dependent, like Arizona (49 percent), Alaska (45 percent), Wyoming (46 percent), and Louisiana—which counted on federal support for more than half its budget. During COVID, Congress flooded states with stimulus dollars, temporarily driving the federal share of state budgets to historic highs. But remarkably, dependency never returned to pre-pandemic levels. Every state but Idaho and New Mexico leaned more on Washington in 2023 than before COVID, and four states—Virginia, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island—saw double-digit increases. Even more shocking, 23 states took in a larger share of federal money last year than during the pandemic lockdowns. This doesn’t mean that there’s a lack of appetite for fiscal responsibility, however. Since COVID, more than half of the states have taken this opportunity to cut taxes—whether that be income tax, sales tax, or property tax.

From Data to National Headlines

Tony Woodlief, senior fellow at CPF, highlighted these findings in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. He further discussed the issue on the RealClearPolitics podcast, the Econception podcast with National Review’s Dominic Pino, and several national radio programs.

The Center for Practical Federalism also packaged the findings in a report that highlights states’ growing fiscal dependence on Washington, the risks it poses, and solutions for restoring state budget independence. To make the findings even more accessible, the report included an interactive map comparing federal reliance across all 50 states.

In interviews with the press, CPF held up several states and state lawmakers as examples of federalism, champions who are pushing back against overreliance on federal money. A handful of states have passed laws that shine a light on federal directives, require legislative approval or cost estimates for federal grants, or even prepare contingency plans for when Washington’s money runs out.

With Washington’s debt now surpassing $37 trillion, that day is fast approaching. CPF is currently working with 14 affiliates across the Nation to shine a light on federal funding and guidance. Thanks to your support, CPF is ensuring local leaders are ready—advancing reforms that put power back where it belongs: in the states.

Our Network of 64 independent state think tanks plays a vital role in society by providing reliable research, analysis, and education to help lawmakers develop and advance policies that serve their communities. For more information, click here.

If you are interested in viewing a copy of the latest updates from our affiliates, please download the full issue, or contact Taylor Anderson at tanderson@spn.org.

Alabama
Alabama Policy Institute

Alaska
Alaska Policy Forum

Arizona
AZ Liberty Network
Goldwater Institute

Arkansas
Arkansas Policy Foundation
Opportunity Arkansas

California
California Policy Center
Pacific Research Institute

Colorado
Independence Institute

Connecticut
Yankee Institute for Public Policy

Delaware
Caesar Rodney Institute

Florida
Foundation for Government Accountability
The James Madison Institute

Georgia
Georgia Center for Opportunity
Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Hawaii
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Idaho
Idaho Freedom Foundation
Mountain States Policy Center

Illinois
Illinois Policy Institute

Indiana
Indiana Policy Review Foundation

Iowa
Iowans for Tax Relief

Kansas
Kansas Policy Institute

Kentucky
Bluegrass Institute

Louisiana
Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Maine
Maine Policy Institute

Massachusetts
Pioneer Institute

Michigan
Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Minnesota
Center of the American Experiment
Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

Mississippi
Empower Mississippi Foundation
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Missouri
Show-Me Institute

Montana
Frontier Institute

Nebraska
Platte Institute for Economic Research

Nevada
Nevada Policy

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett Center

New Jersey
Garden State Initiative
New Jersey Policy Institute

New Mexico
Rio Grande Foundation

New York
Empire Center

North Carolina
John Locke Foundation

North Dakota
Roughrider Institute

Ohio
The Buckeye Institute

Oklahoma
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Oregon
Cascade Policy Institute

Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Foundation

Rhode Island
Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity

South Carolina
Palmetto Promise Institute
South Carolina Policy Council

South Dakota
Great Plains Public Policy Institute

Tennessee
Beacon Center of Tennessee

Texas
Texas Public Policy Foundation

Utah
Libertas Institute
Sutherland Institute

Virginia
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Virginia Institute for Public Policy

Washington
Freedom Foundation
Washington Policy Center

West Virginia
Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy

Wisconsin
Badger Institute
Institute for Reforming Government
MacIver Institute for Public Policy
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

Wyoming
Wyoming Liberty Group

Thank you to our national parters who work with us to advance freedom across the country in key areas including education, law, free speech, energy and the environment, and tax reform.

1851 Center for Constitutional Law
50CAN
Abundance Institute
Accuracy in Media
Acton Institute
AMAC Action
America’s Future
America First Policy Institute
American Conservative Union
American Consumer Institute
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
American Dream Legal
American Enterprise Institute
American Institute for Economic Research
American Juris Link
American Legislative Exchange Council
Americans for Fair Treatment
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Archbridge Institute
Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Association of American Educators Foundation
Atlas Network
Bill of Rights Institute
Capital Research Center
Cato Institute
Centennial Institute
Center for Education Reform
Center for Independent Employees
Center for Independent Thought
Center for Individual Rights
Center for Latino Leadership
Children’s Scholarship Fund
Cicero Institute
Citizen Action Defense Fund
Citizens Against Government Waste
Citizens Council for Health Freedom
Coalition for Liberty
Common Sense Institute
Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Do No Harm
DonorsTrust
EdChoice
Energy & Environment Legal Institute
ExcelinEd
Federalist Society
Fiscal Alliance Foundation
Forge Leadership Network
Foundation for Economic Education Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Franklin News Foundation
Fraser Institute
Free the People
Free to Choose Network
Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research
Heartland Institute
Independent Institute
Independent Women’s Forum
Inspired Life
Institute for Family Studies
Institute for Free Speech
Institute for Humane Studies
Institute for Justice
Institute for Policy Innovation
Institute for the American Worker
Institute of Economic Affairs
Instituto de Libertad Economica
Jersey 1st
Judicial Watch
Kentucky Forum for Rights, Economics and Education
Leadership Institute
Lexandria
Libertarian Policy Foundation
Liberty Justice Center
Louisiana Family Forum
Lucy Burns Institute
Ludlow Institute
Magnolia Tribune Institute
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center
Middle Resolution Policy Foundation
Millennial Debt Foundation
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Napa Legal Institute
National Review Institute
National Right to Work Legal Defense & Education Foundation Inc.
National School Choice Awareness Foundation
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
New Civil Liberties Alliance
North Carolina FreeEnterprise Foundation
Opportunity for All Kids
Pacific Legal Foundation
People United for Privacy Foundation
Property & Environment Research Center (PERC)
Philanthropy Roundtable
Prison Fellowship
Project 42
Reason Foundation
Reformers Academy
Respect America
R Street Institute
Save Our States
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Speech First
Stand Together Trust
Steamboat Institute
Students for Liberty
Tax Foundation
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
The Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University
The College Fix
The Foundation for American Innovation
The Free State Foundation
The Fund for American Studies
The Heritage Foundation
The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
The Jesse Helms Center
The Policy Circle
True Charity
Truth in Accounting
Upper Midwest Law Center
Young America’s Foundation
Young Americans for Liberty
Young Voices