The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded by Libertarian Party activist Ed Crane, libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, and businessman Charles Koch, the organization conducts policy research in support of libertarian policies and has been credited with bringing libertarian thought into mainstream political argumentation. ¹

The Cato Institute supports libertarian positions on a range of political issues. The Cato Institute is aligned with laissez-faire economic policy, supporting reductions in federal taxes, widespread economic deregulation, free trade, and minimized government spending on entitlement programs. The Institute has also supported left-of-center positions on social issues, calling for the expansion of immigration, the legalization of all drugs, left-of-center changes to policing, reduced incarceration, decreased military spending, and a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. ²

In October 2011, Charles Koch and his brother, business partner, and fellow libertarian political activist David Koch, filed a lawsuit to gain control of Cato Institute shares owned by former Institute chair William Niskanen after his passing, sparking renewed tension between Crane and Koch after an earlier split regarding the philosophy of the Cato Institute. ³ The controversy led to a split within the Institute, with then-president Crane accusing Charles Koch of trying to “transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda.”  ³ In June of 2012, Charles and David Koch agreed to end their lawsuit over the shares in exchange for Crane retiring from his position as president and CEO of the Cato Institute. ⁴

Former Barclays Capital executive Peter Goettler was the president and CEO of the Cato Institute as of 2025.  ⁵ The Cato Institute has received funding from a number of right-of-center organizations, including the Donors Capital Fund, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Institute has also received funding from businesses and centrist foundations including the Gilder Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, Google, and Facebook. ^{6 7} The Institute has also received funding from left-of-center organizations including the New Venture Fund, George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. ⁸

History

The Cato Institute was founded by libertarian activist Edward Crane, economist Murray Rothbard, and businessman Charles Koch in 1977 in San Francisco with an initial investment by Koch. ⁴ Originally called the Charles Koch Foundation, the Cato Institute was designed as a libertarian think tank to compete with the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center think tank, and the Brookings Institution, a left-of-center think tank. ³

The Cato Institute has since expanded to become one of the largest think tanks in the world and the most prominent libertarian think tank in the United States. In 1992, Charles Koch resigned from the board of directors at the Cato Institute, despite remaining involved in funding the organization. ¹

In the early 2000s, the Cato Institute rose to national prominence for its work with the George W. Bush administration, working as the intellectual force behind former President George W. Bush’s unsuccessful attempt to partially privatize Social Security with individual retirement accounts. The Institute has been credited for bringing libertarian policies into the mainstream of public policy debates, publishing libertarian policy research and recommendations for lawmakers. ¹

Advocacy

The Cato Institute is the most prominent libertarian think tank in the world, publishing policy research and recommendations. The Institute supports left-of-center and right-of-center groups, pushing an agenda that emphasizes deregulation of the market and decreased government spending. Cato Institute is a partner of the State Policy Network (SPN), a network of conservative and libertarian think tanks that focus on state-level policy reform to promote free-market economics. ⁹

Economic Regulation

The Cato Institute supports free markets and has called for repealing many federal economic regulations. The Institute has criticized antitrust statutes for imposing outdated regulations that harm consumers, argued for the repeal of environmentalist regulations on individuals and businesses, and supported efforts to limit or even abolish the regulatory power of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). ^{10 11 12}

The Cato Institute supports the idea of personal responsibility and individual action in the free market, arguing for a reduction in government regulations on finance, trade, labor, the internet, and telecommunications. In each of these industries, the Cato Institute has expressed support for increased privatization, and allowing consumers and producers to negotiate without the interference of federal, state, or local regulations. ¹³

In labor, the Cato Institute has supported efforts to repeal the federal minimum wage and pass federal law barring states from imposing minimum wages. ¹⁴ The Institute has also called for the repeal of labor laws, including the pro-union National Labor Relations Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and most of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ¹⁵ The Cato Institute has also supported efforts to remove all public health and safety regulations, except in cases where the free market has clearly failed, and has supported the implementation of a mandate requiring that all health and safety regulations pass a cost-benefit analysis test before being implemented. ¹⁶

The Institute is especially active in promoting free trade, arguing that tariffs and other trade barriers are regressive taxes on American citizens and increase the costs of production for American businesses. The Cato Institute has argued for the repeal of trade restrictions, the repeal of transportation restrictions such as the Jones Act, and the repeal of tariffs on intermediate goods. The Institute has also supported efforts to build and ratify trade liberalization agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). ¹⁷

The Cato Institute has drawn criticism for supporting a free-market approach to the tobacco industry, opposing increased tobacco regulations after previously receiving donations from tobacco manufacturers. ¹⁸

Environmentalism

The Cato Institute has rejected left-of-center narratives around climate change, formerly hosting Patrick Michaels as a fellow and speaker on environmental science. Michaels has rejected typical narratives around climate change, denying that man-made climate change will result in an environmental disaster. The Institute parted with Michaels and closed its Center for the Study of Science in May 2019. ¹⁹

Despite being generally opposed to environmentalist regulations and calling for the widespread repeal of environmental regulations on businesses, the Cato Institute has supported placing a federal price on emissions, then directing proceeds from the tax to those exposed to pollutants. ²⁰

Tax and Fiscal Policy

The Cato Institute supports sharp reductions in federal taxes. As of 2021, the Institute had endorsed cutting the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, repealing the estate tax, repealing nearly all tax deductions and credits to simplify the tax system, cutting the capital gains tax to 15 percent, and replacing the individual income tax system with a two-tier system of 15 percent and 25 percent rates based on income. ²¹ The Cato Institute has also supported initiatives to replace the tiered income tax system entirely with a consumption-based flat tax. ²¹

The Cato Institute’s tax policy is motivated by its right-of-center fiscal policy, which calls for mass reductions in government spending. The Institute has called for a three-percent cut in federal spending, including measures to cut corporate subsidies; privatize services like the postal service, passenger rail, and utilities; cut Social Security benefits; phase out state aid programs; and cap spending on Medicaid and Medicare programs. ²² The Institute has also called for the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). ²²

Drug Policy

The Cato Institute has previously argued for the decriminalization of all drugs while claiming that all drug policy issues should be left to the states to decide. The Institute has called on the federal government to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, refuse to interfere with states on questions of marijuana legalization, repeal mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, and completely abolish the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The Cato Institute has argued that the continued prohibition of drugs has been ineffective in preventing their proliferation, claiming that banning illegal drugs has exacerbated racial injustices and funneled money towards black markets. ²³

The Cato Institute has argued for the total legalization of all drugs on economic grounds. The Institute has claimed that the full legalization of all drugs would bring an additional $106 billion in government revenues by reducing money spent on drug enforcement and implementing a legal, taxed drug trade. ²⁴

In an essay written by Cato Institute fellow Trevor Burrus, the Institute encouraged the decriminalization of all illegal drugs as the antidote to fatal drug overdoses, citing the example of Portugal, a country that decriminalized all drugs and saw subsequent decreases in drug overdoses and drug use. ²⁵ The essay pushes beyond decriminalization, arguing for full-scale legalization and sale of illicit drugs, including heroin, on the claim that such legalization will make drug use safer and less potent, resulting in a decrease in “problematic” drug use or dependency. ²⁵

Policing and Civil Rights

Alongside its drug policy agenda, the Cato Institute frequently publishes research and left-of-center policy recommendations on criminal justice and policing. Cato Institute researchers have claimed that police “embrace deceit” in interrogation processes to coerce confessions. ²⁶ The Institute has also pushed for changes to policing policy that reduce the power of police officers, including ending qualified immunity and allowing police officers to be held personally liable for errors on the job. ²⁷  In November 2020, the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of a Supreme Court case aimed at ending the practice of qualified immunity, joining both left-of-center and right-of-center organizations including the social-conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, the left-of-center American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the left-of-center civil rights group National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights litigation group. ²⁸

Since the summer of 2020, the Cato Institute has been increasingly active in policing policy, embracing left-of-center positions. The Institute has advocated for “de-militarizing” the police by prohibiting local law enforcement from accessing military equipment, implementing “transparency requirements” that require police officers to report their use of all “dangerous equipment,” and making all police raids against nonviolent offenders “presumptively unlawful.” ²⁹

The Cato Institute has also embraced some left-of-center positions on incarceration, calling incarceration “unjustifiably harsh” and blaming a “carceral-industrial complex” for keeping people in prison. ^{30 31} The Institute has frequently advocated for decreasing prison populations and moving away from the model of incarceration as punishment for nonviolent crimes, especially drug offenses. ³¹

The Cato Institute has taken strong stances against civil asset forfeiture, the process by which law enforcement officials can seize property from individuals if they merely suspect that the property has been used in a crime. The Institute has called on the federal government to regulate asset forfeiture to require a criminal conviction against an individual before seizing assets, require that all seized property become property of the treasury instead of law enforcement agencies, and require the government to establish clear and convincing proof for why they are seizing any individual property. ³²

The Cato Institute has supported efforts to end civil asset forfeiture, while also supporting legislation that would require law enforcement agencies to pay an individual punitive damages in addition to returning their property if it turns out that no criminal activity was connected to the property. ³³

In 2023, Cato analyst Scott Bullock gave an interview titled “End Civil Asset Forfeiture” in which he cited a New Yorker article in his argument for ending the practice. However, in 2022, an article on the practice appeared in the Cato Institute’s Handbook for Policymakers in which Cato fellows Roger Pilon and Trevor Burrus argued that the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act should be amended to require criminal conviction before assets can be seized by the government. ^{34 35}

Pilton and Burrus further argued that such assets seized should be held by the U.S Department of the Treasury or deposited into state-level general funds instead of local law enforcement agencies. The article further advocated preventing federal agencies from profiting from local and state forfeiture cases as well as preventing local organizations from participating in federal equitable sharing programs. ³⁵

In May 2024, the Cato Institute released a statement reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision in Culley v. Marshall, in which it ruled that “a separate preliminary hearing is not constitutionally required to determine whether police may retain seized property in civil forfeiture.” ³⁶ In its statement, Cato stated that the ruling was  “disappointing for critics of civil forfeiture,” but claimed that up to five justices on the court expressed “reservations” on such practices including Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The statement supported changes to civil forfeiture laws such as the government requiring “a criminal conviction before seizing assets,” “the government [having] the burden of proof,” and directing “forfeited property […] to the federal treasury rather than the police, to remove corrupt incentives.” ³⁷

Foreign Policy and Security

The Cato Institute supports decreased military spending, limiting foreign intervention, and cutting foreign aid programs. The Institute has called for decreasing the size of all branches of the United States military and implementing caps to reduce defense spending. ³⁸ The Institute has also called for an end to United States involvement in wars in the Middle East, including withdrawal from Afghanistan and suspending targeted killings as counterterrorism measures. ^{39 40} The Cato Institute heavily criticized the 2020 killing of Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani by U.S. military forces, accusing the Trump administration of “stoking an endless war.” ⁴¹

The Cato Institute has embraced left-of-center proposals on diplomacy, including supporting the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear agreement, opposing expansion of NATO, and abandoning military efforts focused on containing the power of China. ^{42 43} Nonetheless, the Cato Institute has also embraced right-of-center foreign policy initiatives, including abolishing U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), withdrawing from global development banks, and privatizing international banks and investment organizations. ⁴⁴

The Cato Institute has become known for its opposition to government surveillance programs, criticizing federal agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) for surveilling American citizens without court orders. ⁴⁵ In January of 2020, the Cato Institute called on Congress to investigate whether the FBI was surveilling American political organizations after the FBI failed to respond to several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the Cato Institute. ⁴⁶ Institute officials have called surveillance activities without evidence or genuine suspicion of criminal activities “inimical” to free speech and have claimed that such surveillance should be “expressly prohibited.” ⁴⁶

The Institute has taken particular opposition to the NSA, calling for a repeal of the National Security Agency (NSA) Act that allows for all NSA data to be kept secret from the public. The Institute has alleged that the bill allows the NSA to hide even “criminal” conduct and has called on Congress to repeal the provision, while enacting a statutory bar on using any law to conceal criminal misconduct or mismanagement by an executive department or agency. The Institute has also called for criminal charges to be dismissed against former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. ⁴⁷

In 2025, Cato Institute research was used in an essay published by Defense Priorities titled “Military Policy Toward China: The Case Against Overreaction” and written by John Mueller, the chair emeritus of National Security Studies at the Mercatus Center. The paper claimed that “policies of containment and military deterrence” were ineffective against the Soviet Union during the Cold War and should not be applied towards China, that China will fail to achieve any “‘hegemonic’ ambitions” due to overstretching resources and antagonizing its own neighbors, and that the best action by the United States is to, “let China make its own mistakes.” ⁴⁸ The article also advocated that the United States “wait for China to mellow while warily profiting from China’s economic size and problems” as well as “help Taiwan prepare to defend itself while maintaining that the island is independent so long as it doesn’t say so.” ⁴⁸

In March 2025, Scott Lincicome, Cato Institute’s vice president of general economics and the Institute’s Herbet A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services on the acquisition of U.S farmland by Chinese-owned organizations and corporations. During his testimony, he submitted a 2023 blog post he co-authored with Ilana Blumsack titled “Chinese Ownership of U.S. Farmland: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff,” in which it acknowledged the threat of Chinese possession of U.S farmland while claiming, “policy responses over the last two administrations have been woefully inadequate.” ⁴⁹ The post claimed that fears of Chinese ownership of land near sensitive U.S military assets, including the purchase of farmland near a U.S Air Force base in North Dakota were “negligible,” while further claiming “[t]here’s little reason for serious concern about the vast majority of foreign farmland holdings, including the quarter-teaspoon held by China.” He further alleged that any restrictions on such transactions placed by the federal government would cause “legal, economic, and practical” issues and therefore “shouldn’t be considered” until additional policy changes were made. ⁴⁹

In July 2025, Cato Institute Research Fellow Jon Hoffman and the Institute’s Director of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies Justin Logan released a podcast on the Institute website titled Aimless Rivalry: US and China in the Middle East, in which they expressed opposition to “justifications for US Middle East policy based on competition with China.” ⁵⁰

Logan had previously released a 2014 article titled “Why the Middle East Still Doesn’t Matter,” in which he claimed that U.S policy towards the Middle East, “from a military point of view, is little more than a waste of time” and argued that scaling back military intervention would not harm U.S. interests in the region concerning “oil, Israel, and terrorism.”  ⁵¹

Entitlement Programs

The Cato Institute has supported efforts to partially privatize or abolish Social Security, including transferring Social Security payroll taxes to individual retirement accounts for young workers. ⁵² The Institute also supports moving welfare programs to state-level from federal-level control. ⁵³

The Institute is generally opposed to all large-scale entitlement programs run by the federal government, arguing that they should be abolished or consolidated. ⁵³ Some Cato Institute affiliated scholars have further advocated efforts to eliminate the existing entitlement system and replace it with a universal basic income, a system consisting of monthly cash payments directly to individuals, arguing that such a change would increase accountability, decrease state paternalism, and provide incentives to work.⁵⁴

Education

The Cato Institute supports school-choice programs, supporting efforts to increase charter schools, voucher programs, and tuition tax credit programs. The Institute has argued that allowing the free market to influence education and shut down failing schools will result in better educational outcomes for children after years of stagnation in the American public school system. ⁵⁵ The Institute has further argued that public schools spend taxpayer money ineffectively, publishing a 2010 report demonstrating that public schools spend 93% more per student than private schools subject to market forces that promote accountability. ⁵⁶

In February 2002, the Cato Institute launched the Center for Educational Freedom to work specifically on promoting school choice. ⁵⁵ As of January 2021, the Center has shifted its focus to advocating directly for scholarship tax credit programs that provide individual families or corporations with tax credits for giving to nonprofit scholarship organizations that then assist low- and middle-income families in enrolling their children in private schools of each family’s choosing. ⁵⁷ The Cato Institute has also criticized the outsized influence of teachers’ unions in American politics, arguing that they do not represent the interests of families served by public schools. ⁵⁸

Aside from supporting school choice programs, the Cato Institute has also argued against the use of affirmative action in hiring or admissions decisions by institutions that receive public funding. ⁵⁹

Gun Control

The Cato Institute has been a long-time opponent of gun control regulations, working in 2007 to overturn Washington, D.C.’s strict gun control statutes. ⁶⁰ The Institute has argued that certain gun control measures such as universal background checks and bans on magazines of certain sizes are ineffective at saving lives, violate the Second Amendment, and criminalize legitimate gun owners. ⁶¹

The Cato Institute has called on the Supreme Court to take on more Second Amendment cases and overturn several gun-control laws, including those that bar formerly convicted criminals from owning firearms. ⁶² The Institute has filed several amicus briefs in cases arguing to overturn gun control measures. ⁶³

Immigration

The Cato Institute has adopted several left-of-center stances on policy towards immigration, encouraging expanded guest worker visa programs for low-skilled migrant workers, approving more foreign workers and eliminating caps on foreign worker programs, and expanding employment-based green card programs. ⁶⁴ The Cato Institute has also supported the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a controversial program to grant de facto legal status to certain illegal immigrants who arrived as children enacted by an executive order during the Obama administration. ⁶⁵

The Cato Institute has also advocated against several right-of-center immigration policies, especially those enacted by the Trump Administrations. In January 2021, Cato Institute officials called on President Joe Biden to lift the travel ban implemented against several predominantly Muslim countries by the First Trump administration. ⁶⁶ Other Cato officials called on the Biden administration to work to “get the [immigration] system back to where it was in 2016,” removing all policies introduced during the Trump administration. ⁶⁷

The Institute has, however, opposed left-of-center efforts to allow immigrants to access social welfare programs, arguing for the implementation of restrictions on access to means-tested welfare programs for all noncitizens. ⁶⁴

In June 2025, the Cato Institute released a blog on its website authored by David J. Bier, director of the Institute’s immigration studies, reporting on data provided by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and arguing that the second Trump administration was arresting “1,100 percent more noncriminals on the street” than the first Trump administration was in 2017. Bier further argued that ICE’s actions “increases the likelihood of unnecessary confrontations between ICE and the public…ICE is more likely to make mistakes, and US citizens and legal residents are ensnared in the crackdown.”  ⁶⁸

Alex Nowrasteh, the Cato Institute’s vice president for economic and social policy studies and a frequent commentator on immigration-related issues, has made controversial comments on social media. In December 2024, following President Donald Trump’s second election, Nowrasteh posted on his X (previously Twitter) account calling for Stephen Miller not to be appointed as Homeland Security Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, claiming “There’s no hope for pro-immigration policy in the Trump administration so long as @StephenM works in the White House. If all the Silicon Valley folks who support skilled immigration want to make positive changes, you have to fire Miller. Find a way.” ^{69 70 71}

In 2020, Nowrasteh co-authored a book with Texas Tech University academic Benjamin Powell titled Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions, arguing against views on immigration it claimed “undermine the culture, institutions, and productivity of destination countries,” while arguing “mass immigration” does not harm national institutions. The book’s official description claims to make “a qualified case for free immigration and the accompanying prosperity.” Nowrasteh later claimed said he “should have written my book about how nativists will undermine economic and political institutions.” ^{72 73 74}

In June 2025, Nowrasteh wrote on his X profile that “Blood and dirt nationalism is a loser’s ideology. Freedom, federalism, and diversity are for winners.” ⁷⁵ The post further claimed that Switzerland “outlasted their nationalist neighbors by embracing freedom and sane federalism, despite being an ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse country.” ⁷⁵ Previously, during a November 2021 interview with the Immigrant Learning Center, Nowrasteh argued that immigrants from “feudal” Ireland in the 19th century had a harder time culturally assimilating to America than immigrants from India or Nigeria do today. ^{75 76}

In a 2024 essay for National Affairs, Nowrasteh and Cato policy scholar Ilya Somin argued that “nationalism is particularly dangerous in a diverse nation like the United States,” claiming that it is “virtually impossible to separate from harmful ethnic and racial discrimination” and that “immigration restrictions reduce economic growth, population growth, and scientific progress.” ⁷⁷

In September 2023, Nowrasteh wrote on his X account that “Immigration restrictions are affirmative action for natives, the psychological link between two very similar policies”  ⁷⁸ while linking to a National Bureau of Economic Research article titled “Zero-sum Thinking and the Roots of US Political Differences” which argued “a more zero-sum mindset is strongly associated with more support for government redistribution, race- and gender-based affirmative action, and more restrictive immigration policies.”  ⁷⁹ In July 2025, Nowrasteh also wrote on his X profile claiming “Immigration opinion among Americans radically shifts in a year…Voting is a very poor way to make important society-wide decisions about important policies like immigration.”  ⁸⁰

Cato Institute adjunct scholar and George Mason economics professor Bryan Caplan published a graphic novel titled Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration in 2019. The official description claims that the book makes a “bold case for unrestricted immigration” and argues that by “opening all borders,” countries would “eliminate absolute poverty worldwide and usher in a booming worldwide economy.” ^{81 82}

In the book, Caplan claimed arguments by countries that unlimited immigration is not possible or that domestic populations should come first are “morally obtuse” and “factually incorrect.” He further argued that having all people “live and work where they like” is “the simple justice we owe every fellow human being” and that an open borders policy would “unlock unprecedent abundance by freeing global labor markets.” ⁸³

In an interview with Vox, Caplan acknowledged that immigration restrictions are “indeed a good way of keeping cultural homogeneity,” pointing to countries with strict immigration policies such as Japan, but further claimed “places like that are boring” and “just dull places to be.” ⁸⁴

In January 2022, Caplan posted on his X (then-Twitter) account that “If a country is bad enough for sanctions, it’s bad enough to give all its citizens asylum.”  ⁸⁵

Human Freedom Index

In collaboration with the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market think tank, the Cato Institute publishes the “Human Freedom Index,” an annual ranking of the world’s countries based on their “personal, civil, and economic freedom.” In 2024 list, the United States did not make the top ten, tying at 17 with the United Kingdom. ⁸⁶

Controversies

Role of the Koch Family

In October 2011, Cato Institute co-founder William Niskanen died, leaving 25 percent of the Cato Institute’s private stock unclaimed. Just weeks later, Cato co-founder Charles Koch and his brother, business partner, and fellow libertarian political activist David Koch filed a lawsuit to gain control of the shares, sparking renewed tension between then-Cato CEO Ed Crane and Koch after an earlier split regarding the direction of the Cato Institute. Control of the former Niskanen shares would have allowed the Kochs to gain majority control over the Cato Institute.  ³

After the lawsuit became public, Crane released a scathing criticism of the move, claiming that Charles Koch had “exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute,” despite supporting it financially. Crane’s official statement accused Koch of trying “to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda.” Crane went so far as to call the move a “hostile takeover.” ³ The move prompted Crane to expand the Cato Institute board of directors to prevent those associated with the Koch family from acting in the Kochs’ favor, with Crane calling them “conservative, Koch Industries supplicants.” ⁸⁷

The Kochs responded to Crane’s accusations by claiming that he would “partner with anyone…to further his political agenda at the expense of others working to advance a free society.” ⁸⁷ In June 2012, Charles and David Koch agreed to drop their lawsuit over the shares in exchange for Crane retiring from his position as president and CEO of the Cato Institute. The settlement also restructured the Cato Institute, implementing a 12-member board of directors, only four of whom would be individuals named by the Kochs. ⁴

Crane Harassment Scandal

In February of 2018, three Cato Institute employees accused former CEO Ed Crane of sexual harassment, claiming that Crane had made sexually charged comments and sent inappropriate emails to them during his time as CEO. Politico reported that Crane settled an additional suit with an employee in 2012. ⁸⁸

Cato employees alleged that Crane had attempted to remove the clothing of a female employee at an office event, drank alcohol in his office throughout the day, and watched pornography in the workplace, in addition to allegedly making frequent comments on the appearance of women at Cato. Cato employees further claimed that Crane had allegedly created a culture of harassment at the Cato Institute, allegedly distributing “menus” of headshots and bios of young interns to staff. ⁸⁸ Crane denied all allegations. ⁸⁸

Fellow’s Defense of 2021 Capitol Riot

In 2021, Cato Institute senior fellow Andrei Illarionov published a piece which defended rioters who stormed the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021 due to claims of the 2020 presidential election results being fraudulent. ⁸⁹ Illarionov, a former adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, wrote in the post that police officers had set a “trap” for those who stormed the Capitol building that had been deliberately provoked by left-of-center Black Lives Matter activists and Democrats. ⁸⁹

Illarionov also claimed that left-wing extremist organization Antifa had infiltrated the protests, supported the idea that the winner of the 2020 Presidential election was “still unknown” even after outgoing Vice President Mike Pence certified the results, and defended rioters by claiming that they were “definitely” not in violation of the U.S. Constitution when they stormed the Capitol. A week earlier, Cato Institute president Peter Goettler had condemned the attack on the Capitol as “a direct attack on the Constitution…the rule of law, and our constitutional republic.” ⁸⁹

The Cato Institute launched an internal investigation into the matter that month. ⁸⁹ As of January 25, 2021, Illarionov’s profile on the Cato website referred to his position as a senior fellow in the past tense. ⁹⁰ This remained the case as of July 2025. ⁹¹

In 2024, Illarionov wrote an essay on how he accused Putin of crimes while serving as his advisor for Newsweek. In the piece, Illarionov complained that the Cato Institute, “in the heart of the Western world,” “fired” him for “expressing [his] views” on the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot in a Russian-language blog post. He wrote “[w]hat a shocking contrast between the ethical standards of today’s West and Putin, the most serious challenger to it. The current West does not follow its own old rules.” ⁹²

Leadership

As of 2025, Peter Goettler was the president and CEO of the Cato Institute, a position he had held since 2015. He joined the Institute as a board member in 2014. Prior to joining the Cato Institute, Goettler worked for Barclays Capital as head of investment banking and debt capital markets for the Americas and previously the head of global leveraged finance and head of global loans. Goettler is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society membership organization. ⁵

As of 2025, John Samples was the vice president of the Cato Institute. Prior to joining Cato, Samples was the director of Georgetown University Press and the vice president of the Twentieth Century Fund. ^{93 94}

Ed Crane is listed as the Cato Institute’s president emeritus as of 2025. Crane resigned from the position of President and CEO in 2012 amid the governance dispute with Charles and David Koch. ⁹⁵

Financials

According to its 2023 990 form, the Cato Institute reported a revenue of $71,927,807, expenses of $41,834,120, and total assets of $172,218,520. ⁹⁶

Funding

The Institute has received funding from a number of right-of-center organizations, including the Donors Capital Fund, the Center for Independent Thought, the Dunn Foundation, the Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. ⁶

The Cato Institute has also received funding from left-of-center foundations and organizations including the Gilder Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, Google, and Facebook. ^{6 7}

In 2015, Cato Institute received $2,170,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation and $102,872 from the KRFrench Foundation. ^{97 98}

In 2016, the Cato Institute received $11,500 for its “civil rights, social action, and advocacy” programming from New Venture Fund, a left-of-center nonprofit managed by Arabella Advisors. ⁹⁹

From 2012 to 2017, the Cato Institute received roughly $25,000 from the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) Foundation. It also granted funds to former New Mexico Governor and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative and Reason Foundation. ^{100 101 102 103}

In 2018, the Cato Institute received $550,000 from the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, $2,134,500 from the Charles Koch Foundation, and $165,899 from the KRFrench Family Foundation. ^{104 105}

In 2019, the Cato Institute received $75,000 from the left-of-center Democracy Fund to support its research on “American attitudes on pluralism and immigration.” ¹⁰⁶

In 2020, Cato Institute received $396,000 from right-of-center donor-advised fund (DAF) DonorsTrust, $50,000 from Ploughshares Fund, and $150,000 from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation towards Cato’s “research on content moderation and free expression online.” It also received $150,000 from George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society that same year. ^{107 108 109 110}

In 2021, Cato Institute received $200,000 from the Center for Independent Thought and $102,000 from the Bradley Impact Fund. ^{111 112}

In 2022, Cato Institute received $60,000 from the W.W. Reynolds Foundation, $100,000 from the JP Conte Family Foundation, $154,936 from KRFrench Family Foundation, $200,000 from New Venture Fund, and $318,390 from Donors Trust. ^{113 114 115 116 117}

In 2023, the Cato Institute received $173,000 from Donors Capital Fund. The Institute received $200,000 from Donors Capital Fund in 2022. ^{118 119 120}

From 2019 to 2023, the Cato Institute received at least $245,000 from the Town Branch Foundation, a private grantmaking organization created and operated by Jim Walton, the youngest son of Walmart founder Sam Walton. ^{121 122 123}

In 2024, the Cato Institute received $250,000 from the Donald R. Wilson Jr. Family Foundation. ¹²⁴

From 2021 to 2024, the Cato Institute received $1,850,000 in unrestricted grants from the Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation. ¹²⁵

Grantmaking

In 2022, Cato Institute provided grants to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ($12,000), America’s Future ($17,500), York College of Pennsylvania ($20,000), the American Institute for Economic Research ($20,000), and Students for Liberty ($13,300). ¹²⁶

In 2023, Cato Institute made general support grants to America’s Future ($30,000), Moral Courage Project ($30,000), and York College of Pennsylvania ($62,500). It donated $37,500 to the Brookings Institution for a “collaboration” and sent $10,000 to Students for Liberty for “event support.” ¹²⁷

1. Mullins, Luke. “The Battle for the Cato Institute: Washingtonian (DC).” Washingtonian, May 30, 2012. https://www.washingtonian.com/2012/05/30/the-battle-for-cato/.
2. Boaz, David, Tom G. Palmer, John Samples and Gene Healy, Michael F. Cannon, Chris Edwards, Brink Lindsey, Daniel J. Ikenson, et al. “Cato Handbook For Policymakers.” Cato Institute, October 15, 2019. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017.
3. Mayer, Jane. “The Kochs vs. Cato.” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, June 18, 2017. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-kochs-vs-cato.
4. Lichtblau, Eric. “Cato Institute and Koch Brothers Reach Agreement.” The New York Times. The New York Times, June 25, 2012. https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/cato-institute-and-koch-brothers-reach-agreement/.
5. “Peter Goettler.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/people/peter-goettler.
6. “Top Supporters of Cato Institute.” Conservative Transparency. American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, n.d. http://conservativetransparency.org/top/?recipient=887&yr=&yr1=&yr2=&submit=.
7. Perez, Andrew, and Tim Zelina. “Facebook, Google and Amazon Pour Money into Policy Shops As Breakup Debates Rage.” MapLight, October 30, 2019. https://maplight.org/story/facebook-google-and-amazon-pour-money-into-policy-shops-as-breakup-debates-rage/.
8. ”Results for “”cato institute.”” ProPublica. Accessed July 21, 2025. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/full_text_search?q=%22cato+institute%22.
9. “Directory.” State Policy Network, May 16, 2025. https://spn.org/directory/.
10. “Antitrust.” Cato Institute. Accessed January 19, 2021. https://www.cato.org/research/antitrust.
11. Dennis, Brady, and Juliet Eilperin. “EPA Chief Criticizes Democratic Governors, Vows to Concentrate on Cleaning up Vulnerable Communities in a Second Trump Term.” The Washington Post. WP Company, September 4, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/03/wheeler-epa-trump-climate/.
12. “FDA and Drug Regulation.” Cato Institute. Accessed January 19, 2021. https://www.cato.org/research/fda-drug-regulation.
13. “Regulatory Studies.” Cato Institute. Accessed January 19, 2021. https://www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies.
14. “61. The Minimum Wage.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/minimum-wage.
15. “62. Labor and Employment Law.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/labor-employment-law.
16. “60. Health and Safety Policy.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/health-safety-policy.
17. “8. International Trade and Investment Policy.” Cato Institute, October 8, 2019. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/international-trade.
18. Glenza, Jessica. “Revealed: the Free-Market Groups Helping the Tobacco Industry.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, January 23, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2019/jan/23/free-market-thinktanks-tobacco-industry.
19. Waldman, Scott. “POLITICS: Cato Closes Its Climate Shop; Pat Michaels Is Out.” E&E News. Politico, LLC, May 29, 2019. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060419123.
20. “63. Environmental Policy.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/environmental-policy.
21. “5. Federal Tax Reform.” Cato Institute, October 8, 2019. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/federal-tax-reform.
22. “32. Cutting Federal Spending.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/cutting-federal-spending.
23. “23. The War on Drugs.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/war-drugs.
24. Sridhar, Nikhil. “Legalizing All Drugs Would Boost Local, State, Federal Budgets.” Reason.com. Reason, August 1, 2018. https://reason.com/2018/08/01/legalize-all-drugs-says-harvard-economis/.
25. Burrus, Trevor. “Imagining a World Without the War on Drugs.” Libertarianism.org. Cato Institute, December 9, 2020. https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/imagining-world-without-war-on-drugs.
26. Craven, James. “Our Police Embrace Deceit. Is It Any Wonder We Don’t Trust Them?” Cato Institute, December 28, 2020. https://www.cato.org/blog/our-police-embrace-deceit-it-any-wonder-we-dont-trust-them.
27. Schweikert, Jay. “Qualified Immunity: A Legal, Practical, and Moral Failure.” Cato Institute, September 14, 2020. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure.
28. Sibilla, Nick. “Denying Immunity, Supreme Court Lets Man Left In Cells ‘Teeming With Human Waste’ Sue Prison Guards.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, November 2, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/11/02/denying-immunity-supreme-court-lets-man-left-in-cells-teeming-with-human-waste-sue-prison-guards/?sh=38bc736c7a72.
29. Burrus, Trevor. “How to Start DE-Militarizing the Police.” Cato Institute, July 1, 2020. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-start-de-militarizing-police.
30. Surprenant, Chris W., Jason Brennan, and Clark Neilly. “Injustice for All: How Financial Incentives Corrupted and Can Fix the US Criminal Justice System.” Cato Institute, November 4, 2020. https://www.cato.org/events/injustice-all-how-financial-incentives-corrupted-can-fix-us-criminal-justice-system.
31. Neilly, Clark. “Decarceration in the Face of a Pandemic.” Cato Institute, May 1, 2020. https://www.cato.org/blog/decarceration-face-pandemic.
32. Pilon, Roger, and Trevor Burrus. “12. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform.” Cato Institute, October 8, 2019. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/civil-asset-forfeiture?queryID=73ab637a502baed6a4cdc5eceaa027b0.
33. McKend, Eva. “Should Congress Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws?” Sen. Paul Tries Again on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform, January 19, 2021. https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/07/14/civil-asset-forfeiture.
34. “End Civil Asset Forfeiture.” Cato Institute, August 15, 2013. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/end-civil-asset-forfeiture.
35. Pilon, Roger; Burrus, Trevor. “Civil Forfeiture Reform.” Cato Institute, 2022. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/civil-asset-forfeiture-reform.
36. “Civil Forfeiture Decision ‘May Present Hope As Well As Disappointment’.” Penn Carey Law University of Pennsylvania, May 15, 2024. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/16740-civil-forfeiture-decision-may-present-hope-as-well
37. Miron, Jeffrey. “Possible Good News on Reform of Civil Forfeiture?” Cato Institute, June 7, 2024. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.cato.org/blog/possible-good-news-reform-civil-forfeiture.
38. Friedman, Benjamin H. “68. The Military Budget.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/military-budget.
39. Preble, Christopher A., and Brad Stapleton. “70. U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/us-policy-toward-afghanistan.
40. Friedman, Benjamin H. “67. Countering Terrorism with Targeted Killings.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/countering-terrorism.
41. Reid, David. “Trump’s Iran Strategy Is a ‘Horrible’ Failure That Threatens Endless War, Cato Institute Says.” CNBC. CNBC, January 10, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/trumps-iran-strategy-threatens-endless-war-says-us-think-tank.html.
42. Ashford, Emma. “72. Relations with Russia.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/relations-russia.
43. Carpenter, Ted Galen, and Eric Gomez. “71. Relations with China.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/relations-china.
44. Vasquez, Ian. “80. Foreign Aid and Economic Development.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/foreign-aid-economic.
45. Nakashima, Ellen. “FBI and NSA Violated Surveillance Law or Privacy Rules, a Federal Judge Found.” The Washington Post. WP Company, September 4, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-and-nsa-violated-surveillance-law-or-privacy-rules-a-federal-judge-found/2020/09/04/b215cf88-eec3-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html.
46. Ciaramella, C.J. “Is the FBI Snooping on Political Groups and Ideological Publications?” Reason.com. Reason, January 8, 2020. https://reason.com/2020/01/08/is-the-fbi-snooping-on-political-groups-and-ideological-publications/.
47. Eddington, Patrick G. “State Sanctioned Secrecy: NSA’s Criminality Shield.” TheHill. The Hill, September 11, 2020. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/516064-state-sanctioned-secrecy-nsas-criminality-shield.
48. Mueller, John. “Military policy toward China: The case against overreaction.” Defense Priorities, April 10, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/military-policy-toward-china-the-case-against-overreaction/.
49. Linciome, Scott. “Statement for the Record: Examining Policies to Counter China.” Cato Institute, March 3, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/testimony/statement-record-examining-policies-counter-china. PDF link: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2025-03/Statement%20for%20the%20Record%20Examining%20Policies%20to%20Counter%20China.pdf.
50.  Hoffman, Jon; Logan, Justin. “Aimless Rivalry: US and China in the Middle East.” Cato Institute, July 17, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-podcast/aimless-rivalry-us-china-middle-east.
51. Logan, Justin. “Why the Middle East Still Doesn’t Matter.” Cato Institute, October 9, 2014. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-middle-east-still-doesnt-matter.
52. Tanner, Michael D. “40. Social Security.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/social-security.
53. Tanner, Michael D. “41. Poverty and Welfare.” Cato Institute, April 27, 2020. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/poverty-welfare.
54. Kristian, Bonnie. “Are Pandemic Relief Checks Making UBI Inevitable?” The Week . The Week, December 31, 2020. https://theweek.com/articles/957862/are-pandemic-relief-checks-making-ubi-inevitable.
55. Gehring, John. “Cato Institute Launches New Center To Support School Choice Efforts.” Education Week, February 23, 2019. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/cato-institute-launches-new-center-to-support-school-choice-efforts/2002/02.
56. Schaeffer, Adam. “They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools.” Policy Analysis, No. 622, March 10, 2010. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa662.pdf
57. “The Way Forward: Scholarship Tax Credits or Vouchers?” Cato Institute, November 17, 2020. https://www.cato.org/education-wiki/scholarship-tax-credits-vouchers.
58. Green, Erica L. “Biden’s Education Department Will Move Fast to Reverse DeVos Policies.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 25, 2020. https://www.ajc.com/news/bidens-education-department-will-move-fast-to-reverse-devos-policies/WBJTNVJGEFFJLF45C6D3DBD2II/.
59. Wolf, Richard. “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Harvard University’s Use of Affirmative Action Policies.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 12, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/12/affirmative-action-federal-appeals-court-allows-harvards-use-race/6263175002/.
60. Duggan, Paul. “Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It’s About Liberties, Not Guns.” The Washington Post. WP Company, March 18, 2007. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html.
61. Kopel, David. “Opinion | The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control.” The Washington Post. WP Company, April 20, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/01/the-costs-and-consequences-of-gun-control/.
62. Johnson, Carrie. “Gun Control Groups Voice ‘Grave Concerns’ About Supreme Court Nominee’s Record.” NPR. NPR, October 9, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/09/921713631/gun-control-groups-voice-grave-concerns-about-supreme-court-nominee-s-record.
63. “Gun Control.” Cato Institute. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://www.cato.org/research/gun-control.
64. Nowrasteh, Alex. “13. Immigration.” Cato Institute, October 8, 2019. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/immigration.
65. Hadavi, Tala. “Executive Action Is Powerful, but Presidents Can’t Save the Economy without the Help of Congress.” CNBC. CNBC, September 3, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/03/president-executive-orders-cant-save-economy.html.
66. Abdalla, Jihan. “Will Biden’s Repeal of Trump’s Travel Ban Reverse Its Impact?” Al Jazeera, January 19, 2021. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/19/will-bidens-repeal-of-trumps-travel-ban-reverse-its-impact.
67. Fox, Ben. “Trump Leaves Mark on Immigration Policy, Some of It Lasting.” Star Tribune. Star Tribune, December 30, 2020. https://www.startribune.com/trump-leaves-mark-on-immigration-policy-some-of-it-lasting/600004966/.
68. Bier, David J. “ICE Is Arresting 1,100 Percent More Noncriminals on the Streets Than in 2017.” Cato Institute, June 24, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-arresting-1100-percent-more-noncriminals-streets-2017.
69. “Alex Nowrasteh.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh.
70.  “Alex Nowrasteh.” X.com. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/.
71. Post. Alex Nowrasteh – X.com, December 25, 2024. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1872102225595728058.
72. Nowrasteh, Alex; Powell, Benjamin. “Wretched Refuse? (Cambridge Studies in Economics, Choice, and Society).” Amazon. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.amazon.com/Wretched-Refuse-Political-Immigration-Institutions/dp/1108702457/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1.
73. Nowrasteh, Alex; Powell, Benjamin. “Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions.” Cambridge. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/wretched-refuse/47A037EB552CDB16DC77906072A590AB.
74. Post. Alex Nowrasteh – X.com, March 16, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1901308571066765315.
75. Post. Alex Nowrasteh – X.com, June 27, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1938591691067293816.
76. “Episode 33: Alex Nowrasteh [part one].” The Immigrant Learning Center, November 18, 2021. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.ilctr.org/interview/episode-33-alex-nowrasteh/.
77. Nowrasteh, Alex; Somin, Ilya. “The Case Against Nationalism.” National Affairs, Winter 2024. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-case-against-nationalism.
78. Post. Alex Nowrasteh – X.com, September 19, 2023. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1704128638747029990.
79. Sahil Chinoy, Nathan Nunn, Sandra Sequeira & Stefanie Stantcheva. “Zero-sum Thinking and the Roots of US Political Differences.” National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2023. https://www.nber.org/papers/w31688#fromrss
80. Post. Alex Nowrasteh – X.com, July 11, 2025. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1943660743561195840.
81. Caplan, Bryan; Weinersmith, Zach (illustrator). “Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.” Amazon.com. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960/ref=pd_bxgy_thbs_d_sccl_1/133-8660942-3842309?pd_rd_w=mVpQZ.
82. “Bryan Caplan.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/people/bryan-caplan.
83. Post. Bryan Caplan – X.com, October 29, 2019. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://x.com/bryan_caplan/status/1189169984108285953.
84. Matthews, Dylan. “The case for open borders.” Vox.com, December 15, 2014. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double. Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20250307202643/https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double.
85. Post. Bryan Caplan – X.com, January 13, 2022. https://x.com/bryan_caplan/status/1481652104011784203.
86. “Human Freedom Index.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2024.
87. Weigel, David. “‘Who the Hell Is Going to Take a Think Tank Seriously If It’s Controlled by Billionaire Oil Guys?” Cato’s President Speaks.” Slate Magazine. Slate, March 22, 2012. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/03/who-the-hell-is-going-to-take-a-think-tank-seriously-if-it-s-controlled-by-billionaire-oil-guys-cato-s-president-speaks.html.
88. Lippman, Daniel, and Maggie Severns. “Former Cato Employees Describe Years of Harassment.” POLITICO, February 8, 2018. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/08/ed-crane-cato-institute-sexual-harassment-398989.
89. Bertrand, Natasha. “Cato Institute Investigating Blog Post by Senior Fellow That Spread Election Conspiracy Theories.” POLITICO. POLITICO, January 12, 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/cato-fellow-election-conspiracy-theories-458248.
90. “Andrei Illarionov.” Cato Institute, January 14, 2021. https://www.cato.org/people/andrei-illarionov.  
91. “Andrei Illarionov.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.cato.org/people/andrei-illarionov
92. Illarionov, Andrei. “I Was Putin’s Adviser. I Accused Him of Crimes to His Face.” Newsweek, February 8, 2024. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/i-putin-adviser-accused-crimes-face-1867265.
93. “John Samples.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/people/john-samples.
94. Samples, John. “The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.” University Press of Chicago. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo4127269.html.
95. “Edward H. Crane.” Cato Institute. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://www.cato.org/people/edward-h-crane.
96. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). The Cato Institute. 2023. Part I. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237432162/202422229349301752/full
97. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Charles Koch Foundation. 2015. Part XV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
98. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Krfrench Foundation. 2015. Part XV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
99. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). New Venture Fund. 2016. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
100. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Marijuana Policy Project Foundation. 2012. Schedule I. Part IV – Supplemental Information.
101. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Marijuana Policy Project Foundation. 2013. Schedule I. Part IV – Supplemental Information.
102. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Marijuana Policy Project Foundation. 2014. Part III – Statement of Program Service Accomplishments, line 4c.
103. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Marijuana Policy Project Foundation. 2015. Part III – Statement of Program Service Accomplishments, line 4c.
104. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Center for Excellence in Higher Education. 2018. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
105. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Krfrench Family Foundation. 2018. Part XV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
106. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Democracy Fund. 2019. Part XV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
107. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Donors Trust. 2020. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
108. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Ploughshares Fund. 2020. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
109. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). John S and James L Knight Foundation. 2020. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
110. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Foundation to Promote Open Society. 2020. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
111. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Center for Independent Thought. 2021. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
112. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Bradley Impact Fund. 2021. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
113. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). W W Reynolds Foundation. 2022. Part XV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
114. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). JP Conte Family Foundation. 2022. Part XV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
115. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Krfrench Foundation. 2022. Part XIV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
116. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). New Venture Fund. 2022. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
117. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Donors Trust. 2022. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.
118. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Donors Capital Fund. 2023. Schedule A. Part I, line i-a.
119. “About Us.” Donors Capital Fund. Accessed July 19, 2025. https://donorscapitalfund.org/about-us/.
120. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Donors Capital Fund. 2022. Schedule A. Part I, line i-a
121. “Jim Walton.” Forbes. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/profile/jim-walton/.
122. Kavate, Michael. “The Quiet Donors of America’s Richest Family: Three Low-Profile Walton Foundations.” Inside Philanthropy, February 25, 2025. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/the-quiet-donors-of-americas-richest-family-three-low-profile-walton-foundations.
123. “Results for “”cato institute” “town branch foundation.”” ProPublica. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/full_text_search?q=%22cato+institute%22+%22town+branch+foundation%22.
124. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Donald R Wilson Jr Family Foundation. 2024. Part XIV. 3 – Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year or Approved for Future Payment.
125. Results for “”cato institute” “Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation.”” ProPublica. Accessed July 20, 2025. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/full_text_search?q=%22cato+institute%22+%22Beth+and+Ravenel+Curry+Foundation%22.
126. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Cato Institute. 2022. Schedule I Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237432162/202333459349300728/full
127. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Cato Institute. 2023. Schedule I. Part II – Grants and Other Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments.