Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: App Store Accountability Act Sacrifices Privacy and Free Speech to Give Parents a False Sense of Safety
LOS ANGELES, California, March 7 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Max Gulker and Caden Rosenbaum, managing directors of technology policy:
* * *
The App Store Accountability Act sacrifices privacy and free speech to give parents a false sense of safety
The act would create a false sense of safety and ease while generating real privacy, security, and First Amendment concerns for all Americans.
*
Yesterday, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced the App Store Accountability Act, which will now be considered by the full House. The
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, March 7 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Max Gulker and Caden Rosenbaum, managing directors of technology policy:
* * *
The App Store Accountability Act sacrifices privacy and free speech to give parents a false sense of safety
The act would create a false sense of safety and ease while generating real privacy, security, and First Amendment concerns for all Americans.
*
Yesterday, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced the App Store Accountability Act, which will now be considered by the full House. Thebill would require the operators of the largest app stores--specifically, Apple and Google Play--to verify user ages via "commercially reasonable methods," and shut their doors to minors lacking parental consent. The bill's sponsors say that "age verification is necessary to protect kids and empower American families." They are wrong. The act's provisions amount to little more than a change to the default settings for minors downloading apps, providing parents with false comfort while imposing real risks on all Americans.
Under the status quo, parents are effectively the gatekeepers of their children's use of these app stores. Parents can monitor a child's downloads and online behavior, restrict access to certain apps, and set guidelines around screen time. Parents have at their disposal tools from the app stores themselves, along with a host of third-party apps and services.
Threats to children online come from a dizzying number of directions, and many parents cannot fully grasp the social complexities of being a kid in the digital age. The potential for fights, peer pressure, and kids making bad decisions behind their parents' backs can feel almost limitless. Digital tools can help a great deal when applied well, as can more time-honored tactics like grounding and confiscating phones. Applying these imperfect tools can be painful, awkward, and leave parents agonizing over what they can or should do differently, which can make legislation such as this bill seem like a logical next step
However, beneath the veneer of a false sense of safety, the App Store Accountability Act amounts to little more than a change in the default settings of digital parenting. App stores must verify users' ages and exclude children without parental consent. This shift would change parental controls from "opt-out," where parents actively choose where to limit access, to "opt-in," where parents must take time to allow access to all the content they want their children to view.
As any parent knows, this change in default settings will not make conflicts at home any easier. Children will face the same peer pressure at school and retain the same ability to stay ahead of their parents with ill-gotten tools of their own. Some parents may find the idea of a government-imposed age gate appealing. Perhaps age verification and parental consent will change social norms and their kids' expectations. Withholding a "yes" might be easier for some parents than saying "no," though this is hardly a healthy role for government to play. The idea that kids with absentee or less-involved parents will be more "protected" may also have surface appeal, though such problems sadly cut both ways. Instead of being unsupervised online, kids with less-involved parents could wind up more cut off from the digital world than their peers.
The App Store Accountability Act would create a false sense of safety and ease while generating real privacy, security, and First Amendment concerns for all Americans. The age verification requirements at the heart of the bill are functionally equivalent to requiring all app store users to provide either a government ID or biometric data, such as facial scans. The bill's sponsors attempt to sweep this uncomfortable truth under the rug by calling it "commercially reasonable" methods. They frequently cite the example of Apple Pay as a secure and unintrusive form of age verification. Apple Pay requires a credit or debit card. Credit and debit cards, of course, require their holders to provide items such as IDs and Social Security numbers to banks in order to obtain them. At the end of the chain, virtually any commercially reasonable method to verify age results in an ID check.
From a privacy perspective, age verification online has, historically, turned out poorly for companies that have tried to implement it. In the United Kingdom, where a similar law was passed, one of the third-party vendors for Discord, an online chat and streaming platform, suffered a breach, exposing the identification information of over 70,000 users. The Tea App, a dating app for women, required users to verify their gender through a photo or ID. The company left those identification documents exposed on the open web. Even age verification companies that tout the industry's best data privacy protections have been subject to breaches, exposing the identification information of thousands more.
If the act's proponents succeed in exchanging Americans' privacy for a superficial sense of safety, they'll next face extensive First Amendment battles in court. In December, a federal judge blocked Texas Senate Bill 2420--a model for the federal act--from taking effect. "The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book," wrote U.S. District Judge Robert Pitmann.
As a society, we prioritize the safety of children above almost anything else. We are at times forced to make difficult trade-offs regarding privacy and constitutionality to protect children. But the App Store Accountability Act does not force such a moral dilemma, because its protections for children are illusory. Underneath vague language like "actual knowledge" and "commercial reasonableness" sits the truth that the bill's protections for kids amount to little more than cosmetic changes to default settings.
In truth, talking about "solutions" to kids' online safety is misleading. However, more promising approaches than the App Store Accountability Act do exist. Proposals that involve parents voluntarily sending an age signal to app stores, which the app stores must transmit to developers, are wrongly rejected by many because they do not feel they offer perfect protection for kids. But to truly do better by kids online as a society requires that we admit the hard truth that no easy solutions exist. Parents, not laws, are the most important tool to keep kids safe online.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
Caden Rosenbaum is the managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-app-store-accountability-act-sacrifices-privacy-and-free-speech-to-give-parents-a-false-sense-of-safety/
J. Paul Getty: Book Reevaluates the Sensuous Still Lifes of Anne Vallayer-Coster
LOS ANGELES, California, March 7 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust issued the following news release:
* * *
New Book Reevaluates the Sensuous Still Lifes of Anne Vallayer-Coster
The French Painter is given her due in the first English language-monograph in 20 years
*
Anne Vallayer-Coster (1744-1818) was 25 years old when she was accepted into the Academie royale de peinture et de sculpture (French Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture) in Paris in July 1770-one of only 15 women artists admitted to the Academie in its history.
Her bold, complex and sensual still-life paintings elicited ample praise
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, March 7 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust issued the following news release:
* * *
New Book Reevaluates the Sensuous Still Lifes of Anne Vallayer-Coster
The French Painter is given her due in the first English language-monograph in 20 years
*
Anne Vallayer-Coster (1744-1818) was 25 years old when she was accepted into the Academie royale de peinture et de sculpture (French Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture) in Paris in July 1770-one of only 15 women artists admitted to the Academie in its history.
Her bold, complex and sensual still-life paintings elicited ample praisefrom critics, and she eventually earned the patronage of Queen Marie Antoinette and other members of the French court.
Despite her professional success, Vallayer-Coster has received relatively little scholarly attention. This is due in part to her subject matter: she primarily painted still lifes, which received far less critical attention in the eighteenth century and beyond. In Anne Vallayer-Coster (Getty Publications, $45), the first English-language monograph dedicated to Vallayer-Coster in over 20 years, author Kelsey Brosnan rectifies this omission by closely examining the artist's still-life paintings. Brosnan's analysis provides a fresh feminist reevaluation of Vallayer-Coster, situating her alongside contemporaries such as Elisabeth Vigee Le Brun, Adelaide Labille-Guiard, and Jean-Simeon Chardin. Anne Vallayer-Coster is an astute, accessible introduction to the artist that offers a new framework for experiencing the visceral qualities of her paintings.
Anne Vallayer-Coster is the most recent title in the "Illuminating Women Artists" published in partnership with UK-based publisher Lund Humphries. This series of beautifully illustrated books is the first to focus in a deliberate and sustained way on women artists throughout history, to recognize their accomplishments, to revive their name recognition, and to make their works better known to art enthusiasts of the 21st century.
* * *
Author Information
Kelsey Brosnan is a writer and art historian specializing in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century French paintings, works on paper, and decorative arts. She is Visiting Assistant Professor in the History of Art and Design Department at Pratt Institute, New York.
* * *
Endorsements
"In her nuanced descriptions, Brosnan focuses our gaze on the tactile surfaces of Vallayer-Coster's still lifes while also situating them in a broader cultural context. In her telling, the inanimate objects of Vallayer-Coster's paintings have much to say."
- Perrin Stein, Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art
"Studies of the artist have rested on sound but limited scholarly foundations. Kelsey Brosnan's book widens the aperture through which we can examine--and experience--Vallayer-Coster's beautiful, intelligent paintings."
- Katharine Baetjer, curator emerita, Metropolitan Museum of Art
"This illuminating study transforms our understanding of Anne Vallayer-Coster's art by examining it through the lens of Enlightenment sensory philosophy. Brosnan reveals how the artist's still lifes engage all five senses, uncovering the cultural meanings they carried and how their sensuality helped her navigate the gendered expectations of her time."
- Aaron Wile, Associate Curator, Department of French Paintings, National Gallery of Art, Washington
* * *
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/new-book-reevaluates-the-sensuous-still-lifes-of-anne-vallayer-coster/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Free Nation by Choice
DETROIT, Michigan, March 7 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Portuguese writer and political commentator Claudia Ascensao Nunes:
* * *
Free Nation by Choice
Switzerland's case for decentralization.
*
Switzerland is the freest country in the world, according to the Human Freedom Index. Small in territory but giant in institutional autonomy, it has built a decentralized, monetarily stable, and deeply participatory democracy, all outside the European Union.
While Member States have no alternative to the uniform directives designed in
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, March 7 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Portuguese writer and political commentator Claudia Ascensao Nunes:
* * *
Free Nation by Choice
Switzerland's case for decentralization.
*
Switzerland is the freest country in the world, according to the Human Freedom Index. Small in territory but giant in institutional autonomy, it has built a decentralized, monetarily stable, and deeply participatory democracy, all outside the European Union.
While Member States have no alternative to the uniform directives designed inBrussels, Switzerland negotiates sectoral agreements according to its national interest and the democratic consent of its citizens. The new "Bilaterals III" package, whose entry into force depends on approval by the Swiss Parliament and possibly a referendum, is a reminder that there is an alternative to the European integrationist "one size fits all" model.
Switzerland's institutional architecture limits central power. Executive authority is not concentrated in a single figure, but exercised collegially by a seven-member Federal Council. The President of the Confederation, elected for only one year, performs essentially representative functions. The system was designed to prevent the personalization of power and to avoid prolonged concentrations of authority.
The cantons, federal states with almost total fiscal and administrative autonomy, compete with one another in taxation, regulation, and public policy. This institutional competition creates permanent incentives for efficiency and imposes discipline on political power: poor decisions may lead to the flight of capital and residents to more attractive jurisdictions.
Switzerland's system is rooted in a deeply entrenched culture of direct democracy. Through the optional referendum, 50,000 citizens can require that a law passed by Parliament be submitted to a popular vote. With 100,000 signatures, citizens can propose amendments to the Constitution. Structural issues are regularly decided at the ballot box. Political power therefore remains under constant scrutiny by the population.
It is thus natural that Switzerland's relationship with the European Union has never taken the form of institutional submission, but rather of contractual and voluntary cooperation.
In 1992, the Swiss rejected accession to the European Economic Area. In 2001, they clearly rejected, with 76.8% of the vote, the opening of negotiations for full accession to the European Union. Switzerland retained the Swiss franc, preserved military neutrality, and rejected the principle of the automatic primacy of European law.
The Swiss rejection followed the increasingly centralizing trend of the European Union over the past three decades: the Single European Act reduced State veto powers; Maastricht launched monetary union and political integration; Amsterdam and Nice expanded competences in justice and governance; and Lisbon consolidated the Union as a political actor with its own legal personality and broadened qualified majority voting. While the EU moved toward automatic harmonization, Switzerland insisted on case-by-case negotiation.
This divergence became evident in 2021, when Brussels sought to force the bilateral agreements into an Institutional Agreement that would have entailed alignment with EU law and strengthened dispute resolution mechanisms. In practical terms, it would have brought Switzerland closer to permanent legal integration. Bern withdrew from the negotiations.
In December 2024, Bilaterals III was concluded, aiming to update and stabilize the relationship in areas such as energy, mobility, research, mutual recognition of standards, and the free movement of persons. The package includes a reinforced safeguard clause allowing temporary restrictions on immigration in the event of excessive pressure, as well as greater involvement of the cantons.
The SVP party, currently the country's largest political force, gathered signatures for the initiative "No to a 10 Million Switzerland," to be voted on in June 2026. The proposal seeks to constitutionalize a limit of 10 million permanent residents. If approved, it could require the Government to restrict immigration drastically and, ultimately, to terminate the free movement agreement with the European Union.
By building an architecture based on the primacy of European law, the expansion of qualified majority voting, and the continuous transfer of competences, European integration has been presented as progressive and, in many respects, irreversible. Switzerland demonstrates that such inevitability is a political myth.
The country maintains deep access to the European market, preserves monetary sovereignty, controls its fiscal policy, and upholds mechanisms of direct democracy capable of blocking structural decisions. Prosperity has not collapsed. Stability has not vanished. Cooperation has not ceased.
The Swiss example shows that European centralization is neither inevitable nor indispensable, nor is it the path to prosperity. On the contrary, societies are freer and more prosperous when, through agreement, they establish treaties that place their own best interests as the priority.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/free-nation-by-choice/
J. Paul Getty Trust: PST ART Theme Explores Exchange Between Los Angeles and the Pacific Rim
LOS ANGELES, California, March 6 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust issued the following news release on March 5, 2026:
* * *
New PST ART Theme Explores Exchange Between Los Angeles and the Pacific Rim
Announcement sets the stage for Southern California's landmark arts collaboration to return in 2030
*
Getty announced today that the artistic and cultural exchange between Los Angeles and the Pacific Rim will be the theme for the fourth edition of PST ART, the region-wide collaboration that since 2011 has supported hundreds of exhibitions, programs, and publications, cementing Southern California's
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, March 6 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust issued the following news release on March 5, 2026:
* * *
New PST ART Theme Explores Exchange Between Los Angeles and the Pacific Rim
Announcement sets the stage for Southern California's landmark arts collaboration to return in 2030
*
Getty announced today that the artistic and cultural exchange between Los Angeles and the Pacific Rim will be the theme for the fourth edition of PST ART, the region-wide collaboration that since 2011 has supported hundreds of exhibitions, programs, and publications, cementing Southern California'splace as a cultural destination.
Los Angeles has long been a hub of the wide-ranging and multi-directional networks of migration, transoceanic trade and geopolitics around the Pacific Rim, with profound impacts on creative expression. The theme promises dynamic explorations across centuries, including the arrival of Chinese porcelain in the Spanish missions, the dialogue between Los Angeles artists and their Asian counterparts after World War II, the deep connection between Japanese visual culture and modern architecture and design in Los Angeles, and the seismic influence of Korean popular culture today. It is a legacy of exchange that has deep roots throughout history and continues to shape Southern California today.
"PST ART is now an established and central part of Southern California's cultural landscape, with each edition exploring key aspects of our past, present, and possible futures," said Katherine E. Fleming, president and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust. "With our large diasporic communities from around the Pacific Rim, Los Angeles is the perfect place to explore the far-reaching and varied impact of transpacific culture."
Getty has created a dedicated team to lead PST ART, to deepen research that guides projects and programs, strengthen engagement with partners across South California, and sustain community outreach.
"Transpacific Los Angeles is a vibrant topic of research with endless possibilities for new discoveries," said Justine Ludwig, inaugural creative director of PST ART. "During this period marked by geopolitical tension, immigration conflicts, and global instability, the theme also encourages international perspectives and recognizes our longstanding interdependence."
As with previous PST ART editions, Getty will award grants to individual institutions throughout Southern California to develop their own projects around the overall theme.
Getty also announced the return of "PST ART Open House" in 2027, a one-day event that mixes performance, conversation, hands-on workshops and more. Following the 15th anniversary of the inaugural PST ART: Art in L.A., 1945-1980, "PST ART Open House" will welcome artists and curators to revisit this groundbreaking history through re-staged moments, conversations, and live performances - recalling the ways the first edition of PST ART rewrote the history of modern art with Los Angeles as its epicenter.
Learn more about this initiative (https://www.getty.edu/projects/pacific-standard-time-2030).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/new-pst-art-theme-explores-exchange-between-los-angeles-and-the-pacific-rim/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Anti Social Media
DETROIT, Michigan, March 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on March 5, 2026, by freelance journalist and critic Mark Nayler:
* * *
Anti Social Media
Spain moves to ban under-16s from social media.
*
Pedro Sanchez, Spain's Socialist prime minister, has riled the tech tycoons again. On February 3, he announced a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media, as part of legislation that would also hold CEOs responsible for harmful content on their sites. "Today our children are exposed to a space they were never meant to navigate alone," he said during
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, March 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on March 5, 2026, by freelance journalist and critic Mark Nayler:
* * *
Anti Social Media
Spain moves to ban under-16s from social media.
*
Pedro Sanchez, Spain's Socialist prime minister, has riled the tech tycoons again. On February 3, he announced a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media, as part of legislation that would also hold CEOs responsible for harmful content on their sites. "Today our children are exposed to a space they were never meant to navigate alone," he said duringa speech at the World Government Summit in Dubai: "We will protect [them] from the digital Wild West."
If the legislation is passed, Spain would become the second country in the world to prohibit young teenagers from using sites such as TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), after Australia's leftist government led the way last year. Other European countries expected to follow their example soon include France, Portugal, Denmark, and Greece.
The global debate surrounding age restrictions on social media is now focused on one issue: whether interventionist governments or omnipotent tech barons pose the biggest threat to freedom and democracy. There's exaggeration on both sides, but the vague scope of Spain's social media ban is cause for concern, as is the culture of impunity that seems to envelop tech billionaires--although there are signs that that's changing.
On February 3, French prosecutors raided X's Paris offices, as part of an investigation into the alleged abuse of algorithms, complicity in the distribution of child abuse images, and violation of image rights by deepfakes. They will also summon the platform's ubiquitous CEO, Elon Musk, for questioning. This probe comes after X was fined Euros120 million ($141 million) by the EU last December for failing to comply with transparency regulations. Meanwhile, X's chatbot Grok is being investigated by the EU and the British regulator Ofcom, for the alleged generation of sexualized images of real people.
French authorities have also launched a probe into the messaging site Telegram for insufficient regulation against criminal activity, in connection with which its Russian CEO Pavel Durov was arrested in Paris last August. Durov was charged on several counts of failing to take action against extremist and terrorist content and released on Euros5 million ($5.9 million) bail. Moscow is also investigating Durov, on the rather suspicious grounds that it has found material on Telegram that "potentially [poses] a threat to Russia."
Musk took to X to criticize Spain's social media ban, just as he did in reaction to Australia's in late 2024. "Dirty Sanchez is a tyrant and a traitor to the people of Spain," he declared. As a general description, many Spaniards would probably agree with that--but not necessarily in relation to the new social media law (Sanchez's minority government is mired in corruption allegations and can't pass legislation without the support of Catalan separatists, who are deeply unpopular throughout Spain). Musk followed that up with another post calling Sanchez "the true fascist totalitarian," showing how versatile the word fascist has become as a term of abuse.
The Spanish government retaliated by calling Musk... a threat to democracy! Justice minister Felix Bolanos said: "[The global] tech caste [is] now directly involved in politics. They enter the public debate and threaten our respect, our coexistence, our rights, and our democracy." Bolanos didn't explain why he thinks positing opinions on X constitutes "direct involvement" in politics, nor did he provide evidence for his implicit claim that people's voting behavior is heavily influenced by social media barons. Even if that's true, why is such influence less democratic than that wielded by high-profile journalists, opinionated celebrities, or tycoons pulling strings with huge donations? Celebrity endorsement is a prized political commodity; yet when Musk thumps a few syllables out on X, the free world is endangered.
Musk and Sanchez have clashed before. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last January, the Spanish premier accused tech billionaires of trying to "overthrow democracy" by expressing their political opinions online. Sounding every inch the crazed conspiracy theorist, Sanchez claimed that "the international far-right movement... is being led by the richest man on the planet, [and] is openly attacking our institutions, inciting hatred, and openly calling for people to support the heirs of Nazism in Germany" (Musk endorsed Alternative fur Deutschland ahead of Germany's general election last February, in which the right-wing party upped its seats by 76).
Durov is also outraged by Spain's social media ban--but not, of course, at the prospect of losing millions of child subscribers. The day after it was announced, the Telegram founder sent a mass message to all the platform's Spain-based users, accusing Sanchez of "pushing dangerous new regulations that threaten your Internet freedoms." Durov claimed that "over-censorship" could cause sites to "delete anything remotely controversial to avoid risks, silencing political dissent, journalism, and everyday opinions." The Spanish government responded by accusing Durov of spreading "lies" and "propaganda."
Musk's and Durov's criticisms of the Spanish government aren't without foundation. Sanchez has a shaky track record on protecting liberty and respecting democratic processes. The lockdown he enforced during the pandemic, which criminalized infringement, was later ruled illegal by Spain's Constitutional Court; he often bypasses parliament, instead sneaking legislation through by Royal Decree; and he leads a government that is drowning in corruption allegations. His previous remarks about tech billionaires trying to take over the world suggest that his social media ban might not just be about protecting children.
In his announcement, Sanchez said: "We will investigate platforms whose algorithms amplify disinformation in exchange for profit [...S]preading hate must come at a cost--a legal cost, as well as an economic and ethical cost." He didn't say how his government would classify content that "spreads hate," as opposed to that which promotes dissenting opinions. Australia's anti-disinformation law, proposed with the social media restrictions in 2024, was rejected precisely because of concerns that it would give the government power to limit free speech (criticizing it, Musk again reached for the word fascist). Yet social media sites can't be trusted to make that assessment either: they thrive on fake news, clickbait, and other junk content. The ongoing legal actions against Durov and Musk, as well as the fine already imposed on X by the EU, show how ineffective social media sites are as self-regulators.
This is one of the reasons why age restrictions on social media shouldn't be seen as attacks on personal freedom. Like laws that place age constraints on alcohol consumption, gambling, and smoking, they aim to protect children from activities or substances that are potentially harmful or addictive. A study commissioned by the Australian government found that 96% of children aged between 10 and 15 had used social media, over half of whom had experienced cyber-bullying and 24% of whom had been victims of online sexual harassment. Leading health experts have also warned of social media's addictiveness: in 2024, then-US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy argued for "a surgeon general's warning label [to be placed] on social media platforms, stating that [they are] associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents."
Libertarian hostility to the world's first two social media bans is understandable. There is a fine line between protection of minors and suppression of free speech, and whether it's respected will depend on how the Spanish and Australian governments implement their new legislation. However, they are leading a political experiment based on a solid hypothesis--that unregulated access to social media by young teenagers is dangerous. We should wait for the results before judging.
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain. He writes regularly for The Spectator and Times Literary Supplement and is working on a biography of the philosopher Bryan Magee, due to be published by Bloomsbury (London) in 2028.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/anti-social-media/
FFRF Praises Rhode Island AG for Clergy Abuse Investigation
MADISON, Wisconsin, March 6 [Category: Religion] (TNSrep) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
FFRF praises Rhode Island AG for clergy abuse investigation
The Freedom From Religion Foundation commends Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha for releasing a long-awaited report detailing decades of clergy sexual abuse and for taking steps to hold the perpetrators accountable.
The 284-page report (https://riag.ri.gov/media/8376/download), made public on Wednesday, March 4, found that at least 75 clergy within the Catholic Diocese of Providence sexually
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, March 6 [Category: Religion] (TNSrep) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
FFRF praises Rhode Island AG for clergy abuse investigation
The Freedom From Religion Foundation commends Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha for releasing a long-awaited report detailing decades of clergy sexual abuse and for taking steps to hold the perpetrators accountable.
The 284-page report (https://riag.ri.gov/media/8376/download), made public on Wednesday, March 4, found that at least 75 clergy within the Catholic Diocese of Providence sexuallyabused more than 300 children in Rhode Island for more than 75 years. Investigators emphasized that the true number of victims is likely much higher and documented how church officials repeatedly transferred accused priests and shielded them from law enforcement rather than protecting children.
The report described diocesan records as "damning," since they include evidence of sending accused priests on retreats and "sabbaticals" rather than protecting abused children. The report also details how the diocese failed to report suspected abuse, instead allowing accused priests "to remain in ministry, where they continued to have access to and frequently did abuse more children." The state's investigation also outlines reforms to improve investigations and remove barriers that prevent victims from seeking justice.
The report represents an important step toward transparency and accountability for survivors. FFRF and other victim advocacy groups for years have called on state attorneys general and the U.S. attorney general to launch similar investigations, as some nations and states have done. Pennsylvania led the way after an investigation there resulted in a sweeping grand jury report in 2018. Several states inaugurated investigations at the time.
The investigation followed a multiyear probe by the attorney general's office and relied on decades of church records obtained through an agreement with the diocese. The report documents widespread abuse and systemic failures by church leadership to report allegations or remove abusers from ministry. FFRF notes that public reports like Rhode Island's are critical to exposing the full scope of clergy abuse and ensuring that survivors are heard.
"Sunlight is essential," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, who wrote the first nonfiction expose on clergy abuse of children, published by FFRF in 1988, and who inaugurated the standing "Black Collar Crime" section of FFRF's newspaper tracking sexual abuse by members of the clergy before the phenomenon was widely tracked.
"It's not just the heinous betrayal of trust and lifelong harm to victims," Gaylor adds, "but the decades of systematic cover-ups. It's way past time for congregation members to withdraw support and respect from an institution that has harbored molesters."
FFRF will be giving its "Clarence Darrow Award" this year to Peter Isley, co-founder of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, who will accept it at its national convention in October in Milwaukee. FFRF urges other states that have not yet done so to follow Rhode Island's example and applauds it for confronting this painful history and working toward accountability.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members nationwide, including in Rhode Island, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-praises-rhode-island-ag-for-clergy-abuse-investigation/
Boston Foundation: One Year Into Trump Administration, New Survey Finds Massachusetts Nonprofits - and Those They Serve - Feeling the Pain of Federal Policies and Cuts
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 6 -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
One year into Trump administration, new survey finds Massachusetts nonprofits - and those they serve - feeling the pain of federal policies and cuts
MassINC Polling Group survey captures federal impact on financial, community and staff well-being
*
One year into the second Trump administration, a new survey of nearly 500 Massachusetts nonprofit leaders finds broad agreement that the state, the nation, their populations served, and their own organizations are worse off than they were a year ago.
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 6 -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
One year into Trump administration, new survey finds Massachusetts nonprofits - and those they serve - feeling the pain of federal policies and cuts
MassINC Polling Group survey captures federal impact on financial, community and staff well-being
*
One year into the second Trump administration, a new survey of nearly 500 Massachusetts nonprofit leaders finds broad agreement that the state, the nation, their populations served, and their own organizations are worse off than they were a year ago.The survey respondents say several federal policies and decisions have reduced funding, increased demand for services, and made providing those services more difficult.
Results of the survey, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group for the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network and the Boston Foundation, were released this morning in an event at TBF.
"A year ago, this survey highlighted a sense of foreboding among nonprofits that the incoming Trump administration's policies would unleash significant and unnecessary harm on our most vulnerable friends, neighbors, and families. Simply put, they were right," said Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation. "But while this survey captures the pain inflicted on communities and the nonprofit organizations that serve them, it also shows something else - things we can do to demonstrate our resilience, our compassion, and our determination that we will stand together in support of an equitable and just society."
"These responses confirm the breadth and depth of the impact of federal actions on the nonprofit sector," said Steve Koczela, President of the MassINC Polling Group. "While SNAP cuts, immigration raids and the elimination of federal funding programs are making headlines, Massachusetts nonprofits are expanding their services to meet an increased and widening demand for critical supports."
"If last year's survey was the warning, this year's should be seen as a call to action for funders and supporters of the nonprofit sector in Massachusetts," said Jim Klocke, CEO of the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network. "Nonprofits have stepped up efforts to meet increased need, but the data show that the long-term toll of that work on nonprofit finances and staff well-being are not sustainable without investments in people and services. MNN and our partners will continue our work to raise awareness and address these issues across the state."
In all, 488 Massachusetts nonprofit leaders and staff members completed the survey in January, with 80% of respondents serving in senior leadership roles in their organizations. Responding organizations served a wide range of vulnerable populations, including low-income people, immigrants, communities of color, youth/teens, seniors, and LGBTQ+ people. Seven in ten said their organizations received federal funding.
About the Poll: These results are based on a survey of 488 staff members of nonprofits operating in Massachusetts. Survey links were distributed to nonprofits by the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network, The Boston Foundation, and other partner organizations. The survey and outreach language were translated into Chinese (simplified), Haitian Creole, Portuguese, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Responses were collected between January 1 through February 1, 2026. The poll was sponsored by the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network and The Boston Foundation.
Wide majorities of respondents across all focus areas said that federal decisions over the past year had left the state, the nation, and the communities they serve worse off than they were a year ago. Two-thirds said that the demand for their services had increased, with organizations expanding and adding new programs to meet the immediate needs, and expanding their advocacy and other work to raise awareness and greater support.
Overall, 92% of respondents said the Trump administration has made it harder to do their work, creating tension between increasing services to meet the need and partnering or reducing services to trim costs and provide long-term stability.
The survey also sends a stark warning about financial and staff sustainability. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said their organizations' financial positions had weakened or remained unchanged over the past year, and just 21% thought their positions would improve over the next 12 months.
In addition, one in four said their nonprofits had reduced staff over the past year, and a startling 88% of respondents, including 95% of those at BIPOC-led organizations, said that the past year has had a negative impact on the well-being of their staff. Just four of the 488 respondents thought that federal actions had a positive impact on their staff.
In the face of these challenges, recipients say their nonprofits are at a crossroads. Forty percent are considering increasing offerings to meet demand, but an equal percentage say they are considering partnerships or service cuts to reduce costs. Nearly one in 10 are considering mergers, and 4% say they are considering closing.
"The numbers portray a nonprofit sector that is leaning into the work in the face of a regular stream of federal obstacles," added Klocke. "The sustainability of their efforts will be determined by our continued willingness to invest in their work, their people, and our communities."
The slide presentation from the survey release can be emailed upon request, and will be available on the recap page after the event. The survey topline results are available here, and crosstabs can be downloaded from MassINC Polling Group here (https://www.tbf.org/-/media/tbf/files/forum-materials/2026-mnn-mpg-nonprofits-survey/crosstabs-mnn-mpg-2026-survey-release.xlsx).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/march/one-year-in-nonprofit-survey-release
