Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: We Need to Do Nothing About AI
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mani Basharzad, Institute of Economic Affairs research associate:
* * *
We Need to Do Nothing About AI
Fear of new technology is hardly new.
-
In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson.
The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically more ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mani Basharzad, Institute of Economic Affairs research associate: * * * We Need to Do Nothing About AI Fear of new technology is hardly new. - In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson. The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically morepowerful over the next decade." Second, they argue that it could "transform the economy on a scale larger than the Industrial Revolution, but over a much shorter period, bringing both large-scale job displacement and significant improvements in living standards." Third, they argue that "economists, policymakers, and technology leaders must act now to create the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to ensure AI benefits society."
These propositions have created an unusual consensus among economists and policymakers. They also reflect a broader public anxiety about AI and its impact on people's livelihoods. Yet, as Stanford economist John Cochrane remarked in response to the letter, "You see AI everywhere, except in productivity and labor statistics." That is the first problem with the argument: those are the two places where the letter's predictions should already be showing up.
The letter makes extraordinary claims, and as the famous saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet the evidence offered is remarkably thin. The language is dramatic--"large-scale job displacement," "larger than the Industrial Revolution," and "major gains in living standards"--but every prediction is qualified by one word: could. There is still little evidence that AI has fundamentally reshaped employment or productivity.
Take the labor market as an example. A widely cited survey claimed that employers plan to reduce graduate hiring because of AI. But the study was forecasting the future, not describing present reality. It found that "four in ten employers believe entry-level roles could disappear within the next five years." Once again, the evidence rests on expectations and fears rather than observed outcomes.
Now compare that with what is actually happening. Economist Valentin Boboc has argued that entry-level jobs are growing fastest at firms that are aggressively adopting AI. If AI were already eliminating these positions, we would expect to see the opposite.
Consider youth unemployment. Which developed country currently faces one of the most severe youth employment crises? The answer is not a country overwhelmed by AI, but the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people aged 16-24 are classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), at an estimated annual cost of pound sterling125 billion ($169 billion) to the economy.
The greatest threat to young workers is not AI, but poor government policy. In the UK, higher employer National Insurance contributions have increased the cost of hiring. More generous long-term sickness benefits have weakened incentives to return to work for some claimants. Large increases in the minimum wage have also raised the cost of employing inexperienced workers. These policies provide a far more convincing explanation for weak youth employment than AI does.
The fundamental problem with the letter is its demand for urgent action in the absence of convincing evidence. It asks governments and institutions to intervene now to address a risk that has yet to materialize. The consensus itself appears to rest more on speculation than on observed facts.
As F.A. Hayek warned in his Nobel Prize lecture, quoting Alfred Marshall: "Students of social science must fear popular approval: evil is with them when all men speak well of them." When there is overwhelming agreement that governments must "act now," economists should become more skeptical, not less.
The mindset that governments must immediately regulate AI may prove more dangerous than AI itself. Markets generally adapt to technological change. When genuine market failures emerge, there is a case for government intervention. But where, exactly, is the market failure in AI today that demands immediate regulation?
Many of the economic problems we face today are the result of government failures rather than market failures. Excessive labor market regulation in many European countries has made hiring and firing employees so costly that employers become reluctant to take risks on new workers. Henry Hazlitt's life contrasted this with the period before Franklin D. Roosevelt's labor reforms:
In those years, it was not hard for a young man to get a job. With no government-imposed obstacles to hiring and firing, no minimum wage laws, no workday or workweek restrictions, and no unemployment or social security taxes, employer and potential employee needed only to agree on the terms of employment.
Fear of new technology is hardly new. Nor has it been confined to critics of free markets such as Stiglitz or Krugman. During the Industrial Revolution, David Ricardo added a chapter titled "On Machinery" to Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, arguing that machinery could often be "very injurious" to workers and might not always serve the general good. Technological pessimism has a long history even among champions of free markets.
That is why I am not surprised to see free-market economists among the signatories of this letter. What is surprising is their willingness to advocate immediate policy intervention without enough evidence that such intervention is needed.
Until there is clear evidence of widespread economic harm, we should do nothing about AI. Building regulations around what might happen, rather than what has happened, risks stifling innovation, protecting incumbent firms from competition, and erecting barriers to new entrants.
* * *
Mani Basharzad is a Research Associate at the Institute of Economic Affairs and an Asia Freedom Fellow at the London School of Economics. His work has been published by the New York Post, National Review, The Spectator, and Daily Express.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/we-need-to-do-nothing-about-ai/
* * *
We Need to Do Nothing About AI
Fear of new technology is hardly new.
-
In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson.
The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically more ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mani Basharzad, Institute of Economic Affairs research associate: * * * We Need to Do Nothing About AI Fear of new technology is hardly new. - In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson. The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically morepowerful over the next decade." Second, they argue that it could "transform the economy on a scale larger than the Industrial Revolution, but over a much shorter period, bringing both large-scale job displacement and significant improvements in living standards." Third, they argue that "economists, policymakers, and technology leaders must act now to create the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to ensure AI benefits society."
These propositions have created an unusual consensus among economists and policymakers. They also reflect a broader public anxiety about AI and its impact on people's livelihoods. Yet, as Stanford economist John Cochrane remarked in response to the letter, "You see AI everywhere, except in productivity and labor statistics." That is the first problem with the argument: those are the two places where the letter's predictions should already be showing up.
The letter makes extraordinary claims, and as the famous saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet the evidence offered is remarkably thin. The language is dramatic--"large-scale job displacement," "larger than the Industrial Revolution," and "major gains in living standards"--but every prediction is qualified by one word: could. There is still little evidence that AI has fundamentally reshaped employment or productivity.
Take the labor market as an example. A widely cited survey claimed that employers plan to reduce graduate hiring because of AI. But the study was forecasting the future, not describing present reality. It found that "four in ten employers believe entry-level roles could disappear within the next five years." Once again, the evidence rests on expectations and fears rather than observed outcomes.
Now compare that with what is actually happening. Economist Valentin Boboc has argued that entry-level jobs are growing fastest at firms that are aggressively adopting AI. If AI were already eliminating these positions, we would expect to see the opposite.
Consider youth unemployment. Which developed country currently faces one of the most severe youth employment crises? The answer is not a country overwhelmed by AI, but the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people aged 16-24 are classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), at an estimated annual cost of pound sterling125 billion ($169 billion) to the economy.
The greatest threat to young workers is not AI, but poor government policy. In the UK, higher employer National Insurance contributions have increased the cost of hiring. More generous long-term sickness benefits have weakened incentives to return to work for some claimants. Large increases in the minimum wage have also raised the cost of employing inexperienced workers. These policies provide a far more convincing explanation for weak youth employment than AI does.
The fundamental problem with the letter is its demand for urgent action in the absence of convincing evidence. It asks governments and institutions to intervene now to address a risk that has yet to materialize. The consensus itself appears to rest more on speculation than on observed facts.
As F.A. Hayek warned in his Nobel Prize lecture, quoting Alfred Marshall: "Students of social science must fear popular approval: evil is with them when all men speak well of them." When there is overwhelming agreement that governments must "act now," economists should become more skeptical, not less.
The mindset that governments must immediately regulate AI may prove more dangerous than AI itself. Markets generally adapt to technological change. When genuine market failures emerge, there is a case for government intervention. But where, exactly, is the market failure in AI today that demands immediate regulation?
Many of the economic problems we face today are the result of government failures rather than market failures. Excessive labor market regulation in many European countries has made hiring and firing employees so costly that employers become reluctant to take risks on new workers. Henry Hazlitt's life contrasted this with the period before Franklin D. Roosevelt's labor reforms:
In those years, it was not hard for a young man to get a job. With no government-imposed obstacles to hiring and firing, no minimum wage laws, no workday or workweek restrictions, and no unemployment or social security taxes, employer and potential employee needed only to agree on the terms of employment.
Fear of new technology is hardly new. Nor has it been confined to critics of free markets such as Stiglitz or Krugman. During the Industrial Revolution, David Ricardo added a chapter titled "On Machinery" to Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, arguing that machinery could often be "very injurious" to workers and might not always serve the general good. Technological pessimism has a long history even among champions of free markets.
That is why I am not surprised to see free-market economists among the signatories of this letter. What is surprising is their willingness to advocate immediate policy intervention without enough evidence that such intervention is needed.
Until there is clear evidence of widespread economic harm, we should do nothing about AI. Building regulations around what might happen, rather than what has happened, risks stifling innovation, protecting incumbent firms from competition, and erecting barriers to new entrants.
* * *
Mani Basharzad is a Research Associate at the Institute of Economic Affairs and an Asia Freedom Fellow at the London School of Economics. His work has been published by the New York Post, National Review, The Spectator, and Daily Express.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/we-need-to-do-nothing-about-ai/
Boston Foundation: Boston Fed Report on Family Wealth Provides Valuable Statewide Insight Into Wealth Gaps, Say Community Partners
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 13 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 12, 2026:
* * *
New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners
The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartial ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 13 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 12, 2026: * * * New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartialresearch will inform their ongoing, cross-sector work to ensure all Massachusetts residents have economic opportunities.
The study, Family Wealth in Massachusetts: Findings from the 2025 Massachusetts Economic Conditions and Household Opportunity Survey (Mass ECHOS), is the largest of its kind in Massachusetts and provides a sobering confirmation of persistent wealth disparities across place and demographic groups in Massachusetts, as well as within many of the broader demographic categories. The survey, which garnered about 5,000 usable responses from across Massachusetts, asked respondents to share information about family wealth components and used these to calculate net wealth, along with analyses of gifts, inheritances, and estate planning.
"James Baldwin said, 'Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced,'" noted Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation. "This well-designed, far-reaching, and rigorously documented survey by the Boston Fed allows us to face the challenge of equity with new vigor and knowledge that our work to strengthen homeownership, improve educational outcomes, and support small businesses can and will over time strengthen the economic well-being of people across the Commonwealth. It provides vitally important data to guide TBF's continuing efforts to build a Greater Boston that works for everyone."
"As the Commonwealth and country celebrate 250 years, we must remain committed to urgently building a future that increases opportunity and quality of life for all people. This new, statewide report provides data that highlights the wide gaps in wealth and access to economic mobility, emphasizing the many neighborhoods and demographics in need of transformative support and impact," said James E. Rooney, President & CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. "Through the Chamber and Chamber Foundation, we are strengthening our initiatives, including Supercharging Housing Production, Small Business Strong, Pacesetters, and our financial literacy partnership with Boston Public Schools, to ensure that our state is a place where every person and family can deepen their roots, build wealth that uplifts their families and communities, and create a meaningful legacy."
"Having wealth is the ability to financially navigate an unexpected job loss, a serious illness, or buy and/or maintain a home. It is the difference between one's ability to live to their fullest potential and a trajectory that mires them in debt," said Ali Noorani, President and CEO, Barr Foundation. "According to this important new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, about a third of the Commonwealth's families do not have $400 in cash or the equivalent to address an emergency expense. This is a clear indication to us that economic inequity is so deeply rooted that solutions can only be found in collaboration. The surest way to reduce the wealth gap is by working together across sectors and ideologies to remove barriers and improve access to capital."
"We are deeply invested in creating a thriving local, economy where everyone has the opportunity to prosper," said Turahn Dorsey, President and CEO, Eastern Bank Foundation. "Our work in the areas of affordable housing, small business development and workforce development aims to address the disparities and close the gaps described in the Federal Reserve's latest report. We need good data and the kind of honest perspective on the challenges that the research provides to have the impact that we intend."
Among the key findings*:
* Overall, Massachusetts families have a median household wealth of roughly $374,000, but one-in-six families in the Commonwealth have zero or negative wealth--that is, their debts and other liabilities exceed the value of their assets.
* White families in the survey had an estimated median net wealth of $549,200, versus $305,000 for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) families. For Hispanic and Black families, median net wealth was strikingly lower. Among Black families, it was $7,800, and for Hispanic families, it was $1,200.
* The survey also found substantial differences in wealth by educational attainment. Families where the respondent or spouse had not completed high school had median net wealth of $1,100, versus $280,800 for those with some college, including technical and associate's degrees, $455,000 for bachelor's degree holders and $947,400 for those with graduate degrees.
* And the survey found that overall homeowners had substantially higher net wealth than renters, with an estimated median of $790,500, compared to $1,500 for renters.
Beyond these broad measures, the data are striking in their illustration of the precariousness of life for millions of Massachusetts residents. Consistent with estimates for the nation from other data, more than one in three households in Massachusetts said they did not have $400 on hand to pay for an emergency expense, such as car repairs, an illness, or a household emergency. In Massachusetts' 26 Gateway Cities, that percentage rises to just over half.
The report funders reiterate the Boston Fed's note that these survey data cannot be directly compared with those in the well-known 2015 Boston Fed study "The Color of Wealth," because of their different methodologies and geographies. The findings, however, clearly demonstrate that the broad wealth gaps in Massachusetts, which developed over centuries, remain distressingly large and should motivate a renewed call to action.
The funders who supported the collection of the data used in this Boston Fed report will continue to explore the data in greater detail, broaden the conversation on wealth gaps, and work to develop the collaborative solutions needed to shape a more equitable Massachusetts.
* * *
*The full report contains important information on confidence intervals across these data.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/one-time-pubs/2026/Massechos_full_report.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/august/massechos-partner-reaction-20260812
* * *
New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners
The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartial ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 13 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 12, 2026: * * * New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartialresearch will inform their ongoing, cross-sector work to ensure all Massachusetts residents have economic opportunities.
The study, Family Wealth in Massachusetts: Findings from the 2025 Massachusetts Economic Conditions and Household Opportunity Survey (Mass ECHOS), is the largest of its kind in Massachusetts and provides a sobering confirmation of persistent wealth disparities across place and demographic groups in Massachusetts, as well as within many of the broader demographic categories. The survey, which garnered about 5,000 usable responses from across Massachusetts, asked respondents to share information about family wealth components and used these to calculate net wealth, along with analyses of gifts, inheritances, and estate planning.
"James Baldwin said, 'Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced,'" noted Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation. "This well-designed, far-reaching, and rigorously documented survey by the Boston Fed allows us to face the challenge of equity with new vigor and knowledge that our work to strengthen homeownership, improve educational outcomes, and support small businesses can and will over time strengthen the economic well-being of people across the Commonwealth. It provides vitally important data to guide TBF's continuing efforts to build a Greater Boston that works for everyone."
"As the Commonwealth and country celebrate 250 years, we must remain committed to urgently building a future that increases opportunity and quality of life for all people. This new, statewide report provides data that highlights the wide gaps in wealth and access to economic mobility, emphasizing the many neighborhoods and demographics in need of transformative support and impact," said James E. Rooney, President & CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. "Through the Chamber and Chamber Foundation, we are strengthening our initiatives, including Supercharging Housing Production, Small Business Strong, Pacesetters, and our financial literacy partnership with Boston Public Schools, to ensure that our state is a place where every person and family can deepen their roots, build wealth that uplifts their families and communities, and create a meaningful legacy."
"Having wealth is the ability to financially navigate an unexpected job loss, a serious illness, or buy and/or maintain a home. It is the difference between one's ability to live to their fullest potential and a trajectory that mires them in debt," said Ali Noorani, President and CEO, Barr Foundation. "According to this important new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, about a third of the Commonwealth's families do not have $400 in cash or the equivalent to address an emergency expense. This is a clear indication to us that economic inequity is so deeply rooted that solutions can only be found in collaboration. The surest way to reduce the wealth gap is by working together across sectors and ideologies to remove barriers and improve access to capital."
"We are deeply invested in creating a thriving local, economy where everyone has the opportunity to prosper," said Turahn Dorsey, President and CEO, Eastern Bank Foundation. "Our work in the areas of affordable housing, small business development and workforce development aims to address the disparities and close the gaps described in the Federal Reserve's latest report. We need good data and the kind of honest perspective on the challenges that the research provides to have the impact that we intend."
Among the key findings*:
* Overall, Massachusetts families have a median household wealth of roughly $374,000, but one-in-six families in the Commonwealth have zero or negative wealth--that is, their debts and other liabilities exceed the value of their assets.
* White families in the survey had an estimated median net wealth of $549,200, versus $305,000 for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) families. For Hispanic and Black families, median net wealth was strikingly lower. Among Black families, it was $7,800, and for Hispanic families, it was $1,200.
* The survey also found substantial differences in wealth by educational attainment. Families where the respondent or spouse had not completed high school had median net wealth of $1,100, versus $280,800 for those with some college, including technical and associate's degrees, $455,000 for bachelor's degree holders and $947,400 for those with graduate degrees.
* And the survey found that overall homeowners had substantially higher net wealth than renters, with an estimated median of $790,500, compared to $1,500 for renters.
Beyond these broad measures, the data are striking in their illustration of the precariousness of life for millions of Massachusetts residents. Consistent with estimates for the nation from other data, more than one in three households in Massachusetts said they did not have $400 on hand to pay for an emergency expense, such as car repairs, an illness, or a household emergency. In Massachusetts' 26 Gateway Cities, that percentage rises to just over half.
The report funders reiterate the Boston Fed's note that these survey data cannot be directly compared with those in the well-known 2015 Boston Fed study "The Color of Wealth," because of their different methodologies and geographies. The findings, however, clearly demonstrate that the broad wealth gaps in Massachusetts, which developed over centuries, remain distressingly large and should motivate a renewed call to action.
The funders who supported the collection of the data used in this Boston Fed report will continue to explore the data in greater detail, broaden the conversation on wealth gaps, and work to develop the collaborative solutions needed to shape a more equitable Massachusetts.
* * *
*The full report contains important information on confidence intervals across these data.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/one-time-pubs/2026/Massechos_full_report.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/august/massechos-partner-reaction-20260812
Two new senior appointments to the Nobel organization
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Aug. 12 -- The Nobel Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Two new senior appointments to the Nobel organization
*
The Nobel organization in Sweden will expand over the coming years as the Nobel Center at Slussen takes shape. Two new senior appointments have now been made to support this development. Johan Brandt will head a new, consolidated communications department, and Helena Thybell will head the new partnerships and events department.
Johan Brandt and Helena Thybell will each lead a newly established division of approximately 20 people. Both positions ... Show Full Article STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Aug. 12 -- The Nobel Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Two new senior appointments to the Nobel organization * The Nobel organization in Sweden will expand over the coming years as the Nobel Center at Slussen takes shape. Two new senior appointments have now been made to support this development. Johan Brandt will head a new, consolidated communications department, and Helena Thybell will head the new partnerships and events department. Johan Brandt and Helena Thybell will each lead a newly established division of approximately 20 people. Both positionsare part of the Nobel organization's executive management team and report to the Executive Director of the Nobel Foundation.
"I am delighted to welcome Helena Thybell and Johan Brandt. Their experience, commitment and expertise will strengthen our organization at an exciting time of development, not least as we work to realise a new Nobel house," said Hanna Stjarne, Executive Director of the Nobel Foundation.
"The Nobel Prize holds a unique position internationally and enjoys a very high level of trust. To have the opportunity to contribute to safeguarding this over the long term, while further developing Nobel's communications in Sweden and internationally, is both a great responsibility and an inspiring task that I very much look forward to," said Johan Brandt.
"I am both proud and delighted to be joining the Nobel organization. It is a true privilege to contribute to an organization that inspires and engages people around the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue strengthening the organization and seizing the opportunities that lie ahead," said Helena Thybell.
Johan Brandt is currently Director of Communications at Stockholm University and was previously CEO of communications agency Geelmuyden Kiese and Deputy CEO of Gullers Group. He has also worked as a deputy editor and held senior digital roles at Dagens Nyheter. Johan will join on 5 October.
Helena Thybell is currently Executive Director of SIWI, the Stockholm International Water Institute. She has served as global Head of HR/People and Culture at H&M group and helped shape the work of both the H&M Foundation and the Swedish Postcode Lottery Foundation. Her background also includes serving as CEO of Save the Children Sweden and working internationally for the Red Cross. Helena will start at the beginning of next year.
For further information please contact:
press@nobelprize.org
+46 8 122 084 45
***
Original text here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-release/two-new-senior-appointments-to-the-nobel-organization/
* * *
Two new senior appointments to the Nobel organization
*
The Nobel organization in Sweden will expand over the coming years as the Nobel Center at Slussen takes shape. Two new senior appointments have now been made to support this development. Johan Brandt will head a new, consolidated communications department, and Helena Thybell will head the new partnerships and events department.
Johan Brandt and Helena Thybell will each lead a newly established division of approximately 20 people. Both positions ... Show Full Article STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Aug. 12 -- The Nobel Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Two new senior appointments to the Nobel organization * The Nobel organization in Sweden will expand over the coming years as the Nobel Center at Slussen takes shape. Two new senior appointments have now been made to support this development. Johan Brandt will head a new, consolidated communications department, and Helena Thybell will head the new partnerships and events department. Johan Brandt and Helena Thybell will each lead a newly established division of approximately 20 people. Both positionsare part of the Nobel organization's executive management team and report to the Executive Director of the Nobel Foundation.
"I am delighted to welcome Helena Thybell and Johan Brandt. Their experience, commitment and expertise will strengthen our organization at an exciting time of development, not least as we work to realise a new Nobel house," said Hanna Stjarne, Executive Director of the Nobel Foundation.
"The Nobel Prize holds a unique position internationally and enjoys a very high level of trust. To have the opportunity to contribute to safeguarding this over the long term, while further developing Nobel's communications in Sweden and internationally, is both a great responsibility and an inspiring task that I very much look forward to," said Johan Brandt.
"I am both proud and delighted to be joining the Nobel organization. It is a true privilege to contribute to an organization that inspires and engages people around the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue strengthening the organization and seizing the opportunities that lie ahead," said Helena Thybell.
Johan Brandt is currently Director of Communications at Stockholm University and was previously CEO of communications agency Geelmuyden Kiese and Deputy CEO of Gullers Group. He has also worked as a deputy editor and held senior digital roles at Dagens Nyheter. Johan will join on 5 October.
Helena Thybell is currently Executive Director of SIWI, the Stockholm International Water Institute. She has served as global Head of HR/People and Culture at H&M group and helped shape the work of both the H&M Foundation and the Swedish Postcode Lottery Foundation. Her background also includes serving as CEO of Save the Children Sweden and working internationally for the Red Cross. Helena will start at the beginning of next year.
For further information please contact:
press@nobelprize.org
+46 8 122 084 45
***
Original text here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-release/two-new-senior-appointments-to-the-nobel-organization/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: When 20th-Century Regulations Meet 21st-Century Streaming
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 12 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal:
* * *
When 20th-Century Regulations Meet 21st-Century Streaming
Old rules for new screens.
-
If a regulator struggles to decide whether a live transmission on YouTube should be considered "television," the real problem may not be the platform, but the rules and the state's insistence on continuing to apply them.
During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the Brazilian company LiveMode broadcasted 34 matches for free on YouTube, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 12 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal: * * * When 20th-Century Regulations Meet 21st-Century Streaming Old rules for new screens. - If a regulator struggles to decide whether a live transmission on YouTube should be considered "television," the real problem may not be the platform, but the rules and the state's insistence on continuing to apply them. During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the Brazilian company LiveMode broadcasted 34 matches for free on YouTube,including every game played by the Portuguese national team, using an advertising and sponsorship-funded model. The initiative drew strong audiences. Yet the company found itself caught in regulatory bureaucracy.
Portugal's media regulator, the ERC, first classified it as a web TV service and later as an on-demand audiovisual service. The problem is that each classification determines the legal regime that applies and the obligations the company must meet.
This raises a broader issue: whether Europe's audiovisual framework still reflects today's digital media landscape, or whether regulators are trying to force new business models into legal categories designed for a completely different technological era.
For most of the 20th century, television regulation had a relatively solid justification. Radio spectrum was scarce. In a genuine context of scarcity, licensing and certain obligations could reasonably be defended as a way to manage a limited resource.
The Internet destroyed that premise. Content distribution no longer depended on scarce infrastructure, and the cost of reaching audiences collapsed. The original justification for state intervention largely disappeared. Instead of recognizing this change and reducing the scope of regulation, the European state did the opposite.
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and its national transpositions continue to operate with categories created for the age of scarcity. Whenever a new distribution model appears, the automatic response is to find which legal box it can be fitted into and which obligations can be attached to it.
The same impulse appears in the United Kingdom, where the government proposed requiring private platforms such as YouTube to give greater prominence to BBC content. This is a morally questionable measure: taxpayers are required to fund, through the television license fee, a public channel that the state, acting as both regulator and content producer, now seeks to impose by administrative means on private platforms.
In both cases, the state acts as though the original justification for its intervention (spectrum scarcity) has not disappeared, and its claim to continue organizing the content market remains necessary.
In a free society, state intervention in private economic activity should not be the rule, but the exception that must be justified. This does not mean that no regulation makes sense. Clear rules on the protection of minors, commercial transparency, or competition can remain legitimate.
The problem arises when the original market failure no longer exists and yet the scope of rules created for a different context is maintained or automatically expanded. These rules end up functioning as barriers to entry for new operators. They impose compliance costs such as registration, legal advice, and possible financial contributions that large platforms can absorb. For small companies starting out or experimenting with a new model, those costs weigh much more heavily.
The result is less competition and willingness to experiment with different formats. For consumers, this means fewer alternatives, especially free or lower-cost ones, and a market increasingly dominated by the same large players.
The frequent rhetoric of "public interest" and "pluralism" ends up, in practice, protecting those already established and reducing the options available to the public.
We see this in both the LiveMode case and the British proposals. In Portugal, the regulator focused on classifying and reclassifying a free transmission, creating a process that the company was forced to accept and did so under protest.
In the United Kingdom, the response to technological change was to propose requiring private platforms to prioritize content from a public channel. In neither case did the process begin with a clear demonstration that those specific obligations still address a concrete and proportionate problem for consumers.
Before applying rules created for 20th-century television to new distribution models, regulators should be required to show that those rules still serve a clear and justified public interest. If they cannot do so, the presumption should favor the freedom to experiment rather than the automatic expansion of regulatory power.
* * *
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/when-20th-century-regulations-meet-21st-century-streaming/
* * *
When 20th-Century Regulations Meet 21st-Century Streaming
Old rules for new screens.
-
If a regulator struggles to decide whether a live transmission on YouTube should be considered "television," the real problem may not be the platform, but the rules and the state's insistence on continuing to apply them.
During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the Brazilian company LiveMode broadcasted 34 matches for free on YouTube, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 12 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal: * * * When 20th-Century Regulations Meet 21st-Century Streaming Old rules for new screens. - If a regulator struggles to decide whether a live transmission on YouTube should be considered "television," the real problem may not be the platform, but the rules and the state's insistence on continuing to apply them. During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the Brazilian company LiveMode broadcasted 34 matches for free on YouTube,including every game played by the Portuguese national team, using an advertising and sponsorship-funded model. The initiative drew strong audiences. Yet the company found itself caught in regulatory bureaucracy.
Portugal's media regulator, the ERC, first classified it as a web TV service and later as an on-demand audiovisual service. The problem is that each classification determines the legal regime that applies and the obligations the company must meet.
This raises a broader issue: whether Europe's audiovisual framework still reflects today's digital media landscape, or whether regulators are trying to force new business models into legal categories designed for a completely different technological era.
For most of the 20th century, television regulation had a relatively solid justification. Radio spectrum was scarce. In a genuine context of scarcity, licensing and certain obligations could reasonably be defended as a way to manage a limited resource.
The Internet destroyed that premise. Content distribution no longer depended on scarce infrastructure, and the cost of reaching audiences collapsed. The original justification for state intervention largely disappeared. Instead of recognizing this change and reducing the scope of regulation, the European state did the opposite.
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and its national transpositions continue to operate with categories created for the age of scarcity. Whenever a new distribution model appears, the automatic response is to find which legal box it can be fitted into and which obligations can be attached to it.
The same impulse appears in the United Kingdom, where the government proposed requiring private platforms such as YouTube to give greater prominence to BBC content. This is a morally questionable measure: taxpayers are required to fund, through the television license fee, a public channel that the state, acting as both regulator and content producer, now seeks to impose by administrative means on private platforms.
In both cases, the state acts as though the original justification for its intervention (spectrum scarcity) has not disappeared, and its claim to continue organizing the content market remains necessary.
In a free society, state intervention in private economic activity should not be the rule, but the exception that must be justified. This does not mean that no regulation makes sense. Clear rules on the protection of minors, commercial transparency, or competition can remain legitimate.
The problem arises when the original market failure no longer exists and yet the scope of rules created for a different context is maintained or automatically expanded. These rules end up functioning as barriers to entry for new operators. They impose compliance costs such as registration, legal advice, and possible financial contributions that large platforms can absorb. For small companies starting out or experimenting with a new model, those costs weigh much more heavily.
The result is less competition and willingness to experiment with different formats. For consumers, this means fewer alternatives, especially free or lower-cost ones, and a market increasingly dominated by the same large players.
The frequent rhetoric of "public interest" and "pluralism" ends up, in practice, protecting those already established and reducing the options available to the public.
We see this in both the LiveMode case and the British proposals. In Portugal, the regulator focused on classifying and reclassifying a free transmission, creating a process that the company was forced to accept and did so under protest.
In the United Kingdom, the response to technological change was to propose requiring private platforms to prioritize content from a public channel. In neither case did the process begin with a clear demonstration that those specific obligations still address a concrete and proportionate problem for consumers.
Before applying rules created for 20th-century television to new distribution models, regulators should be required to show that those rules still serve a clear and justified public interest. If they cannot do so, the presumption should favor the freedom to experiment rather than the automatic expansion of regulatory power.
* * *
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/when-20th-century-regulations-meet-21st-century-streaming/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Ranking the States Most and Least Dependent on the Federal Government
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Directors of Government Finance Mariana Trujillo and Jordan Campbell:
* * *
Ranking the states most and least dependent on the federal government
In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
-
Federal aid accounts for about a quarter of state and local government revenues, helping fund everything from disaster recovery and food assistance to healthcare and transportation. But these grants are not ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Directors of Government Finance Mariana Trujillo and Jordan Campbell: * * * Ranking the states most and least dependent on the federal government In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets. - Federal aid accounts for about a quarter of state and local government revenues, helping fund everything from disaster recovery and food assistance to healthcare and transportation. But these grants are notguaranteed: Washington retains full discretion over federal transfers and has often used them as leverage to sway state policy.
This practice has received more attention recently as President Donald Trump has sought to withhold funds from states that fail to comply with certain priorities. While the scale and breadth of the Trump administration's use of federal funding to pressure states are unusual, the federal government has long used the promise of new funding and the threat of losing existing grants to influence state policy. The nationwide adoption of the 21-year drinking age and mandatory seatbelt laws, for example, came only after Congress tied both to eligibility for federal highway funding.
Not all states feel this federal pressure equally. While all states receive federal aid, reliance varies. In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
A brief history of federal aid
In absolute terms, federal aid to state and local governments has grown substantially over the past few decades, even after adjusting for inflation. In 2025 dollars, federal transfers in 1980 amounted to about $300 billion, while in 2023, they amounted to $1.1 trillion.
Though the dollar value of federal aid has grown, its share of state and local revenue has held steady. That is because overall state and local revenues have grown alongside the broader U.S. economy. As economic output grew, so did state and local government spending and taxation. On average, federal aid has represented 19% of state and local revenues from 2000-2022.
* * *
Chart: Federal grants represent ~20% of state and local revenue
* * *
The relative consistency in federal aid's overall share of state and local budgets, however, masks a significant shift in its composition. In earlier decades, federal aid flowed largely through discretionary programs: agriculture, transportation, disaster assistance, and education. But over the last few decades--like almost every other aspect of government--federal transfers have become increasingly dominated by entitlement programs.
Today, Medicaid accounts for 57% of federal transfers to states. As eligibility expanded and health care costs rose, Medicaid became the primary channel through which federal funds flow into states.
* * *
Chart: Medicaid now dominates federal aid to state and local governments
* * *
This rise of Medicaid aid shifted the nature of federal transfers. A growing share of transfers now flows through mandatory programs, rather than through discretionary grants that Congress appropriates annually. By 2023, 73% of federal transfers to state and local governments flowed through mandatory programs, up from 42% in 1980.
* * *
Chart: Mandatory programs now dominate federal aid to state and local governments
* * *
Ranking states by reliance on federal aid
The following rankings measure state and local governments' reliance on federal grants--not whether residents of each state receive more from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. Some analyses subtract the federal taxes paid by a state's residents from the federal grants and other federal spending in that state, labeling states with negative balances "net donor states" to the union. That measures interstate redistribution, but not reliance on the federal government. Residents of a state can be net donors overall, even as its state and local governments remain materially dependent on federal aid, since Washington may reduce or condition intergovernmental grants at any time.
This analysis, therefore, uses gross federal grant revenue to measure how much state and local governments receive from the federal government and how exposed their budgets are if those transfers are delayed, conditioned, or withdrawn.
Additionally, we include the District of Columbia (D.C.) alongside the states because, although it is a federal district with unique circumstances, its position in the rankings is of public interest.
The states that receive the most federal aid
In total, state and local governments in California ($162 billion), New York ($118 billion), and Texas ($89 billion) received the most federal aid in 2025, while those in Wyoming ($3.9 billion), South Dakota ($3.8 billion), and North Dakota ($2.8 billion) received the least.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received $18.4 billion from the federal government.
* * *
Table: Total federal aid to state and local governments, by state
* * *
Total federal aid received says little about fiscal reliance. The largest states, of course, receive more because they have larger populations. In fact, the seven states receiving the most federal aid are also the seven most populous states, with only New York appearing out of order, ranking second in aid and fourth in population. For this reason, it is important to examine federal aid relative to state and local finances and to population size.
The states that receive the most federal aid as a share of their budgets
States differ in the share of their budgets financed by federal transfers. In North Dakota (19%), Virginia (21%), and Utah (22%), federal transfers account for less than a quarter of state and local revenues. In Alaska (39%), Kentucky (38%), and Vermont (38%), federal transfers account for almost 40% of state and local revenues.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received 27.7% of its revenues from the federal government.
* * *
Table: Federal aid as a share of total state and local revenue, by state
* * *
The states that receive the most federal aid per capita
The states that have the highest federal aid as a share of their budgets are not necessarily the ones receiving the most federal funding in absolute or per-capita terms.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received $3,815 per resident from the federal government. The District of Columbia ($11,030), Alaska ($8,389), and Wyoming ($6,772) received the most federal aid per capita, while Tennessee ($2,783), Virginia ($2,699), and Georgia ($2,397) received the least.
* * *
Table: Per capita federal aid to state and local governments, by state
* * *
Fiscal discipline and autonomy
Federal aid is one of the largest revenue sources for state and local governments, but its importance varies. Some states receive large transfers simply because they are large, while others depend on federal funding to finance nearly half of their budgets.
As national debt rises and federal spending becomes more politically contentious, these differences become more consequential. Understanding which states rely most heavily on federal transfers and which programs those transfers are tied to is increasingly relevant to assessing fiscal risk.
Recent actions by the Trump administration illustrate how federal aid can be used as leverage in policy disputes. States that are already burdened by high debt and legacy costs--such as unfunded pension liabilities or retiree health obligations--often have little room in their budgets to absorb shocks.
This fiscal vulnerability is unfortunately not limited to highly indebted states. In states with leaner budgets, federal aid can account for an outsized share of revenue. In the absence of strong reserves, threats to those transfers can also put their finances under pressure.
It is therefore prudent for state and local governments to document precisely how they rely on federal aid, including which programs, agencies, and budget functions depend on those funds. They should also develop contingency plans for delays or reductions of federal transfers, especially discretionary transfers.
Federal transfers will always undermine state autonomy and federalism. States and local governments must understand the precise role that the federal government plays in their finances.
The states, cities, counties, and school districts that don't have excessive debt and have strong fiscal reserves may be able to absorb disruptions in federal funding without surrendering policy autonomy. Those burdened by debt, unfunded liabilities, and weak reserves may not.
* * *
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
Jordan Campbell is managing director of government finance and senior quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/ranking-the-states-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/
* * *
Ranking the states most and least dependent on the federal government
In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
-
Federal aid accounts for about a quarter of state and local government revenues, helping fund everything from disaster recovery and food assistance to healthcare and transportation. But these grants are not ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Directors of Government Finance Mariana Trujillo and Jordan Campbell: * * * Ranking the states most and least dependent on the federal government In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets. - Federal aid accounts for about a quarter of state and local government revenues, helping fund everything from disaster recovery and food assistance to healthcare and transportation. But these grants are notguaranteed: Washington retains full discretion over federal transfers and has often used them as leverage to sway state policy.
This practice has received more attention recently as President Donald Trump has sought to withhold funds from states that fail to comply with certain priorities. While the scale and breadth of the Trump administration's use of federal funding to pressure states are unusual, the federal government has long used the promise of new funding and the threat of losing existing grants to influence state policy. The nationwide adoption of the 21-year drinking age and mandatory seatbelt laws, for example, came only after Congress tied both to eligibility for federal highway funding.
Not all states feel this federal pressure equally. While all states receive federal aid, reliance varies. In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
A brief history of federal aid
In absolute terms, federal aid to state and local governments has grown substantially over the past few decades, even after adjusting for inflation. In 2025 dollars, federal transfers in 1980 amounted to about $300 billion, while in 2023, they amounted to $1.1 trillion.
Though the dollar value of federal aid has grown, its share of state and local revenue has held steady. That is because overall state and local revenues have grown alongside the broader U.S. economy. As economic output grew, so did state and local government spending and taxation. On average, federal aid has represented 19% of state and local revenues from 2000-2022.
* * *
Chart: Federal grants represent ~20% of state and local revenue
* * *
The relative consistency in federal aid's overall share of state and local budgets, however, masks a significant shift in its composition. In earlier decades, federal aid flowed largely through discretionary programs: agriculture, transportation, disaster assistance, and education. But over the last few decades--like almost every other aspect of government--federal transfers have become increasingly dominated by entitlement programs.
Today, Medicaid accounts for 57% of federal transfers to states. As eligibility expanded and health care costs rose, Medicaid became the primary channel through which federal funds flow into states.
* * *
Chart: Medicaid now dominates federal aid to state and local governments
* * *
This rise of Medicaid aid shifted the nature of federal transfers. A growing share of transfers now flows through mandatory programs, rather than through discretionary grants that Congress appropriates annually. By 2023, 73% of federal transfers to state and local governments flowed through mandatory programs, up from 42% in 1980.
* * *
Chart: Mandatory programs now dominate federal aid to state and local governments
* * *
Ranking states by reliance on federal aid
The following rankings measure state and local governments' reliance on federal grants--not whether residents of each state receive more from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. Some analyses subtract the federal taxes paid by a state's residents from the federal grants and other federal spending in that state, labeling states with negative balances "net donor states" to the union. That measures interstate redistribution, but not reliance on the federal government. Residents of a state can be net donors overall, even as its state and local governments remain materially dependent on federal aid, since Washington may reduce or condition intergovernmental grants at any time.
This analysis, therefore, uses gross federal grant revenue to measure how much state and local governments receive from the federal government and how exposed their budgets are if those transfers are delayed, conditioned, or withdrawn.
Additionally, we include the District of Columbia (D.C.) alongside the states because, although it is a federal district with unique circumstances, its position in the rankings is of public interest.
The states that receive the most federal aid
In total, state and local governments in California ($162 billion), New York ($118 billion), and Texas ($89 billion) received the most federal aid in 2025, while those in Wyoming ($3.9 billion), South Dakota ($3.8 billion), and North Dakota ($2.8 billion) received the least.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received $18.4 billion from the federal government.
* * *
Table: Total federal aid to state and local governments, by state
* * *
Total federal aid received says little about fiscal reliance. The largest states, of course, receive more because they have larger populations. In fact, the seven states receiving the most federal aid are also the seven most populous states, with only New York appearing out of order, ranking second in aid and fourth in population. For this reason, it is important to examine federal aid relative to state and local finances and to population size.
The states that receive the most federal aid as a share of their budgets
States differ in the share of their budgets financed by federal transfers. In North Dakota (19%), Virginia (21%), and Utah (22%), federal transfers account for less than a quarter of state and local revenues. In Alaska (39%), Kentucky (38%), and Vermont (38%), federal transfers account for almost 40% of state and local revenues.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received 27.7% of its revenues from the federal government.
* * *
Table: Federal aid as a share of total state and local revenue, by state
* * *
The states that receive the most federal aid per capita
The states that have the highest federal aid as a share of their budgets are not necessarily the ones receiving the most federal funding in absolute or per-capita terms.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received $3,815 per resident from the federal government. The District of Columbia ($11,030), Alaska ($8,389), and Wyoming ($6,772) received the most federal aid per capita, while Tennessee ($2,783), Virginia ($2,699), and Georgia ($2,397) received the least.
* * *
Table: Per capita federal aid to state and local governments, by state
* * *
Fiscal discipline and autonomy
Federal aid is one of the largest revenue sources for state and local governments, but its importance varies. Some states receive large transfers simply because they are large, while others depend on federal funding to finance nearly half of their budgets.
As national debt rises and federal spending becomes more politically contentious, these differences become more consequential. Understanding which states rely most heavily on federal transfers and which programs those transfers are tied to is increasingly relevant to assessing fiscal risk.
Recent actions by the Trump administration illustrate how federal aid can be used as leverage in policy disputes. States that are already burdened by high debt and legacy costs--such as unfunded pension liabilities or retiree health obligations--often have little room in their budgets to absorb shocks.
This fiscal vulnerability is unfortunately not limited to highly indebted states. In states with leaner budgets, federal aid can account for an outsized share of revenue. In the absence of strong reserves, threats to those transfers can also put their finances under pressure.
It is therefore prudent for state and local governments to document precisely how they rely on federal aid, including which programs, agencies, and budget functions depend on those funds. They should also develop contingency plans for delays or reductions of federal transfers, especially discretionary transfers.
Federal transfers will always undermine state autonomy and federalism. States and local governments must understand the precise role that the federal government plays in their finances.
The states, cities, counties, and school districts that don't have excessive debt and have strong fiscal reserves may be able to absorb disruptions in federal funding without surrendering policy autonomy. Those burdened by debt, unfunded liabilities, and weak reserves may not.
* * *
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
Jordan Campbell is managing director of government finance and senior quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/ranking-the-states-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/
Photography / Fotografia: Los Angeles y Mexico en Getty "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography"
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release:
* * *
Photography / Fotografia: Los Angeles y Mexico en Getty "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography"
*
Read in English
La fotografia mexicana del siglo XX se caracteriza por una compleja red de conexiones artisticas e intercambios culturales.
"Instante/revelacion: Momentos en la fotografia mexicana", que podra visitarse desde el 1 de septiembre de 2026 hasta el 3 de enero de 2027, recorre la historia de la fotografia de Mexico desde finales de la decada de 1920 hasta mediados de ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release: * * * Photography / Fotografia: Los Angeles y Mexico en Getty "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography" * Read in English La fotografia mexicana del siglo XX se caracteriza por una compleja red de conexiones artisticas e intercambios culturales. "Instante/revelacion: Momentos en la fotografia mexicana", que podra visitarse desde el 1 de septiembre de 2026 hasta el 3 de enero de 2027, recorre la historia de la fotografia de Mexico desde finales de la decada de 1920 hasta mediados dela decada de 2010 a traves de una seleccion de obras de trece destacados fotografos locales. Esta exposicion, bilingue en ingles y espanol, traza un poderoso panorama de la cultura visual de Mexico, marcada por la colaboracion, la experimentacion y el intercambio artistico.
"La fotografia ha servido durante mucho tiempo como un poderoso medio para capturar tanto la experiencia personal como la historia colectiva", declaro Timothy Potts, director Maria Hummer-Tuttle y Robert Tuttle del J. Paul Getty Museum. "'Instante/revelacion' traza las conexiones creativas entre generaciones de fotografos cuyas imagenes ofrecen una vision profunda de la vida cultural de Mexico, al tiempo que demuestran el poder del intercambio artistico para moldear nuestra vision del mundo".
La exposicion toma su titulo y marco conceptual del libro de 1982 Instante y revelacion, que combina poesias del premio Nobel Octavio Paz con fotografias de Manuel Alvarez Bravo. Inspirada en las reflexiones poeticas del escritor sobre las fotografias de Alvarez Bravo, la exposicion esta organizada en cinco secciones tematicas que llevan por titulo versos del poema "Cara al tiempo" de Paz.
Los trece destacados fotografos mexicanos cuyas obras se presentan son Manuel Alvarez Bravo (1902-2002), Lola Alvarez Bravo (1903-1993), Manuel Carrillo (1906-1989), Antonio Reynoso (1919-1996), Hector Garcia (1923-2012), Mariana Yampolsky (1925-2002), Rodrigo Moya (1934-2025), Pedro Meyer (1935), Graciela Iturbide (1942), Yolanda Andrade (1950), Pablo Ortiz Monasterio (1952), Cecilia Salcedo Mendez (1957) y Flor Garduno (1957). Sus imagenes registran las transformaciones que han marcado la historia social y la escena fotografica de Mexico a lo largo de los ultimo siglo.
Lo identico y lo diferente / Identical and Different
Esta seccion explora conexiones entre fotografos que compartieron diversos vinculos, ya que muchos de ellos fueron amigos, maestros y estudiantes o companeros de trabajo. Si bien cada artista desarrollo un estilo distintivo, a menudo abordaron temas similares forjados por un entorno cultural y artistico comun. A traves del vinculo entre ciertas imagenes, sus fotografias revelan motivos recurrentes y un dialogo visual continuo que demuestra como la historia fotografica de Mexico se construyo a traves de la conexion y la colaboracion.
La sensacion y la percepcion / Sensation and Perception
Tomando como punto de partida las primeras fotos de Manuel Alvarez Bravo de finales de la decada de 1920, esta seccion analiza la capacidad que desarrollo la fotografia a lo largo del siglo XX para transformar lo ordinario mediante diversos recursos como el recorte, el desplazamiento o el cambio de contexto. Las fotografias de Graciela Iturbide, Pedro Meyer, Cecilia Salcedo Mendez y Lola Alvarez Bravo utilizan algunas de estas estrategias para enfatizar el efecto de la luz, las texturas y las formas, creando asi una fuerte experiencia sensorial. A traves de encuadres cercanos y perspectivas inusuales, objetos cotidianos se transforman en imagenes abstractas que buscan provocar curiosidad y asombro.
Lente de revelaciones / Lens of Revelations
Esta seccion presenta fotografias que convierten momentos de la vida diaria en imagenes poeticas y misteriosas. Al usar un encuadre selectivo que permite omitir el contexto, los artistas crean incognitas y escenarios imaginarios que invitan a interpretaciones multiples en lugar de proponer respuestas cerradas. Dicho enfoque, que caracterizo a la obra de Manuel Alvarez Bravo, tambien se encuentra presente en el trabajo de Lola Alvarez Bravo, Graciela Iturbide, Flor Garduno y Yolanda Andrade. Este nucleo tematico tambien incluye publicaciones periodicas como "Imagen", "El Maestro Rural" y "Mexican Art and Life", a traves de las cuales se difundieron muchas de estas fotografias.
El ojo piensa, el pensamiento ve / The Eye Thinks, Thought Sees
Las relaciones entre los fotografos con otros artistas mexicanos, como Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Rufino Tamayo, Octavio Paz y Juan Rulfo, se exploran en esta seccion a traves de retratos y redes creativas compartidas. Incluye fotografias realizadas por Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Lola Alvarez Bravo, Rodrigo Moya y Hector Garcia, asi como imagenes de la serie que Graciela Iturbide realizo sobre objetos personales de Frida Kahlo.
El tiempo no cesa de fluir / Time Never Stops Flowing
Con obras que abarcan desde la decada de 1930 hasta 2016, esta seccion explora como los fotografos documentaron y respondieron a los principales cambios sociales, politicos y economicos de su epoca. Las imagenes reflejan momentos clave, desde el llamado "Milagro mexicano" de mediados de siglo XX hasta la desaparicion de cuarenta y tres estudiantes en Ayotzinapa en 2014. Con obras de Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Lola Alvarez Bravo, Mariana Yampolsky, Hector Garcia, Rodrigo Moya, Graciela Iturbide y Pablo Ortiz Monasterio, la seccion tambien destaca libros fotograficos que desempenaron un papel clave en la circulacion de estas obras.
"Las fotografias de esta exposicion fueron tomadas a lo largo de casi cien anos, y todas ellas abordan temas y conceptos relevantes para Mexico, un pais con una compleja historia y multiples memorias culturales", manifesto Julieta Pestarino, curadora asistente del Departamento de Fotografias del J. Paul Getty Museum y curadora de la exposicion. "Los fotografos mexicanos del siglo XX trabajaron en estrecha colaboracion entre si, al igual que con artistas, escritores, cineastas e incluso con antropologos. Cuando estas fotografias se observan en conjunto, surgen motivos recurrentes y formas de mirar que revelan un rico entramado de dialogo cultural y artistico. "Instante/revelacion" presenta al publico "instantes" que "revelan" las multiples formas en que se puede apreciar Mexico".
Todas las fotografias presentadas en "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography" provienen de las generosas donaciones realizadas al J. Paul Getty Museum por los coleccionistas Daniel Greenberg y Susan Steinhauser. Durante los ultimos 25 anos, las fotografias que incorporaron a la coleccion han enriquecido el acervo del Museo y ampliaron el acceso a piezas clave de la fotografia mexicana.
"Instante/revelacion: Momentos en la fotografia mexicana" se presenta en conjunto con "Cada minuto es historia: cinco perspectivas de Los Angeles", exposicion que destaca a cinco fotografos cuyas distintas practicas ampliaron las representaciones de las comunidades chicanas en Los Angeles durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX.
Con motivo de la inauguracion de la exposicion, el martes 1 de septiembre a las 7 pm, la investigadora Elizabeth Ferrer dirigira una mesa redonda con la participacion de los fotografos contemporaneos de ambas exposiciones George Rodriguez, Pablo Ortiz Monasterio, Reynaldo Rivera y Yolanda Andrade. Los artistas hablaran sobre los retos, las oportunidades y las implicaciones de trabajar en Los Angeles y la Ciudad de Mexico.
Tambien se ofreceran visitas guiadas en espanol mensualmente durante toda la exposicion, dirigidas por la curadora y por el equipo de educacion del museo. Visite getty.edu para conocer las fechas y obtener mas informacion.
Como parte de "Instante/revelacion", Getty Publications presenta un catalogo bilingue en espanol e ingles con reproducciones completas de las obras expuestas, ademas de un ensayo introductorio, textos de las secciones y biografias de los artistas, el cual ofrecera a los lectores una vision mas profunda de los temas y dialogos artisticos de la exposicion.
***
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/espanol-photography-fotografia-instante-revelacion-moments-in-mexican-photography
* * *
Photography / Fotografia: Los Angeles y Mexico en Getty "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography"
*
Read in English
La fotografia mexicana del siglo XX se caracteriza por una compleja red de conexiones artisticas e intercambios culturales.
"Instante/revelacion: Momentos en la fotografia mexicana", que podra visitarse desde el 1 de septiembre de 2026 hasta el 3 de enero de 2027, recorre la historia de la fotografia de Mexico desde finales de la decada de 1920 hasta mediados de ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release: * * * Photography / Fotografia: Los Angeles y Mexico en Getty "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography" * Read in English La fotografia mexicana del siglo XX se caracteriza por una compleja red de conexiones artisticas e intercambios culturales. "Instante/revelacion: Momentos en la fotografia mexicana", que podra visitarse desde el 1 de septiembre de 2026 hasta el 3 de enero de 2027, recorre la historia de la fotografia de Mexico desde finales de la decada de 1920 hasta mediados dela decada de 2010 a traves de una seleccion de obras de trece destacados fotografos locales. Esta exposicion, bilingue en ingles y espanol, traza un poderoso panorama de la cultura visual de Mexico, marcada por la colaboracion, la experimentacion y el intercambio artistico.
"La fotografia ha servido durante mucho tiempo como un poderoso medio para capturar tanto la experiencia personal como la historia colectiva", declaro Timothy Potts, director Maria Hummer-Tuttle y Robert Tuttle del J. Paul Getty Museum. "'Instante/revelacion' traza las conexiones creativas entre generaciones de fotografos cuyas imagenes ofrecen una vision profunda de la vida cultural de Mexico, al tiempo que demuestran el poder del intercambio artistico para moldear nuestra vision del mundo".
La exposicion toma su titulo y marco conceptual del libro de 1982 Instante y revelacion, que combina poesias del premio Nobel Octavio Paz con fotografias de Manuel Alvarez Bravo. Inspirada en las reflexiones poeticas del escritor sobre las fotografias de Alvarez Bravo, la exposicion esta organizada en cinco secciones tematicas que llevan por titulo versos del poema "Cara al tiempo" de Paz.
Los trece destacados fotografos mexicanos cuyas obras se presentan son Manuel Alvarez Bravo (1902-2002), Lola Alvarez Bravo (1903-1993), Manuel Carrillo (1906-1989), Antonio Reynoso (1919-1996), Hector Garcia (1923-2012), Mariana Yampolsky (1925-2002), Rodrigo Moya (1934-2025), Pedro Meyer (1935), Graciela Iturbide (1942), Yolanda Andrade (1950), Pablo Ortiz Monasterio (1952), Cecilia Salcedo Mendez (1957) y Flor Garduno (1957). Sus imagenes registran las transformaciones que han marcado la historia social y la escena fotografica de Mexico a lo largo de los ultimo siglo.
Lo identico y lo diferente / Identical and Different
Esta seccion explora conexiones entre fotografos que compartieron diversos vinculos, ya que muchos de ellos fueron amigos, maestros y estudiantes o companeros de trabajo. Si bien cada artista desarrollo un estilo distintivo, a menudo abordaron temas similares forjados por un entorno cultural y artistico comun. A traves del vinculo entre ciertas imagenes, sus fotografias revelan motivos recurrentes y un dialogo visual continuo que demuestra como la historia fotografica de Mexico se construyo a traves de la conexion y la colaboracion.
La sensacion y la percepcion / Sensation and Perception
Tomando como punto de partida las primeras fotos de Manuel Alvarez Bravo de finales de la decada de 1920, esta seccion analiza la capacidad que desarrollo la fotografia a lo largo del siglo XX para transformar lo ordinario mediante diversos recursos como el recorte, el desplazamiento o el cambio de contexto. Las fotografias de Graciela Iturbide, Pedro Meyer, Cecilia Salcedo Mendez y Lola Alvarez Bravo utilizan algunas de estas estrategias para enfatizar el efecto de la luz, las texturas y las formas, creando asi una fuerte experiencia sensorial. A traves de encuadres cercanos y perspectivas inusuales, objetos cotidianos se transforman en imagenes abstractas que buscan provocar curiosidad y asombro.
Lente de revelaciones / Lens of Revelations
Esta seccion presenta fotografias que convierten momentos de la vida diaria en imagenes poeticas y misteriosas. Al usar un encuadre selectivo que permite omitir el contexto, los artistas crean incognitas y escenarios imaginarios que invitan a interpretaciones multiples en lugar de proponer respuestas cerradas. Dicho enfoque, que caracterizo a la obra de Manuel Alvarez Bravo, tambien se encuentra presente en el trabajo de Lola Alvarez Bravo, Graciela Iturbide, Flor Garduno y Yolanda Andrade. Este nucleo tematico tambien incluye publicaciones periodicas como "Imagen", "El Maestro Rural" y "Mexican Art and Life", a traves de las cuales se difundieron muchas de estas fotografias.
El ojo piensa, el pensamiento ve / The Eye Thinks, Thought Sees
Las relaciones entre los fotografos con otros artistas mexicanos, como Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Rufino Tamayo, Octavio Paz y Juan Rulfo, se exploran en esta seccion a traves de retratos y redes creativas compartidas. Incluye fotografias realizadas por Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Lola Alvarez Bravo, Rodrigo Moya y Hector Garcia, asi como imagenes de la serie que Graciela Iturbide realizo sobre objetos personales de Frida Kahlo.
El tiempo no cesa de fluir / Time Never Stops Flowing
Con obras que abarcan desde la decada de 1930 hasta 2016, esta seccion explora como los fotografos documentaron y respondieron a los principales cambios sociales, politicos y economicos de su epoca. Las imagenes reflejan momentos clave, desde el llamado "Milagro mexicano" de mediados de siglo XX hasta la desaparicion de cuarenta y tres estudiantes en Ayotzinapa en 2014. Con obras de Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Lola Alvarez Bravo, Mariana Yampolsky, Hector Garcia, Rodrigo Moya, Graciela Iturbide y Pablo Ortiz Monasterio, la seccion tambien destaca libros fotograficos que desempenaron un papel clave en la circulacion de estas obras.
"Las fotografias de esta exposicion fueron tomadas a lo largo de casi cien anos, y todas ellas abordan temas y conceptos relevantes para Mexico, un pais con una compleja historia y multiples memorias culturales", manifesto Julieta Pestarino, curadora asistente del Departamento de Fotografias del J. Paul Getty Museum y curadora de la exposicion. "Los fotografos mexicanos del siglo XX trabajaron en estrecha colaboracion entre si, al igual que con artistas, escritores, cineastas e incluso con antropologos. Cuando estas fotografias se observan en conjunto, surgen motivos recurrentes y formas de mirar que revelan un rico entramado de dialogo cultural y artistico. "Instante/revelacion" presenta al publico "instantes" que "revelan" las multiples formas en que se puede apreciar Mexico".
Todas las fotografias presentadas en "Instante/revelacion: Moments in Mexican Photography" provienen de las generosas donaciones realizadas al J. Paul Getty Museum por los coleccionistas Daniel Greenberg y Susan Steinhauser. Durante los ultimos 25 anos, las fotografias que incorporaron a la coleccion han enriquecido el acervo del Museo y ampliaron el acceso a piezas clave de la fotografia mexicana.
"Instante/revelacion: Momentos en la fotografia mexicana" se presenta en conjunto con "Cada minuto es historia: cinco perspectivas de Los Angeles", exposicion que destaca a cinco fotografos cuyas distintas practicas ampliaron las representaciones de las comunidades chicanas en Los Angeles durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX.
Con motivo de la inauguracion de la exposicion, el martes 1 de septiembre a las 7 pm, la investigadora Elizabeth Ferrer dirigira una mesa redonda con la participacion de los fotografos contemporaneos de ambas exposiciones George Rodriguez, Pablo Ortiz Monasterio, Reynaldo Rivera y Yolanda Andrade. Los artistas hablaran sobre los retos, las oportunidades y las implicaciones de trabajar en Los Angeles y la Ciudad de Mexico.
Tambien se ofreceran visitas guiadas en espanol mensualmente durante toda la exposicion, dirigidas por la curadora y por el equipo de educacion del museo. Visite getty.edu para conocer las fechas y obtener mas informacion.
Como parte de "Instante/revelacion", Getty Publications presenta un catalogo bilingue en espanol e ingles con reproducciones completas de las obras expuestas, ademas de un ensayo introductorio, textos de las secciones y biografias de los artistas, el cual ofrecera a los lectores una vision mas profunda de los temas y dialogos artisticos de la exposicion.
***
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/espanol-photography-fotografia-instante-revelacion-moments-in-mexican-photography
Free speech study finds surprising similarities between 'very liberal' and 'very conservative' Americans
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Aug. 11 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
Free speech study finds surprising similarities between 'very liberal' and 'very conservative' Americans
*
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 11, 2026 -They may not agree on much, but Americans who identify as "very liberal" or "very conservative" have strikingly similar attitudes toward free speech, according to a new survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The latest edition of the National Speech Index, a recurring survey that tracks Americans' views ... Show Full Article PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Aug. 11 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release: * * * Free speech study finds surprising similarities between 'very liberal' and 'very conservative' Americans * PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 11, 2026 -They may not agree on much, but Americans who identify as "very liberal" or "very conservative" have strikingly similar attitudes toward free speech, according to a new survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The latest edition of the National Speech Index, a recurring survey that tracks Americans' viewson free speech, finds that the most partisan among us are much more comfortable discussing controversial topics without fear of reprimand than liberals, moderates, or conservatives:
* Fifty-five percent of very liberal and 52% of very conservative respondents said they feel "very comfortable" discussing abortion rights -but only one-quarter of liberal, moderate, and conservative respondents feel the same.
* Forty-six percent of very liberal and 48% of very conservative respondents feel "very comfortable" discussing race in America, against just one-fifth of liberals and one-quarter of moderates and conservatives.
* Forty-two percent of very liberal and 54% of very conservative respondents feel "very comfortable" discussing the war in Iran, versus 22% of liberals, 25% of moderates, and 28% of conservatives.
Regardless of ideology, only 23% of Americans feel very comfortable discussing the Israel-Palestinian conflict, 26% feel very comfortable discussing transgender treatment for minors, and 28% feel very comfortable discussing ICE operations, evidence of the dismal state of free speech in America today.
"Many Americans have come to expect that sharing views some consider controversial will get them fired, kicked off social media, or even hunted down by the government," said FIRE Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. "Ideally, everyone should be comfortable expressing their opinions about key topics of debate, but most Americans don't appear to feel that way."
The survey also found that Americans are strongly concerned that the government will regulate how they use AI to express themselves: 93% say it's at least somewhat important for governments to protect their free speech when regulating the use of artificial intelligence to express ideas.
Americans are also concerned about the possibility of governments spying on their use of AI. Nearly four-fifths (79%) are at least somewhat concerned about government pressure on AI developers to weaken or remove safeguards for the purpose of domestic surveillance or autonomous weapon systems. About the same number (76%) are concerned about their use of AI being tracked or incorporated into a government database.
"Americans' concerns are well founded," said FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman. "Multiple states have already passed laws specifically limiting AI-generated expression about politicians and elections. Any regulation of AI must protect users' right to read, learn, and create."
The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab, to capture Americans' views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans' views change over time. The July 2026 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted from July 7, 2026 through July 20, 2026. The survey's margin of error is +/- 3%.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought -the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.
CONTACT:
Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Strategist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/free-speech-study-finds-surprising-similarities-between-very-liberal-and-very-conservative
* * *
Free speech study finds surprising similarities between 'very liberal' and 'very conservative' Americans
*
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 11, 2026 -They may not agree on much, but Americans who identify as "very liberal" or "very conservative" have strikingly similar attitudes toward free speech, according to a new survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The latest edition of the National Speech Index, a recurring survey that tracks Americans' views ... Show Full Article PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Aug. 11 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release: * * * Free speech study finds surprising similarities between 'very liberal' and 'very conservative' Americans * PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 11, 2026 -They may not agree on much, but Americans who identify as "very liberal" or "very conservative" have strikingly similar attitudes toward free speech, according to a new survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The latest edition of the National Speech Index, a recurring survey that tracks Americans' viewson free speech, finds that the most partisan among us are much more comfortable discussing controversial topics without fear of reprimand than liberals, moderates, or conservatives:
* Fifty-five percent of very liberal and 52% of very conservative respondents said they feel "very comfortable" discussing abortion rights -but only one-quarter of liberal, moderate, and conservative respondents feel the same.
* Forty-six percent of very liberal and 48% of very conservative respondents feel "very comfortable" discussing race in America, against just one-fifth of liberals and one-quarter of moderates and conservatives.
* Forty-two percent of very liberal and 54% of very conservative respondents feel "very comfortable" discussing the war in Iran, versus 22% of liberals, 25% of moderates, and 28% of conservatives.
Regardless of ideology, only 23% of Americans feel very comfortable discussing the Israel-Palestinian conflict, 26% feel very comfortable discussing transgender treatment for minors, and 28% feel very comfortable discussing ICE operations, evidence of the dismal state of free speech in America today.
"Many Americans have come to expect that sharing views some consider controversial will get them fired, kicked off social media, or even hunted down by the government," said FIRE Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. "Ideally, everyone should be comfortable expressing their opinions about key topics of debate, but most Americans don't appear to feel that way."
The survey also found that Americans are strongly concerned that the government will regulate how they use AI to express themselves: 93% say it's at least somewhat important for governments to protect their free speech when regulating the use of artificial intelligence to express ideas.
Americans are also concerned about the possibility of governments spying on their use of AI. Nearly four-fifths (79%) are at least somewhat concerned about government pressure on AI developers to weaken or remove safeguards for the purpose of domestic surveillance or autonomous weapon systems. About the same number (76%) are concerned about their use of AI being tracked or incorporated into a government database.
"Americans' concerns are well founded," said FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman. "Multiple states have already passed laws specifically limiting AI-generated expression about politicians and elections. Any regulation of AI must protect users' right to read, learn, and create."
The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab, to capture Americans' views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans' views change over time. The July 2026 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted from July 7, 2026 through July 20, 2026. The survey's margin of error is +/- 3%.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought -the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.
CONTACT:
Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Strategist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/free-speech-study-finds-surprising-similarities-between-very-liberal-and-very-conservative