Featured Stories
What Drugmakers Should Have Seen Coming with Contract Pharmacy Restrictions
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
What Drugmakers Should Have Seen Coming with Contract Pharmacy Restrictions
*
When drugmakers began restricting contract pharmacy use in 2020, the companies considered they had a win-win scenario. Either they would win in the courts, setting a legal precedent for limiting the number of prescriptions available at 340B prices or their coercive tactic would force lawmakers to take up their goal of broader 340B reform, in which some of their restrictive practices would become law.
Contract pharmacy
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
What Drugmakers Should Have Seen Coming with Contract Pharmacy Restrictions
*
When drugmakers began restricting contract pharmacy use in 2020, the companies considered they had a win-win scenario. Either they would win in the courts, setting a legal precedent for limiting the number of prescriptions available at 340B prices or their coercive tactic would force lawmakers to take up their goal of broader 340B reform, in which some of their restrictive practices would become law.
Contract pharmacyrestrictions interfere with how eligible nonprofit healthcare providers use retail pharmacies for dispensing prescription drugs that qualify for discounted prices. The 340B Drug Pricing Program allows nonprofit healthcare providers to purchase prescription drugs at discounted prices, helping them generate savings they plow back into care for low-income patients. Drug companies use restrictions as a means for reducing the number of prescriptions they have to sell at a discount; fewer discounted prescriptions mean more profit.
Drugmakers did not predict the bipartisan backlash at the state level. States understand that if their nonprofit providers have fewer 340B dollars to subsidize health services, then state Medicaid programs would have to pick up the slack. If low-income Americans cannot get care at their nonprofit provider, those patients will seek care elsewhere - likely clogging up urgent-care centers for primary health services and leaving Medicaid, and thus the taxpayer, on the hook.
In 2020, six drugmakers announced their first rounds of contract pharmacy limitations. Fast forward to today and more than 40 drugmakers have instituted some type of limits on where and which of their products they make available at retail pharmacies. Did companies think states would just acquiesce to an onslaught of new patients ending up on their Medicaid rolls?
As the map from the 340B Report shows, 22 states have enacted contract pharmacy protection laws. Two others have had bills clear at least one legislative chamber. In 2025-2026, seven additional state legislatures introduced pharmacy access legislation.
Perhaps drug companies will succeed in their goal of comprehensive 340B reform at the federal level. Even if they are successful, that reform may not include preemption provisions that prohibit state contract pharmacy laws. Drug companies are banking on the much more arduous process of passing a bill at the federal level, while states outmaneuvered them by enacting 340B pharmacy access laws across the country. Drugmakers expected little to no pushback - they were wrong.
John Arcano is Senior Manager of Policy and Government Affairs at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/what-drugmakers-should-have-seen-coming-with-contract-pharmacy-restrictions/ (TNSmrp)
The Data Maven: Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections Takes Investment
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
The Data Maven: Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections Takes Investment
*
Rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States remain high, and robust public-health funding is essential to slow the STI epidemic. But the investment for a healthier country has been lacking.
While there has been a slight dip in STI rates over the past few years, we can't get too comfortable. Overall cases of STIs are 13% higher than they were 10 years ago. With 2.2 million cases of STIs in
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
The Data Maven: Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections Takes Investment
*
Rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States remain high, and robust public-health funding is essential to slow the STI epidemic. But the investment for a healthier country has been lacking.
While there has been a slight dip in STI rates over the past few years, we can't get too comfortable. Overall cases of STIs are 13% higher than they were 10 years ago. With 2.2 million cases of STIs inthe U.S., focused public-health work is needed to bring the rates down to where they were a decade ago -- and even 20 years ago.
Some of the most effective ways to reduce STI rates include education, outreach, testing, prevention, and treatment.
These efforts can look like advertising campaigns, educational materials, community-embedded disease intervention specialists, and testing and outreach at community events and in mobile testing units. All of these methods rely on public-health funding from government.
One study found a discernible correlation between funding and rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea. In this study, for every 1% increase in annual funding for the prevention program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea would decrease by 0.17% and 0.33%, respectively.
The study additionally found that the rates of reported STIs in a given year were more closely associated with funding from the previous year than the current year, indicating that sustained investment in prevention is needed to make a meaningful, long-term impact.
Unfortunately, public-health prevention dollars have been decreasing in recent years. Federal investments from the CDC have not increased since 2003; instead, they have seen a $21 million reduction in funds since then. STI rates can't be significantly reduced without reinvigorated investment in prevention and testing.
The U.S. government must commit sustained funding to STI prevention to help reduce annual cases and protect public health -- and to create a healthier America.
Lauren Natoli is the Director of Advocacy and Policy Research in the Public Health Division of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/prevention-of-sexually-transmitted-infections-takes-investment/
Saluting 'Atheists in Foxholes' on Veterans Day
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 11 [Category: Religion] -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Saluting 'Atheists in Foxholes' on Veterans Day
*
It's never been more important than on this Veterans Day to acknowledge nonreligious and non-Christian veterans -- especially given the current Pentagon leadership's Christian nationalist actions.
FFRF has erected a monument to the proverbial "atheists in foxholes" at its office building in Madison, Wis., thus making such an acknowledgment.
At a time when half of active military members are either atheist or agnostic
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 11 [Category: Religion] -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Saluting 'Atheists in Foxholes' on Veterans Day
*
It's never been more important than on this Veterans Day to acknowledge nonreligious and non-Christian veterans -- especially given the current Pentagon leadership's Christian nationalist actions.
FFRF has erected a monument to the proverbial "atheists in foxholes" at its office building in Madison, Wis., thus making such an acknowledgment.
At a time when half of active military members are either atheist or agnostic(18 percent) or have no religious affiliation (32 percent), unpatriotic Pentagon moves to infuse and enforce conservative Christianity are alarmingly increasing. These theocratic diktats include:
* Erasing atheism. The Pentagon has eliminated atheism and numerous minority religious and nonreligious identities from its official religious affiliation classifications.
* Reshaping the military chaplaincy around Christianity. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called for sweeping changes to the Chaplain Corps, disparaged secular humanism and emphasized a more explicitly religious approach to military spiritual readiness.
* Creating a sweeping new Office of Religious Affairs with authority to assess a service member's supposed "spiritual fitness."
* Using official military communications to promote Christianity. Pentagon messaging has increasingly featured biblical verses, Christian imagery and religious declarations, including Hegseth's references to a "heavenly king," "putting on the full armor of God" and assertions that "the real battle is spiritual."
* Institutionalizing sectarian prayer. Hegseth has inaugurated monthly evangelical prayer services at the Pentagon during the workday. At the first service in May 2025, he declared that the nation needed to be "on bended knee, recognizing the providence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
CNN recently reported that Ryan Higgins, Hegseth's senior adviser on religious matters, has spent years openly rejecting the separation of church and state, promoting conspiracy theories and spreading racist and homophobic rhetoric.
"Our service members swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not Christianity," says FFRF Co-President Dan Barker.
This Veterans Day holds particular significance for FFRF following the death of World War II veteran Joseph Cunningham, a longtime FFRF member and former member of its board, who died Oct. 30 at age 100. Cunningham stands in the photograph that accompanies this statement beside FFRF's monument honoring "Atheists in Foxholes" at its national headquarters in Madison, Wis.
FFRF's unique monument to "atheists in foxholes" is made of the same granite as Mount Rushmore. It serves as a testament to the U.S. military's diversity in the face of Hegseth's theocratic propaganda. It resides in FFRF's Rose Zerwick Memorial Courtyard and Patio outside Freethought Hall, FFRF's bustling office building in downtown Madison. Veterans, their families and active-duty freethinkers are cordially invited to visit and contemplate FFRF's "Atheists in Foxholes" monument, which honors freethinking veterans and their service.
The words, penned by FFRF principal founder Anne Nicol Gaylor, read:
In Memory of
Atheists in Foxholes
And the countless freethinkers who have served this country with honor and distinction.
Presented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation with hope that in the future humankind may learn to avoid all war.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters of nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF advocates for freethinkers' rights across the globe. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
***
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/saluting-atheists-in-foxholes-on-veterans-day/
Reason Foundation: Federal Drug Reform Bill Would Make the Harms of Prohibition a Factor in Scheduling
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
A federal drug reform bill would make the harms of prohibition a factor in scheduling
The Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act of 2026 would require the government to weigh the costs of prohibiting a drug.
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
November 10, 2026
Drug law sits at the intersection between punishment and public health. Since at least the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, U.S. law has weighted that balance in favor of punitive control policies,
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
A federal drug reform bill would make the harms of prohibition a factor in scheduling
The Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act of 2026 would require the government to weigh the costs of prohibiting a drug.
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
November 10, 2026
Drug law sits at the intersection between punishment and public health. Since at least the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, U.S. law has weighted that balance in favor of punitive control policies,giving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)--through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)--primary authority in deciding which drug-related activities are legitimate and which can land you in prison. Federal health agencies supply scientific input, but the ultimate scheduling decision has rested with law enforcement.
A new bill from Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), the Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act of 2026, would rebalance that equation. It moves core scheduling and research authority from the DOJ to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), overhauls how drugs are scheduled and studied, and removes marijuana from the list of controlled substances.
But the bill's most consequential changes aren't merely about which agency makes scheduling decisions, but how those decisions are made. Cohen's bill would, for the first time, require the government to weigh the costs of prohibiting a drug, not just the risks the drug itself might pose.
Since the CSA's adoption, federal law has sorted drugs into five categories based on their perceived danger to individuals and society. Schedule I substances are prohibited outright, deemed to have a high abuse potential and no accepted medical uses (this schedule includes marijuana, heroin, LSD, psilocybin, MDMA); schedules II through V gradually loosen restrictions for drugs deemed to have a lower abuse potential and accepted medical uses.
The attorney general, through the DEA, applies an eight-factor analysis that largely puts the burden of proof on the substance, focusing almost entirely on its potential to harm individuals and society. Therapeutic uses are technically part of this evaluation, but the agency has historically treated FDA approval as the measure of "accepted medical use." That's something of a catch-22, as FDA approval is a high bar to clear and, for a substance that is already scheduled, stigmatized, and difficult to study due to the restrictions imposed by the CSA, makes generating the evidence to support its approval even more difficult.
More fundamentally, current law does not ask the government to weigh a drug's potential harm against the harms of prohibiting it, such as eliminating useful therapies and pushing users toward more dangerous drugs or sources.
Cohen's bill makes that comparison mandatory. Officials must consider as a factor "what threat to public health, if any, from scheduling the drug or other substance, including replacement by alternative drugs or substances." They must also consider whether that drug is currently being used to reduce people's dependence on other harmful substances to which users might return should their drug of choice be restricted.
Cannabis offers an example of how Cohen's bill might work in practice. For more than half a century, marijuana has sat in Schedule I alongside heroin and LSD based on the DEA's determination that it has no accepted medical use. That classification has never matched the evidence, with thousands of years of medicinal use, scientific validation of its efficacy for conditions like chronic pain and chemotherapy-induced nausea, and state-authorized medical cannabis programs since 1996. Under the framework Cohen proposes, that evidence would have to be weighed along with the harms users might face from prohibition.
To make these considerations systematic, the bill replaces the current five schedules with a dual approach. A drug would receive a Roman numeral (I through IV) to reflect its risk of misuse, potential for dependence, and threat to public health, plus a letter (A through E) reflecting its therapeutic value. A drug could therefore be classified as high-risk while still being recognized as substantially beneficial in a medical context. This is a reality medical practitioners face daily, with drugs like fentanyl that carry significant risks but remain indispensable in surgery.
Scheduling authority would move to the secretary of HHS. The attorney general would supply a law enforcement evaluation on the single factor of illicit manufacturing and trafficking, with the attorney general and Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) authorized to request and initiate scheduling action, but HHS would make the ultimate determination. A new 15-to-25-member expert committee appointed by HHS would conduct a transparent "multicriteria decision analysis," scoring substances against 15 factors and weighting the evidence, with its analysis published and available to the public.
The bill also modernizes emergency scheduling. The standard of an "imminent hazard to the public safety," which currently allows the attorney general to bypass the eight-factor analysis to temporarily list substances as schedule I, is undefined in federal statute. Cohen's bill would substitute this with a defined "imminent significant threat to public health" standard, and shift initiation of emergency scheduling from the attorney general to the ONDCP director (colloquially known as the "drug czar").
The bill also eliminates quantity-based mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking while keeping maximum limits, including up to life in prison where death or serious bodily injury occurs, and preserves enhanced penalties for repeat offenders and serious drug felonies. But it also creates a resentencing pathway for previous convictions and requires the Bureau of Prisons to identify eligible prisoners and file motions on their behalf. Marijuana and THC come off the schedules entirely, though the FDA retains authority over cannabis products. The bill also allows continued marijuana testing of federal employees.
The bill is not so radical that it ends the federal government's punitive approach to drug policy. It still permits federal imprisonment for those possessing illicit drugs. Transferring scheduling authority to HHS is also no guarantee against political interference, since the HHS secretary is appointed by the president and appoints the expert committee members. But the transparency provisions in Cohen's bill would at least make such political interference more visible to the public by, for example, disclosing how the expert committee weighted the evidence behind its analysis.
The bill also retains an emergency-scheduling pathway that would allow HHS to bypass the new expert committee and its transparent scoring process. But it would still require consideration of the statutory factors--including the harms of prohibition--when the ONDCP director initiates emergency scheduling. The bill also raises maximum fines for certain drug offenses, though Cohen argues this is largely to account for inflation since the penalties were set in 1986.
Cohen is retiring this year, and his bill is unlikely to pass in the lame-duck session, so it is best seen as a benchmark for future CSA reform efforts. At a minimum, those efforts should adopt Cohen's provision requiring the government to weigh the costs of prohibition, including the damage done to individuals and society when legal supply channels close. Adopting that requirement would shift federal drug policy away from its current default of control first, evidence later, and toward an approach more grounded in science and public health.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/a-federal-drug-reform-bill-would-make-the-harms-of-prohibition-a-factor-in-scheduling/
Open Enrollment is Vital for People Living with HIV in the U.S.
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Open Enrollment is Vital for People Living with HIV in the U.S.
*
Open enrollment is a specific time each year when people can sign up for, change, or cancel their health insurance and employee benefits.
For 2027 coverage under the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," the open enrollment period generally runs from November 1, 2026, to December 15, 2026 -- for most states using HealthCare.gov -- with some state-run exchanges starting earlier.
These are important dates for people living
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 11 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Open Enrollment is Vital for People Living with HIV in the U.S.
*
Open enrollment is a specific time each year when people can sign up for, change, or cancel their health insurance and employee benefits.
For 2027 coverage under the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," the open enrollment period generally runs from November 1, 2026, to December 15, 2026 -- for most states using HealthCare.gov -- with some state-run exchanges starting earlier.
These are important dates for people livingwith HIV to secure affordable health plans, lock in coverage for specialized medications, and ensure access to preferred medical providers.
Why does open enrollment matter?
First, there's protection for pre-existing conditions: Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge more because of an HIV diagnosis.
And there's medication affordability: Antiretroviral therapies can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars a month out-of-pocket, making a robust insurance plan essential for lowering drug costs.
Also, there's network and formulary alignment: Open enrollment allows individuals to review plan formularies (drug lists) and doctor networks to guarantee their specific HIV treatment regimen and specialists are fully covered.
And there's achieving viral suppression: Consistent and affordable access to care leads to sustained viral suppression, which improves personal longevity and reduces transmission risk.
Finally, there's optimizing assistance programs: Many state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) help clients enroll in marketplace health plans rather than paying for drugs piecemeal, stretching public resources to help more people.
John Hassell is the National Director of Advocacy for AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/open-enrollment-is-vital-for-people-living-with-hiv-in-the-u-s/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Beijing's Railway and Military Influence is Changing Southeast Asia
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
November 10, 2026
China's Road Into Laos
Jake Scott
Beijing's railway and military influence is changing Southeast Asia.
-
China is increasingly drawing Laos into its orbit through two main strategies: a railway freight line and a joint military air facility. Not going unnoticed among neighboring nations--especially Laos's close ally Vietnam--the move feeds directly into China's regional strategy of making mainland Southeast Asia a secure southern flank through close economic ties.
In
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
November 10, 2026
China's Road Into Laos
Jake Scott
Beijing's railway and military influence is changing Southeast Asia.
-
China is increasingly drawing Laos into its orbit through two main strategies: a railway freight line and a joint military air facility. Not going unnoticed among neighboring nations--especially Laos's close ally Vietnam--the move feeds directly into China's regional strategy of making mainland Southeast Asia a secure southern flank through close economic ties.
Insome ways, this is a continuation of a long tradition in the way China views the region. In the imperial era, China treated many of its neighbors as, essentially, vassals. Its peripheral nations were part of a hierarchy with China at the center, with the Chinese court demanding tribute in return for access to Chinese markets and trade. Legitimacy was a consequence of recognition, and Laos sat very close to the bottom of the list.
Whether this carries through into contemporary Chinese policy is up for debate: officially, Beijing's foreign policy is that all countries are equal, a consequence not of the official state communist ideology but of the country's experience of being carved up by foreign powers.
However, this does not always play out in practice. In Hanoi in 2010, then-Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told his ASEAN counterparts that "China is a big country, and other countries are small countries." Alongside the Belt and Road Initiative's launch in 2013, China's foreign policies have shifted in a concrete direction: using infrastructure investment to deepen relations between other countries and bring them closer to its center of gravity.
It's exactly this approach that China is pursuing in Laos and Thailand. As Kuik and Rosli put it, "of all the Southeast Asian countries, the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) has been one of the most enthusiastic in engaging with and embracing China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)," and the flagship project in this effort is the Laos-China railway project. With construction inaugurated in December 2021, the railway will connect Laos's capital of Vientiane with the border town of Boten, which sits on one side of the Laos-China border, with Mohan.
Initially estimated to cost $6 billion, financed through $3.54 billion of debt and $2.36 billion of equity, Beijing has put up as much as 70% of the cost, with the rail line connecting Vientiane via Boten to the Chinese town of Kunming. In the first half of 2026 alone, the value of trade passing through the line is estimated to be "17.17 billion yuan (about $2.53 billion), 33.8% higher than a year earlier." Evidently a worthwhile investment for the Chinese, it's not so much for the Laotians, whose 30% share was even financed with Chinese money.
Beyond the substantial investment (and ownership) on China's side, the rail line has had the major impact of tying Laos ever closer to the Chinese economy as well as deepening Laos's existing debt. The Lao government's 30% share of the investment was partially secured through a loan (roughly $460 million, as the Laotian government could only afford $250 million of its own funding) from the China Exim Bank, in which the Laotian shares in the railway, the track itself, and even the rights to operate it are collateral, alongside "revenues from a bauxite mine and three potash mines."
Likewise, the railway itself was built to Chinese standards, and plugged directly into the existing Chinese rail infrastructure. There is nothing inherently wrong with this--in fact, standardized rail lines between nations facilitate trade, and this has borne out for Laos: for example, freight costs from Kunming to Thailand via Laos have decreased by 30-50%. Even so, Laos remains exposed to Chinese leverage over pricing and governance, due to the financing arrangement laid out above, as well as China's dominance in the operational control of the rail line itself.
Beyond economics, however, China is deepening its influence in Laos through more hard-power methods. The China-Laos Joint Support and Training Center, and the China-Laos Friendship Aviation Academy, sited at the Ban Keun airport, began operating on September 29, with the official statement declaring that "the two institutions, jointly maintained and operated by both sides, aim to help Laos strengthen the training of its air force pilots." Although, as The Nation [Thailand] has reported, concerns have been raised by diplomats, who are "following construction at Ban Keun" and "are looking for signs of air defences, ammunition and fuel storage, and surveillance facilities."
Alexander Neill, of Hawaii's Pacific Forum, warned that "Such installations could indicate military functions beyond training. Ban Keun could eventually accommodate larger aircraft, including planes used for signals intelligence and electronic surveillance that could extend China's reach into Southeast Asia."
Sebastian Strangio at the Diplomat went one step further, claiming that "the Ban Keun facility has the potential to alter the strategic map of mainland Southeast Asia, pulling Laos and Cambodia further out of the Vietnamese sphere of influence."
No wonder, then, that Vietnam has responded frostily to the development. On November 5, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pham Thu Hang said, "Vietnam always hopes Laos will develop in a peaceful, independent and self-reliant manner," and that "such cooperation must at the same time be a positive contribution to peace, security, stability and prosperity in the region and the world." It's the inclusion of "self-reliance" that barbs the statement.
Now, China is looking to use Laos as a route into Thailand, and subsequently to the eastern seaboard. The primary method for doing so is the planned expansion of the Thai-China high speed railway line, which was initially approved by the Thai cabinet in 2017 and expected to begin operating in 2027. While it is now not due to begin operation until 2030, Thai Transport Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn has already laid out the government's intention to tender for Phase 2 of the railway in 2027.
Will the Thai-China line have the same effect on relations between the two nations as the Laos-China deal has? The answer is, decidedly less so: Thailand has long been a participant in the Belt and Road Initiative, but primarily on its own terms, as its economy is more resilient than Laos's and can pay for the investment itself.
That does not mean that China is without leverage, though. The technology is coming exclusively from China--in 2020, the State Railway of Thailand signed a contract with China Railway International Company Limited worth just over 50 billion baht (equivalent to about $1.5 billion at the time). It has not gone without notice, either, as more than 90% of the Thai respondents to the ISEAS survey of regional opinion expressed concern over China's "growing regional economic influence."
It's not a secret that China is using its economic muscle to bind foreign economies tightly to it. With the Belt and Road Initiative spanning the globe, and China increasing its military presence abroad (as in Laos, and so too in Cambodia and Djibouti), developments like these must be watched closely. Is the claim that they could "redraw the region's strategic map" overblown? Time will tell.
* * *
Jake Scott
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/chinas-road-into-laos/
Asia Foundation and the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics Partner to Strengthen Cyber Resilience for Small Businesses
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 11 -- The Asia Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The Asia Foundation and the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics Partner to Strengthen Cyber Resilience for Small Businesses
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, November 10, 2026 -- The Asia Foundation and the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics, an international network of cybersecurity clinics based in higher-education institutions, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to establish the Consortium's Asia-Pacific Chapter. The partnership connects clinics across the region to help small businesses and community-level
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 11 -- The Asia Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The Asia Foundation and the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics Partner to Strengthen Cyber Resilience for Small Businesses
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, November 10, 2026 -- The Asia Foundation and the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics, an international network of cybersecurity clinics based in higher-education institutions, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to establish the Consortium's Asia-Pacific Chapter. The partnership connects clinics across the region to help small businesses and community-levelorganizations address growing cyber threats while preparing students for cybersecurity careers.
The MOU formally establishes the Consortium's Asia-Pacific Chapter, convened by The Asia Foundation (TAF) through the APAC Cybersecurity Fund (ACF), a program supported by Google.org, Google's philanthropic arm. The APAC Chapter brings together 30 clinics across 14 countries in Asia and the Pacific, including 18 established through the ACF program.
Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) power local economies across Asia and the Pacific, but frequently operate without dedicated IT staff or resources to recover from cyber incidents. Modeled on legal and medical school clinics, and housed at higher-education institutions, cybersecurity clinics provide pro bono services under faculty supervision. Through the ACF program, cybersecurity clinics help small businesses, nonprofits, local governments, rural school districts, and local utility providers, while students gain experience applying their skills to real-world challenges.
"The APAC Chapter brings together two important goals: helping small businesses access practical cybersecurity support and preparing students to become the next generation of cybersecurity professionals," said Anthea Mulakala, senior director of digital economy at The Asia Foundation. "By connecting higher-education-based clinics across the region and linking them to the global Consortium, we are building a network that can share expertise, develop local capacity, and help more MSMEs navigate cyber risks as they participate in the digital economy."
The partnership brings complementary strengths to this work. TAF will continue to convene and coordinate the APAC Chapter, support engagement among participating clinics, and facilitate knowledge sharing with the wider Consortium. The Consortium will connect the Chapter to its global network and provide opportunities for APAC-based clinics to access shared resources, exchange knowledge, and participate in international activities.
The Consortium is housed administratively at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley). The partnership between TAF and the Consortium builds on a long-standing relationship between TAF and UC Berkeley and reflects both organizations' shared commitment to academic exchange, policy, and institutional collaboration across Asia and the Pacific.
"Connecting university clinics across different regions creates valuable opportunities for students and faculty to learn from one another and contribute to the growing field of public interest in cybersecurity," said Ann Cleaveland, co-Chair of the Consortium and Executive Director of the UC Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity. "We're thrilled to see the movement for cybersecurity clinics snowball around the globe and the innovation in clinical practice that comes with partners like The Asia Foundation and the APAC member clinics."
* * *
About The Asia Foundation
The Asia Foundation is an international nonprofit organization working to solve the toughest social and economic challenges in Asia and the Pacific. Informed by more than 70 years of experience and deep local knowledge, TAF works with partners across more than 20 countries to improve lives and expand opportunities.
* * *
About the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics
The Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics is a global network advancing hands-on cybersecurity education and public service through higher-education-based cybersecurity clinics. Housed at the UC Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity, the Consortium connects clinics and practitioners to share resources, best practices, and opportunities for collaboration. Catalyzed by Craig Newmark Philanthropies and scaled by Google.org, with key support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Okta for Good, the Consortium has grown from four founding clinics to over 70. In just five years, its member clinics have trained over 6,400 students who have served nearly 1,900 clients across five continents. Learn more at cybersecurityclinics.org.
* * *
About the APAC Cybersecurity Fund
The APAC Cybersecurity Fund is a program of The Asia Foundation, supported by Google.org, designed to strengthen inclusive and sustainable cybersecurity ecosystems across Asia and the Pacific. The program supports micro and small businesses, nonprofits, and social enterprises through cyber hygiene training, policy research, stakeholder engagement, and the development of university-based cybersecurity clinics across 13 countries.
* * *
Original text here: https://asiafoundation.org/the-asia-foundation-and-the-consortium-of-cybersecurity-clinics-partner-to-strengthen-cyber-resilience-for-small-businesses/
