Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Depoliticizing Public Employee Pension Plans - Building Robust Legal and Structural Guardrails for Sustainability
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 2 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Rod Crane, senior fellow at the Pension Integrity Project:
* * *
Depoliticizing public employee pension plans: Building robust legal and structural guardrails for sustainability
Many political vulnerabilities that threaten sound design and funding of public pensions can be addressed with apolitical guardrails.
-
The hard-won public pension reforms of recent years remain vulnerable to constant political pressure. Political leaders must deal with demands from both plan stakeholders and the general public ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 2 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Rod Crane, senior fellow at the Pension Integrity Project: * * * Depoliticizing public employee pension plans: Building robust legal and structural guardrails for sustainability Many political vulnerabilities that threaten sound design and funding of public pensions can be addressed with apolitical guardrails. - The hard-won public pension reforms of recent years remain vulnerable to constant political pressure. Political leaders must deal with demands from both plan stakeholders and the general publicto address exigent budget demands (e.g., Medicaid funding due to federal cutbacks). Public spending challenges can tempt lawmakers to make decisions that can harm the longer-term goal of properly and prudently designing and managing public pension plans.
To secure the future of these traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plans, legislatures and policymakers must consider how the political process can contribute to unsound pension benefit design and funding and establish structural guardrails to protect against those risks. This commentary examines functional and systemic gaps in the political process that should be addressed, compares them to the framework used in the private sector, and proposes a list of achievable structural reforms, with examples of states using them to good effect.
Gaps in public pension benefits and funding management contrasted with ERISA standards
State and local government DB pension systems are vulnerable to the political processes that determine how they are designed and funded. Governing bodies are generally unconstrained in their ability to grant pension benefits and set (or not set) the rules by which those benefits are funded. There generally are no minimum legally mandated design, funding, or plan management standards, unlike the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) framework for private sector DB plans. The gaps include:
Lack of enforceable contribution requirements: State and local government pension plan sponsors are generally not legally required to make actuarially determined contributions (ADCs), allowing chronic underfunding in many plans. This often lets immediate budgetary priorities override funding for pension benefits (e.g., Illinois, New Jersey, Kentucky). The fiduciary boards administering the plans typically lack authority to enforce funding. Additionally, public sector plans often employ actuarial funding methods that are not typically permitted for private plans. For example, many public plans use a level percent of payroll instead of a level dollar (equal $ per year) method to amortize unfunded liabilities, which pushes payment obligations to the latter part of the amortization period. For example, Illinois and New Jersey use a level percent-of-pay amortization over 15 to 20 years.
Contrast: ERISA mandates minimum required contributions and requires full level dollar funding over seven years for shortfalls. Non-compliance triggers IRS excise taxes (26 U.S.C. Sec. 4971). This more aggressive amortization mandate results in private plans averaging near 100% funding levels versus public plans' 77% aggregate funding level.
Political influence over DB benefits and funding: Public employees, retirees, and their representatives often have strong influence over public policymakers that can result in benefit enhancements (often for past service) that create new unfunded liabilities with little regard to the burden on current and future taxpayers and participants. Political pressure can even lead to benefit increases for poorly funded plans (e.g., Rhode Island's 2025 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) adding over $400 million in liabilities to a pension already below 65% funded).
Contrast: ERISA restricts benefit increases in underfunded private sector plans (<80% funded, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1083), enforced by the Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service, minimizing unfunded liabilities.
Inability to change future benefit accruals for existing employees: Many states have legal (typically court-imposed) restrictions that lock in major benefit structures for an employee's entire career, limiting the employer's ability to make changes due to changing circumstances, even for future service.
Contrast: ERISA protects accrued benefits from changes but allows benefit adjustments for future service.
Absence of employer-defined guidelines for managing investment and funding risk volatility: Many public plan sponsors have not established clear funding risk parameters for the fiduciary boards responsible for managing their plans. Without risk guidelines, there can be a mismatch between the plan sponsors' tolerance for funding volatility and the investment risks being taken. If the investment return assumption is overly optimistic or too conservative compared to the actual expected return based on investment allocation (e.g., 7.5% vs 6.0%), funding may be higher or lower than needed. Despite progress being made with many plan fiduciary boards reducing investment return assumptions, some remain overly optimistic (see the National Association of State Retirement Administrators list of plans with greater than 7.0% return assumptions) and/or may allocate funds to volatile assets (e.g., the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), which has private equity investments taking up to 40% of the portfolio). This can cause unpredictable contribution increases if expectations fall short, straining participating employers' budgets in unexpected ways.
Contrast: ERISA sets explicit funding and investment risk guardrails to help ensure proper and more consistent funding of pension promises. Private sector employers proactively define investment policies in plan documents, specifying asset allocation limits, risk tolerances, and return assumptions. IRC Section 412 minimum funding standards require return assumptions more aligned with high-quality corporate bond yields, resulting in 5.0%-6.5% return assumptions for liability calculations for most plans. Private sector employers appoint and direct fiduciaries accordingly and monitor adherence to these risk parameters, retaining authority to adjust policies to align with funding needs. Failure to manage pension funding within these parameters can result in the imposition of federal excise taxes on the employer.
Pension board missions may drift from core benefit objectives of the pension plan: Pension fiduciary bodies can veer from the plan's core mission to deliver promised benefits toward politically driven agendas. While state fiduciary laws impose legal standards of loyalty, prudence, and impartiality, when plan sponsors fail to establish objective employer-driven guardrails for plan management and investments, governing boards are more likely to include non-financial considerations. Retirement boards are not legislatures. They are fiduciaries entrusted with safeguarding billions in assets for the exclusive benefit of retirees. When non-financial values take precedence--absent actuarial or performance justification--the result is mission drift. Taxpayers, participants, and employers ultimately bear the cost if returns suffer or liabilities balloon.
Contrast: ERISA plans are less susceptible to mission drift toward non-financial considerations due to more clearly defined, stringent fiduciary standards. ERISA (29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104) requires fiduciaries to act solely in participants' financial interests, prioritizing returns and diversification. Non-financial considerations are permissible only if they do not sacrifice returns or increase risk (Department of Labor (DOL) Interpretive Bulletin 2015-01).
Both public and private sector plans face non-financial factor pressures, but ERISA's federal oversight, legal accountability, and risk of litigation by participants for breaches of fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty limit the impact compared to public plans' exposure to local politics, third parties, and stakeholder advocacy.
Politicized governmental investment policies: State and local government plan sponsors can and often do impose nonfinancial social policies on pension investments (e.g., in-state investing; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); environmental, social, and governance (ESG); tobacco; or fossil fuels). While these interests can be the prerogative of governments in their role as sovereigns, the inherent political nature of this, as it applies to pension funding, can negatively impact the otherwise prudent balancing of risk and return fiduciary objectives, resulting in lost investment returns.
Contrast: ERISA's fiduciary standards strictly prioritize fiduciary investment decisions for the exclusive benefit of the plans' participants. This focus on balancing risk and return considerations puts at least some constraints on non-financial influences and ensures prudent investments without the distraction of various social or political causes.
Public pension management reforms to reduce unreasonable political influence
Legislatures and other public policymakers should examine the level of systemic and functional gaps in public pension benefit and funding management for their plans and implement necessary reforms. The following table provides a list of potential specific actions that can be implemented, ranked by impact and feasibility. Examples of each currently being used in states are provided.
* * *
Table: Reform #1: Statutory Mandates for Full ADC Funding
Table: Reform #2: Automatic Contribution and Benefit Adjustment Mechanisms
Table: Reform #3: Shared Contribution as Check and Balance Control
Table: Reform #4: Independent Funding and Oversight Authority
Table: Reform #5: Plan sponsor-driven guardrails on fiduciary investment discretion
Table: Reform #6: Dedicated Revenue Streams
Table: Reform #7: Allow changes in DB benefits for future service
* * *
Many political vulnerabilities that threaten sound design and funding of public pensions can be addressed with apolitical guardrails. The systemic and functional gaps in public pensions contrast sharply with the rigorous ERISA standards that protect the private sector from improper and harmful perverse incentives. State and local policymakers should pursue reforms to protect public pensions from these politically driven incentives.
The success of several states, including Wisconsin, South Dakota, Colorado, Arizona, Tennessee, Utah, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas, demonstrates that statutory ADC mandates, automatic adjustments, dedicated revenues, and independent oversight promote sustainability. Shared contribution structures and clear funding requirements can remove the temptation to grant unfunded benefit enhancements. By implementing well-established structural reform mechanisms, legislatures can reduce the influence of political considerations on pension benefits and funding, ensuring the stability of these pension systems and avoiding undue burdens on taxpayers and other stakeholders.
* * *
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/depoliticizing-public-employee-pension-plans-building-robust-legal-and-structural-guardrails-for-sustainability/
* * *
Depoliticizing public employee pension plans: Building robust legal and structural guardrails for sustainability
Many political vulnerabilities that threaten sound design and funding of public pensions can be addressed with apolitical guardrails.
-
The hard-won public pension reforms of recent years remain vulnerable to constant political pressure. Political leaders must deal with demands from both plan stakeholders and the general public ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 2 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Rod Crane, senior fellow at the Pension Integrity Project: * * * Depoliticizing public employee pension plans: Building robust legal and structural guardrails for sustainability Many political vulnerabilities that threaten sound design and funding of public pensions can be addressed with apolitical guardrails. - The hard-won public pension reforms of recent years remain vulnerable to constant political pressure. Political leaders must deal with demands from both plan stakeholders and the general publicto address exigent budget demands (e.g., Medicaid funding due to federal cutbacks). Public spending challenges can tempt lawmakers to make decisions that can harm the longer-term goal of properly and prudently designing and managing public pension plans.
To secure the future of these traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plans, legislatures and policymakers must consider how the political process can contribute to unsound pension benefit design and funding and establish structural guardrails to protect against those risks. This commentary examines functional and systemic gaps in the political process that should be addressed, compares them to the framework used in the private sector, and proposes a list of achievable structural reforms, with examples of states using them to good effect.
Gaps in public pension benefits and funding management contrasted with ERISA standards
State and local government DB pension systems are vulnerable to the political processes that determine how they are designed and funded. Governing bodies are generally unconstrained in their ability to grant pension benefits and set (or not set) the rules by which those benefits are funded. There generally are no minimum legally mandated design, funding, or plan management standards, unlike the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) framework for private sector DB plans. The gaps include:
Lack of enforceable contribution requirements: State and local government pension plan sponsors are generally not legally required to make actuarially determined contributions (ADCs), allowing chronic underfunding in many plans. This often lets immediate budgetary priorities override funding for pension benefits (e.g., Illinois, New Jersey, Kentucky). The fiduciary boards administering the plans typically lack authority to enforce funding. Additionally, public sector plans often employ actuarial funding methods that are not typically permitted for private plans. For example, many public plans use a level percent of payroll instead of a level dollar (equal $ per year) method to amortize unfunded liabilities, which pushes payment obligations to the latter part of the amortization period. For example, Illinois and New Jersey use a level percent-of-pay amortization over 15 to 20 years.
Contrast: ERISA mandates minimum required contributions and requires full level dollar funding over seven years for shortfalls. Non-compliance triggers IRS excise taxes (26 U.S.C. Sec. 4971). This more aggressive amortization mandate results in private plans averaging near 100% funding levels versus public plans' 77% aggregate funding level.
Political influence over DB benefits and funding: Public employees, retirees, and their representatives often have strong influence over public policymakers that can result in benefit enhancements (often for past service) that create new unfunded liabilities with little regard to the burden on current and future taxpayers and participants. Political pressure can even lead to benefit increases for poorly funded plans (e.g., Rhode Island's 2025 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) adding over $400 million in liabilities to a pension already below 65% funded).
Contrast: ERISA restricts benefit increases in underfunded private sector plans (<80% funded, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1083), enforced by the Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service, minimizing unfunded liabilities.
Inability to change future benefit accruals for existing employees: Many states have legal (typically court-imposed) restrictions that lock in major benefit structures for an employee's entire career, limiting the employer's ability to make changes due to changing circumstances, even for future service.
Contrast: ERISA protects accrued benefits from changes but allows benefit adjustments for future service.
Absence of employer-defined guidelines for managing investment and funding risk volatility: Many public plan sponsors have not established clear funding risk parameters for the fiduciary boards responsible for managing their plans. Without risk guidelines, there can be a mismatch between the plan sponsors' tolerance for funding volatility and the investment risks being taken. If the investment return assumption is overly optimistic or too conservative compared to the actual expected return based on investment allocation (e.g., 7.5% vs 6.0%), funding may be higher or lower than needed. Despite progress being made with many plan fiduciary boards reducing investment return assumptions, some remain overly optimistic (see the National Association of State Retirement Administrators list of plans with greater than 7.0% return assumptions) and/or may allocate funds to volatile assets (e.g., the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), which has private equity investments taking up to 40% of the portfolio). This can cause unpredictable contribution increases if expectations fall short, straining participating employers' budgets in unexpected ways.
Contrast: ERISA sets explicit funding and investment risk guardrails to help ensure proper and more consistent funding of pension promises. Private sector employers proactively define investment policies in plan documents, specifying asset allocation limits, risk tolerances, and return assumptions. IRC Section 412 minimum funding standards require return assumptions more aligned with high-quality corporate bond yields, resulting in 5.0%-6.5% return assumptions for liability calculations for most plans. Private sector employers appoint and direct fiduciaries accordingly and monitor adherence to these risk parameters, retaining authority to adjust policies to align with funding needs. Failure to manage pension funding within these parameters can result in the imposition of federal excise taxes on the employer.
Pension board missions may drift from core benefit objectives of the pension plan: Pension fiduciary bodies can veer from the plan's core mission to deliver promised benefits toward politically driven agendas. While state fiduciary laws impose legal standards of loyalty, prudence, and impartiality, when plan sponsors fail to establish objective employer-driven guardrails for plan management and investments, governing boards are more likely to include non-financial considerations. Retirement boards are not legislatures. They are fiduciaries entrusted with safeguarding billions in assets for the exclusive benefit of retirees. When non-financial values take precedence--absent actuarial or performance justification--the result is mission drift. Taxpayers, participants, and employers ultimately bear the cost if returns suffer or liabilities balloon.
Contrast: ERISA plans are less susceptible to mission drift toward non-financial considerations due to more clearly defined, stringent fiduciary standards. ERISA (29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104) requires fiduciaries to act solely in participants' financial interests, prioritizing returns and diversification. Non-financial considerations are permissible only if they do not sacrifice returns or increase risk (Department of Labor (DOL) Interpretive Bulletin 2015-01).
Both public and private sector plans face non-financial factor pressures, but ERISA's federal oversight, legal accountability, and risk of litigation by participants for breaches of fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty limit the impact compared to public plans' exposure to local politics, third parties, and stakeholder advocacy.
Politicized governmental investment policies: State and local government plan sponsors can and often do impose nonfinancial social policies on pension investments (e.g., in-state investing; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); environmental, social, and governance (ESG); tobacco; or fossil fuels). While these interests can be the prerogative of governments in their role as sovereigns, the inherent political nature of this, as it applies to pension funding, can negatively impact the otherwise prudent balancing of risk and return fiduciary objectives, resulting in lost investment returns.
Contrast: ERISA's fiduciary standards strictly prioritize fiduciary investment decisions for the exclusive benefit of the plans' participants. This focus on balancing risk and return considerations puts at least some constraints on non-financial influences and ensures prudent investments without the distraction of various social or political causes.
Public pension management reforms to reduce unreasonable political influence
Legislatures and other public policymakers should examine the level of systemic and functional gaps in public pension benefit and funding management for their plans and implement necessary reforms. The following table provides a list of potential specific actions that can be implemented, ranked by impact and feasibility. Examples of each currently being used in states are provided.
* * *
Table: Reform #1: Statutory Mandates for Full ADC Funding
Table: Reform #2: Automatic Contribution and Benefit Adjustment Mechanisms
Table: Reform #3: Shared Contribution as Check and Balance Control
Table: Reform #4: Independent Funding and Oversight Authority
Table: Reform #5: Plan sponsor-driven guardrails on fiduciary investment discretion
Table: Reform #6: Dedicated Revenue Streams
Table: Reform #7: Allow changes in DB benefits for future service
* * *
Many political vulnerabilities that threaten sound design and funding of public pensions can be addressed with apolitical guardrails. The systemic and functional gaps in public pensions contrast sharply with the rigorous ERISA standards that protect the private sector from improper and harmful perverse incentives. State and local policymakers should pursue reforms to protect public pensions from these politically driven incentives.
The success of several states, including Wisconsin, South Dakota, Colorado, Arizona, Tennessee, Utah, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas, demonstrates that statutory ADC mandates, automatic adjustments, dedicated revenues, and independent oversight promote sustainability. Shared contribution structures and clear funding requirements can remove the temptation to grant unfunded benefit enhancements. By implementing well-established structural reform mechanisms, legislatures can reduce the influence of political considerations on pension benefits and funding, ensuring the stability of these pension systems and avoiding undue burdens on taxpayers and other stakeholders.
* * *
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/depoliticizing-public-employee-pension-plans-building-robust-legal-and-structural-guardrails-for-sustainability/
MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments
EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments
(Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds.
-
The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments (Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds. - The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June2026.
"This quarter's investments reflect the diversity of innovation happening across Michigan and beyond," said Jeff Wesley, Executive Director of Michigan Rise. "From healthcare technologies and AI-powered software to advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and financial services, we're continuing to support founders tackling meaningful challenges and building scalable businesses. These investments demonstrate our commitment to helping entrepreneurs access the capital and support they need to launch, grow, and create lasting impact."
Investments this quarter include the following:
* Akadeum Life Sciences (akadeum.com) - Uses buoyant microbubbles to separate cells and molecules, improving sample preparation for research and clinical use.
* Adrenaline Interactive (adrenalineinteractive.ai) - Puts real-world brands into video games as part of gameplay, allowing ads to appear naturally within the experience.
* Ankra Health (ankrahealth.com) - Uses data from labs, wearables, and medical records to predict health risks early and guide actions to improve health.
* AutoSitu (autositu.com) - Uses AI to review development plans for zoning and building code issues, enabling faster approvals with fewer revisions.
* Bit-Farms (bit-farms.com) - Creates subscription-based micro-farms that help schools, restaurants, and organizations grow fresh produce on-site while reducing waste and transportation costs.
* Bloom (bloomnetwork.ai) - Connects electric mobility and hard tech companies with services that bring products to market.
* Clicki Referrals (joinclicki.com) - Enables service businesses to launch and manage referral programs that drive customer growth.
* Crebit (crebitpay.com) - Provides a stablecoin-powered payments platform for faster, lower-cost tuition and remittance payments.
* Culturewell (getculturewell.com) - Tests surfaces in healthcare facilities to identify harmful germs, assess risk, and guide cleaning to prevent infections.
* Essata Technologies (essata.io) - Provides software to manage energy use and infrastructure in commercial buildings.
* FinGoal (fingoal.com) - Provides analytics tools that help financial institutions better understand customer spending habits and deliver more personalized banking experiences.
* Jupid (jupid.com) - Embeds business formation, accounting, tax, and compliance tools into digital banking platforms for entrepreneurs.
* Luminur - Supports emergency clinicians with decision tools that reduce unnecessary CT scans in pulmonary embolism care.
* PhotoniCare (photoni.care) - Develops imaging technology to diagnose ear infections and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.
* Promethient (thermavance.com) - Manufactures heated and cooled seating systems for industrial, commercial, and specialty use.
* Sail (savewithsail.com) - Provides an HSA/FSA reimbursement platform that enables upfront payment and automatic reimbursement.
* Side Door (sidedoorapp.com) - Offers an online platform that helps home buyers and sellers manage their own transactions with support from vetted professionals when needed.
* ScopeMed (scopemedicine.com) - Develops a nasal cannula system that improves oxygen delivery during endoscopy.
* SPARE (gotspare.com) - Provides an embedded financial services platform that expands access to banking without physical branches.
* Sit Sense - Builds automated medical recliners that reposition patients to prevent pressure injuries and reduce strain on caregivers.
* VERN AI (vernai.com) - Uses real-time emotion recognition to support applications in customer service, mental health, and other industries.
* VETR Health (vetrhealth.com) - Combines in-home veterinary care, telehealth services, and wellness plans that make pet healthcare more convenient and accessible.
* Wimee AI (wimee.tv) - Helps children build vocabulary and reading skills through an interactive learning platform featuring stories, creative activities, and guided exploration.
The MSU Research Foundation invests in early-stage technology startups through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise family of venture funds. This coordinated approach provides capital and support from pre-seed through follow-on investment, helping startups launch, grow, and scale in Michigan.
For more information about the MSU Research Foundation's investment funds and portfolio companies, visit msufoundation.org/venture-funds.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/msu-research-foundations-captive-venture-funds-close-23-investments/
* * *
MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments
(Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds.
-
The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments (Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds. - The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June2026.
"This quarter's investments reflect the diversity of innovation happening across Michigan and beyond," said Jeff Wesley, Executive Director of Michigan Rise. "From healthcare technologies and AI-powered software to advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and financial services, we're continuing to support founders tackling meaningful challenges and building scalable businesses. These investments demonstrate our commitment to helping entrepreneurs access the capital and support they need to launch, grow, and create lasting impact."
Investments this quarter include the following:
* Akadeum Life Sciences (akadeum.com) - Uses buoyant microbubbles to separate cells and molecules, improving sample preparation for research and clinical use.
* Adrenaline Interactive (adrenalineinteractive.ai) - Puts real-world brands into video games as part of gameplay, allowing ads to appear naturally within the experience.
* Ankra Health (ankrahealth.com) - Uses data from labs, wearables, and medical records to predict health risks early and guide actions to improve health.
* AutoSitu (autositu.com) - Uses AI to review development plans for zoning and building code issues, enabling faster approvals with fewer revisions.
* Bit-Farms (bit-farms.com) - Creates subscription-based micro-farms that help schools, restaurants, and organizations grow fresh produce on-site while reducing waste and transportation costs.
* Bloom (bloomnetwork.ai) - Connects electric mobility and hard tech companies with services that bring products to market.
* Clicki Referrals (joinclicki.com) - Enables service businesses to launch and manage referral programs that drive customer growth.
* Crebit (crebitpay.com) - Provides a stablecoin-powered payments platform for faster, lower-cost tuition and remittance payments.
* Culturewell (getculturewell.com) - Tests surfaces in healthcare facilities to identify harmful germs, assess risk, and guide cleaning to prevent infections.
* Essata Technologies (essata.io) - Provides software to manage energy use and infrastructure in commercial buildings.
* FinGoal (fingoal.com) - Provides analytics tools that help financial institutions better understand customer spending habits and deliver more personalized banking experiences.
* Jupid (jupid.com) - Embeds business formation, accounting, tax, and compliance tools into digital banking platforms for entrepreneurs.
* Luminur - Supports emergency clinicians with decision tools that reduce unnecessary CT scans in pulmonary embolism care.
* PhotoniCare (photoni.care) - Develops imaging technology to diagnose ear infections and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.
* Promethient (thermavance.com) - Manufactures heated and cooled seating systems for industrial, commercial, and specialty use.
* Sail (savewithsail.com) - Provides an HSA/FSA reimbursement platform that enables upfront payment and automatic reimbursement.
* Side Door (sidedoorapp.com) - Offers an online platform that helps home buyers and sellers manage their own transactions with support from vetted professionals when needed.
* ScopeMed (scopemedicine.com) - Develops a nasal cannula system that improves oxygen delivery during endoscopy.
* SPARE (gotspare.com) - Provides an embedded financial services platform that expands access to banking without physical branches.
* Sit Sense - Builds automated medical recliners that reposition patients to prevent pressure injuries and reduce strain on caregivers.
* VERN AI (vernai.com) - Uses real-time emotion recognition to support applications in customer service, mental health, and other industries.
* VETR Health (vetrhealth.com) - Combines in-home veterinary care, telehealth services, and wellness plans that make pet healthcare more convenient and accessible.
* Wimee AI (wimee.tv) - Helps children build vocabulary and reading skills through an interactive learning platform featuring stories, creative activities, and guided exploration.
The MSU Research Foundation invests in early-stage technology startups through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise family of venture funds. This coordinated approach provides capital and support from pre-seed through follow-on investment, helping startups launch, grow, and scale in Michigan.
For more information about the MSU Research Foundation's investment funds and portfolio companies, visit msufoundation.org/venture-funds.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/msu-research-foundations-captive-venture-funds-close-23-investments/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary Entitled 'Treading on the Market'
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ninos P. Malek, economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California:
* * *
Treading on the Market
If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them?
-
On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists a ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ninos P. Malek, economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California: * * * Treading on the Market If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them? - On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists atire as it rolls along the road.
Lower rolling resistance can improve fuel economy in gasoline-powered vehicles and extend the range of electric vehicles. Those sound like good things. And, according to the California Energy Commission, they come at relatively little cost.
The CEC estimates that under the first phase of the regulation, a set of four tires will cost consumers about $6 more while saving the average driver approximately $85 in fuel costs over the life of the tires. Under the stricter second phase, beginning in 2033, the additional cost is estimated at $26 per set, while fuel savings are projected to be approximately $179.
Assuming those estimates are accurate, most people would probably say, "Sounds like a pretty good deal." But that raises an obvious economic question: If these tires are such a good deal for consumers, why does the government need to force people to buy them?
Good economics requires looking beyond the most obvious effects of a policy and considering its effects on all groups, not merely the group policymakers intend to benefit. Engineers and regulators can measure rolling resistance. What they cannot objectively measure is how much an individual consumer values lower rolling resistance relative to all the other characteristics he or she might want in a tire.
Different drivers will weigh those other characteristics differently. Some care about price, practicality, ride comfort, or brand reputation. Someone who puts 5,000 miles on his or her luxury car may place less value on the fuel efficiency of these new tires than someone who puts 50,000 miles on his or her minivan. Thus, the government cannot determine that low-rolling-resistance tires are the best choice for every consumer.
F.A. Hayek explained this problem beautifully in his famous 1945 essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society."
The commissioners and staff at the CEC may possess excellent scientific information about tire performance. But they do not possess what Hayek called knowledge of "the particular circumstances of time and place."
They do not know my budget, how many miles I drive, how long I plan to keep my car, what weather conditions I encounter, what other bills I need to pay this month, or how much I value fuel economy relative to traction, comfort, durability, and other characteristics. Multiply that problem by millions of California drivers, and the knowledge problem becomes obvious.
This is precisely why decentralized markets are superior to top-down regulation. Markets allow millions of individuals, each possessing knowledge of his or her own circumstances and preferences, to make different choices. There is a simple alternative to a government mandate: provide consumers with information. If lower-rolling-resistance tires really offer the savings the CEC projects, tire retailers have a compelling sales pitch:
"This set of tires costs $26 more today, but we estimate that it will save you $179 in fuel over the life of the tires."
That is useful information that will allow consumers to evaluate the trade-offs and decide for themselves. That is very different from having the government make the decision for them. Markets do more than provide information. They respond to consumer demand. If motorists value the fuel savings enough to pay for more efficient tires, their purchases create profit opportunities for manufacturers to produce more of them. No mandate is necessary.
One of the first lessons economics students learn is that people respond to incentives. Another is that good intentions do not guarantee good results. The CEC expects the regulation to produce substantial benefits. But regulations also change incentives in ways policymakers may not anticipate.
Consider a lower-income driver whose tires need replacing. An additional $26 may seem insignificant to an affluent household, but to someone struggling to pay rent, groceries, gasoline, insurance, and utility bills, every additional expense matters. The long-term savings may sound appealing to some consumers, but the buyer should be free to choose cheaper tires now and get the more fuel-efficient ones when he can afford them. Without this choice, some drivers might have to continue driving on worn tires, creating a safety trade-off that is easy to overlook when the focus is primarily on fuel savings. Sound economic analysis requires us to consider not merely the immediate and visible benefits of a policy, but also its less obvious costs and unintended consequences.
Interestingly, the CEC's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program exempts various specialty tires from its minimum performance standards, including competition tires, certain winter tires, off-road tires, motorcycle tires, temporary spare tires, and several other categories. Why? Because different tires serve different purposes. That is perfectly sensible. But once we acknowledge that tire buyers face trade-offs among different characteristics, we have already conceded much of Hayek's point.
The CEC argues that its standards can be achieved without sacrificing safety, tire life, or other important tire characteristics. Suppose that is entirely correct. It still does not resolve the fundamental economic question. Demonstrating that a product has desirable characteristics is not the same thing as demonstrating that the government should prohibit consumers from purchasing alternatives.
Supporters of low-rolling-resistance tires also argue that the standards will produce environmental benefits. According to the CEC, the standards are expected eventually to reduce gasoline consumption by approximately 141 million gallons annually and carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 2 million metric tons per year. Those benefits should similarly not simply be ignored, but the existence of an externality or so-called "market failure" does not automatically establish that a particular government intervention will improve matters. Economic analysis must compare real-world institutions, not an imperfect market with an imaginary perfect government. Government actors are human beings, too. They face information problems, imperfect incentives, political pressures, administrative costs, and the possibility of unintended consequences.
Competition allows us to discover information that cannot simply be known in advance by a central authority. An unhampered market allows tire manufacturers to experiment with different combinations of price, efficiency, traction, durability, safety, comfort, and performance. Consumers then reveal what they value through their decisions to buy--or to abstain from buying--those products. Those decisions transmit information throughout the market. Profits encourage manufacturers to produce more of what consumers value. Losses tell them to change course.
Perhaps the CEC is correct: California consumers overwhelmingly prefer lower-rolling-resistance tires once they understand the potential fuel savings. If so, there is an easier way to find out. If the CEC's numbers are right, tire manufacturers and retailers have every incentive to advertise those savings, and consumers have every incentive to take advantage of them. California is already notorious for its taxes and regulations. It does not need another mandate to protect consumers from choices Sacramento believes they should not be allowed to make. When it comes to California's tire market, perhaps the state should adopt a simpler rule: Don't tread on consumer choice.
* * *
Ninos P. Malek is an Economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California and a Lecturer at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. He teaches principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, economics of social issues, and intermediate microeconomics. His previous experience also includes teaching introductory economics at George Mason University.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/treading-on-the-market/
* * *
Treading on the Market
If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them?
-
On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists a ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ninos P. Malek, economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California: * * * Treading on the Market If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them? - On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists atire as it rolls along the road.
Lower rolling resistance can improve fuel economy in gasoline-powered vehicles and extend the range of electric vehicles. Those sound like good things. And, according to the California Energy Commission, they come at relatively little cost.
The CEC estimates that under the first phase of the regulation, a set of four tires will cost consumers about $6 more while saving the average driver approximately $85 in fuel costs over the life of the tires. Under the stricter second phase, beginning in 2033, the additional cost is estimated at $26 per set, while fuel savings are projected to be approximately $179.
Assuming those estimates are accurate, most people would probably say, "Sounds like a pretty good deal." But that raises an obvious economic question: If these tires are such a good deal for consumers, why does the government need to force people to buy them?
Good economics requires looking beyond the most obvious effects of a policy and considering its effects on all groups, not merely the group policymakers intend to benefit. Engineers and regulators can measure rolling resistance. What they cannot objectively measure is how much an individual consumer values lower rolling resistance relative to all the other characteristics he or she might want in a tire.
Different drivers will weigh those other characteristics differently. Some care about price, practicality, ride comfort, or brand reputation. Someone who puts 5,000 miles on his or her luxury car may place less value on the fuel efficiency of these new tires than someone who puts 50,000 miles on his or her minivan. Thus, the government cannot determine that low-rolling-resistance tires are the best choice for every consumer.
F.A. Hayek explained this problem beautifully in his famous 1945 essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society."
The commissioners and staff at the CEC may possess excellent scientific information about tire performance. But they do not possess what Hayek called knowledge of "the particular circumstances of time and place."
They do not know my budget, how many miles I drive, how long I plan to keep my car, what weather conditions I encounter, what other bills I need to pay this month, or how much I value fuel economy relative to traction, comfort, durability, and other characteristics. Multiply that problem by millions of California drivers, and the knowledge problem becomes obvious.
This is precisely why decentralized markets are superior to top-down regulation. Markets allow millions of individuals, each possessing knowledge of his or her own circumstances and preferences, to make different choices. There is a simple alternative to a government mandate: provide consumers with information. If lower-rolling-resistance tires really offer the savings the CEC projects, tire retailers have a compelling sales pitch:
"This set of tires costs $26 more today, but we estimate that it will save you $179 in fuel over the life of the tires."
That is useful information that will allow consumers to evaluate the trade-offs and decide for themselves. That is very different from having the government make the decision for them. Markets do more than provide information. They respond to consumer demand. If motorists value the fuel savings enough to pay for more efficient tires, their purchases create profit opportunities for manufacturers to produce more of them. No mandate is necessary.
One of the first lessons economics students learn is that people respond to incentives. Another is that good intentions do not guarantee good results. The CEC expects the regulation to produce substantial benefits. But regulations also change incentives in ways policymakers may not anticipate.
Consider a lower-income driver whose tires need replacing. An additional $26 may seem insignificant to an affluent household, but to someone struggling to pay rent, groceries, gasoline, insurance, and utility bills, every additional expense matters. The long-term savings may sound appealing to some consumers, but the buyer should be free to choose cheaper tires now and get the more fuel-efficient ones when he can afford them. Without this choice, some drivers might have to continue driving on worn tires, creating a safety trade-off that is easy to overlook when the focus is primarily on fuel savings. Sound economic analysis requires us to consider not merely the immediate and visible benefits of a policy, but also its less obvious costs and unintended consequences.
Interestingly, the CEC's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program exempts various specialty tires from its minimum performance standards, including competition tires, certain winter tires, off-road tires, motorcycle tires, temporary spare tires, and several other categories. Why? Because different tires serve different purposes. That is perfectly sensible. But once we acknowledge that tire buyers face trade-offs among different characteristics, we have already conceded much of Hayek's point.
The CEC argues that its standards can be achieved without sacrificing safety, tire life, or other important tire characteristics. Suppose that is entirely correct. It still does not resolve the fundamental economic question. Demonstrating that a product has desirable characteristics is not the same thing as demonstrating that the government should prohibit consumers from purchasing alternatives.
Supporters of low-rolling-resistance tires also argue that the standards will produce environmental benefits. According to the CEC, the standards are expected eventually to reduce gasoline consumption by approximately 141 million gallons annually and carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 2 million metric tons per year. Those benefits should similarly not simply be ignored, but the existence of an externality or so-called "market failure" does not automatically establish that a particular government intervention will improve matters. Economic analysis must compare real-world institutions, not an imperfect market with an imaginary perfect government. Government actors are human beings, too. They face information problems, imperfect incentives, political pressures, administrative costs, and the possibility of unintended consequences.
Competition allows us to discover information that cannot simply be known in advance by a central authority. An unhampered market allows tire manufacturers to experiment with different combinations of price, efficiency, traction, durability, safety, comfort, and performance. Consumers then reveal what they value through their decisions to buy--or to abstain from buying--those products. Those decisions transmit information throughout the market. Profits encourage manufacturers to produce more of what consumers value. Losses tell them to change course.
Perhaps the CEC is correct: California consumers overwhelmingly prefer lower-rolling-resistance tires once they understand the potential fuel savings. If so, there is an easier way to find out. If the CEC's numbers are right, tire manufacturers and retailers have every incentive to advertise those savings, and consumers have every incentive to take advantage of them. California is already notorious for its taxes and regulations. It does not need another mandate to protect consumers from choices Sacramento believes they should not be allowed to make. When it comes to California's tire market, perhaps the state should adopt a simpler rule: Don't tread on consumer choice.
* * *
Ninos P. Malek is an Economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California and a Lecturer at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. He teaches principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, economics of social issues, and intermediate microeconomics. His previous experience also includes teaching introductory economics at George Mason University.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/treading-on-the-market/
Rockefeller Foundation: Muldoon Named CEO of RF Catalytic Capital
NEW YORK, Sept. 1 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on Aug. 31, 2026:
* * *
Mike Muldoon Named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital
Muldoon to lead RFCC's next phase of growth
-
The Rockefeller Foundation announced today that Mike Muldoon has been named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC), the Foundation's independent charitable affiliate. In its short history, RFCC has proven its ability to catalyze high-impact initiatives and institutions. Mr. Muldoon, who joined the Foundation in 2017, will accelerate that success. He will also ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 1 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on Aug. 31, 2026: * * * Mike Muldoon Named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital Muldoon to lead RFCC's next phase of growth - The Rockefeller Foundation announced today that Mike Muldoon has been named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC), the Foundation's independent charitable affiliate. In its short history, RFCC has proven its ability to catalyze high-impact initiatives and institutions. Mr. Muldoon, who joined the Foundation in 2017, will accelerate that success. He will alsocontinue to serve as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the President as the organization begins a search for a new Chief of Staff.
"Over nearly a decade at The Rockefeller Foundation, Mike has championed our boldest solutions and unlikeliest partnerships" said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. "He understands how to bring public and private capital together in service of meaningful results, and he knows how to build and lead organizations that can deliver results in times of disruption. I'm looking forward to watching RFCC become even stronger and more innovative under his capable leadership."
Today, new funders and sources of capital are seeking ways to achieve philanthropic impact and scale, even as some long-standing funders take a step back. Addressing the world's most critical problems will cost trillions of dollars -- and require new partnerships and vehicles to mobilize capital efficiently. Since its founding, RFCC has mobilized, accelerated, and partnered on projects totaling over $1 billion in the areas of clean energy, health, and economic opportunity. It has a proven track record of managing all the operational parts of a new project or partnership -- legal, financial, technical and implementation.
"RFCC serves as a bridge between the well-established work of The Rockefeller Foundation and the emerging pools of capital seeking to scale their impact," said Mr. Muldoon. "At a time of new innovations and new philanthropists coming into the space, RFCC has a unique opportunity to mobilize large pools of capital towards impact. Catalyzing these types of partnerships has been the same idea that has driven every role I've had at RF -- bringing different blends of capital together to get resources where they need to go, faster. RFCC has already shown what's possible and is ready to scale with the ambition of addressing the problems in front of us. I'm looking forward to working with this team and our partners to get there."
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance. For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/mike-muldoon-named-chief-executive-officer-of-rf-catalytic-capital/
* * *
Mike Muldoon Named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital
Muldoon to lead RFCC's next phase of growth
-
The Rockefeller Foundation announced today that Mike Muldoon has been named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC), the Foundation's independent charitable affiliate. In its short history, RFCC has proven its ability to catalyze high-impact initiatives and institutions. Mr. Muldoon, who joined the Foundation in 2017, will accelerate that success. He will also ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 1 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on Aug. 31, 2026: * * * Mike Muldoon Named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital Muldoon to lead RFCC's next phase of growth - The Rockefeller Foundation announced today that Mike Muldoon has been named Chief Executive Officer of RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC), the Foundation's independent charitable affiliate. In its short history, RFCC has proven its ability to catalyze high-impact initiatives and institutions. Mr. Muldoon, who joined the Foundation in 2017, will accelerate that success. He will alsocontinue to serve as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the President as the organization begins a search for a new Chief of Staff.
"Over nearly a decade at The Rockefeller Foundation, Mike has championed our boldest solutions and unlikeliest partnerships" said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. "He understands how to bring public and private capital together in service of meaningful results, and he knows how to build and lead organizations that can deliver results in times of disruption. I'm looking forward to watching RFCC become even stronger and more innovative under his capable leadership."
Today, new funders and sources of capital are seeking ways to achieve philanthropic impact and scale, even as some long-standing funders take a step back. Addressing the world's most critical problems will cost trillions of dollars -- and require new partnerships and vehicles to mobilize capital efficiently. Since its founding, RFCC has mobilized, accelerated, and partnered on projects totaling over $1 billion in the areas of clean energy, health, and economic opportunity. It has a proven track record of managing all the operational parts of a new project or partnership -- legal, financial, technical and implementation.
"RFCC serves as a bridge between the well-established work of The Rockefeller Foundation and the emerging pools of capital seeking to scale their impact," said Mr. Muldoon. "At a time of new innovations and new philanthropists coming into the space, RFCC has a unique opportunity to mobilize large pools of capital towards impact. Catalyzing these types of partnerships has been the same idea that has driven every role I've had at RF -- bringing different blends of capital together to get resources where they need to go, faster. RFCC has already shown what's possible and is ready to scale with the ambition of addressing the problems in front of us. I'm looking forward to working with this team and our partners to get there."
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance. For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/mike-muldoon-named-chief-executive-officer-of-rf-catalytic-capital/
Report: AAFA Names 2026 Asthma Capitals, Highlights Risk Factors That Increase Asthma-Related ER Visits and Deaths
ARLINGTON, Virginia, Sept. 1 (TNSrpt) -- The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America issued the following news release:
* * *
REPORT: AAFA Names 2026 Asthma Capitals, Highlights Risk Factors That Increase Asthma-Related ER Visits and Deaths
Poverty, respiratory infections, air pollution, and health care barriers make living with asthma more challenging
-
As hospital emergency departments prepare for a surge of asthma-related visits starting in September, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) released its 2026 Asthma Capitals(R) report naming the most challenging places to live ... Show Full Article ARLINGTON, Virginia, Sept. 1 (TNSrpt) -- The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America issued the following news release: * * * REPORT: AAFA Names 2026 Asthma Capitals, Highlights Risk Factors That Increase Asthma-Related ER Visits and Deaths Poverty, respiratory infections, air pollution, and health care barriers make living with asthma more challenging - As hospital emergency departments prepare for a surge of asthma-related visits starting in September, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) released its 2026 Asthma Capitals(R) report naming the most challenging places to livein the United States with asthma. This year's report names Allentown, Pennsylvania the #1 Asthma Capital in the U.S.
Allentown is the most challenging city in the U.S. to live with asthma due to its higher-than-average asthma prevalence and having the highest rate of asthma-related emergency department visits of all cities analyzed. This year's ranking marks the third time in the past four years that Allentown earned the top spot.
"In the United States, 1 in 12 people have asthma and between 9 and 11 people die each day from asthma," said Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of AAFA. "The more than 28 million people in the US with asthma face missed days of school and work, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. Our Asthma Capitals report should be a wake-up call for policymakers and a roadmap for policy improvements. Recent policy changes to our nation's healthcare infrastructure mean millions more people may lack access to the care they need to treat and manage their asthma."
The Top 20 Asthma Capitals for 2026 (out of 100 areas ranked) are:
1. Allentown, PA
2. Detroit, MI
3. Rochester, NY
4. Philadelphia, PA
5. Cleveland, OH
6. Lakeland, FL
7. Syracuse, NY
8. Hartford, CT
9. Charleston, SC
10. Sacramento, CA
11. Columbia, SC
12. Fresno, CA
13. Virginia Beach, VA
14. Spokane, WA
15. Albany, NY
16. Baltimore, MD
17. Providence, RI
18. Dallas, TX
19. Milwaukee, WI
20. Phoenix, AZ
* * *
The rankings are based on estimated asthma prevalence, emergency department (ED) visits due to asthma, and asthma-related fatalities. AAFA only evaluates the top 100 populated places (based on metropolitan statistical areas or MSAs) in the contiguous ("lower 48") states for this report. To see the complete 100-city list ranking, visit: asthmacapitals.org
People living in or near the top Asthma Capitals may face higher rates of poverty, poor air quality, lower community protection from respiratory infections, higher exposure to tobacco and pollen, or limited access to health insurance and asthma specialists.
The report's findings indicate respiratory infections are a key driver of asthma-related emergency department visits, with a notable spike in visits starting in September and running through respiratory infection season (well into the winter months).
September: The Start of Asthma Peak Season
The report's release coincides with the start of what is known as Asthma Peak Season. AAFA says people should start taking steps now to manage their asthma symptoms during this challenging time.
"AAFA's Asthma Capitals report is released at the start of Asthma Peak Season to raise awareness of the challenges people with asthma start facing in fall each year," said Melanie Carver, chief mission officer at AAFA. "Pediatric asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits begin to climb in September and October, as children return to school and respiratory infection season begins. Throughout the fall and winter, asthma-related ED visits surge when respiratory infections circulate. Vaccines that provide protection from the flu, COVID-19, RSV, and other respiratory infections can help minimize potential complications for people with asthma exposed to these illnesses. Policymakers should take steps to improve rather than limit access to health care and vaccines for people with asthma."
Mitchell Grayson, MD, professor of pediatrics and Chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University, and chair of AAFA's Medical Scientific Council says the actions people with asthma take now will make a difference in how they experience Asthma Peak Season.
"Achieving well-controlled asthma is possible when you live in a healthy environment and have access to appropriate care and treatment. If you have asthma, work with your doctor (preferably an asthma specialist) to develop an Asthma Action Plan, take any asthma medicines as prescribed, get updated vaccines, and limit your exposure to your asthma triggers. Putting your plan into place now can help you stay healthy through the fall and winter."
* * *
About the Research
AAFA publishes the Asthma Capitals(R) report to monitor the nationwide impacts of asthma. The report analyzes asthma data across the United States and ranks cities by the most critical of health outcomes - asthma prevalence, emergency department visits due to asthma attacks, and asthma-related mortality. The outcomes are not weighted equally. The report also examines asthma risk factors that influence the outcomes.
AAFA evaluates data for the 100 most-populated cities in the continental United States, based on metropolitan statistical data in the contiguous ("lower 48") states. MSAs are cities and their surrounding areas (like suburbs and nearby rural areas). The report does not reflect:
* Cities and areas not in the top 100 list by population size.
* Completely rural areas that are not located within a metropolitan statistical area.
* Anchorage, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Navajo Nation Reservation; or Cherokee Nation Reservation, due to lack of matching data with other cities, counties, and states.
The 2026 Asthma Capitals report is an independent research project of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), made possible by support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Sanofi, and Regeneron. AAFA also thanks Komodo Health and Pollen Sense, LLC for additional support for data used in this report.
* * *
About AAFA
Founded in 1953, AAFA is the oldest and largest non-profit patient organization dedicated to saving lives and improving the quality of life for people affected by asthma and allergic diseases through support, advocacy, education, and research. AAFA offers extensive support for individuals and families affected by asthma and allergic diseases, such as food allergies and atopic dermatitis (eczema). Through its online patient support communities, network of regional chapters, and collaborations with community-based groups, AAFA empowers patients and their families by providing practical, evidence-based information and community programs and services. AAFA is the first asthma and allergy patient advocacy group certified to meet the standards of excellence set by the National Health Council. For more information, visit: aafa.org and kidswithfoodallergies.org
* * *
REPORT: https://aafa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/aafa-2026-asthma-capitals-report.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://aafa.org/report-aafa-names-2026-asthma-capitals-highlights-risk-factors-that-increase-asthma-related-er-visits-and-deaths/
* * *
REPORT: AAFA Names 2026 Asthma Capitals, Highlights Risk Factors That Increase Asthma-Related ER Visits and Deaths
Poverty, respiratory infections, air pollution, and health care barriers make living with asthma more challenging
-
As hospital emergency departments prepare for a surge of asthma-related visits starting in September, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) released its 2026 Asthma Capitals(R) report naming the most challenging places to live ... Show Full Article ARLINGTON, Virginia, Sept. 1 (TNSrpt) -- The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America issued the following news release: * * * REPORT: AAFA Names 2026 Asthma Capitals, Highlights Risk Factors That Increase Asthma-Related ER Visits and Deaths Poverty, respiratory infections, air pollution, and health care barriers make living with asthma more challenging - As hospital emergency departments prepare for a surge of asthma-related visits starting in September, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) released its 2026 Asthma Capitals(R) report naming the most challenging places to livein the United States with asthma. This year's report names Allentown, Pennsylvania the #1 Asthma Capital in the U.S.
Allentown is the most challenging city in the U.S. to live with asthma due to its higher-than-average asthma prevalence and having the highest rate of asthma-related emergency department visits of all cities analyzed. This year's ranking marks the third time in the past four years that Allentown earned the top spot.
"In the United States, 1 in 12 people have asthma and between 9 and 11 people die each day from asthma," said Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of AAFA. "The more than 28 million people in the US with asthma face missed days of school and work, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. Our Asthma Capitals report should be a wake-up call for policymakers and a roadmap for policy improvements. Recent policy changes to our nation's healthcare infrastructure mean millions more people may lack access to the care they need to treat and manage their asthma."
The Top 20 Asthma Capitals for 2026 (out of 100 areas ranked) are:
1. Allentown, PA
2. Detroit, MI
3. Rochester, NY
4. Philadelphia, PA
5. Cleveland, OH
6. Lakeland, FL
7. Syracuse, NY
8. Hartford, CT
9. Charleston, SC
10. Sacramento, CA
11. Columbia, SC
12. Fresno, CA
13. Virginia Beach, VA
14. Spokane, WA
15. Albany, NY
16. Baltimore, MD
17. Providence, RI
18. Dallas, TX
19. Milwaukee, WI
20. Phoenix, AZ
* * *
The rankings are based on estimated asthma prevalence, emergency department (ED) visits due to asthma, and asthma-related fatalities. AAFA only evaluates the top 100 populated places (based on metropolitan statistical areas or MSAs) in the contiguous ("lower 48") states for this report. To see the complete 100-city list ranking, visit: asthmacapitals.org
People living in or near the top Asthma Capitals may face higher rates of poverty, poor air quality, lower community protection from respiratory infections, higher exposure to tobacco and pollen, or limited access to health insurance and asthma specialists.
The report's findings indicate respiratory infections are a key driver of asthma-related emergency department visits, with a notable spike in visits starting in September and running through respiratory infection season (well into the winter months).
September: The Start of Asthma Peak Season
The report's release coincides with the start of what is known as Asthma Peak Season. AAFA says people should start taking steps now to manage their asthma symptoms during this challenging time.
"AAFA's Asthma Capitals report is released at the start of Asthma Peak Season to raise awareness of the challenges people with asthma start facing in fall each year," said Melanie Carver, chief mission officer at AAFA. "Pediatric asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits begin to climb in September and October, as children return to school and respiratory infection season begins. Throughout the fall and winter, asthma-related ED visits surge when respiratory infections circulate. Vaccines that provide protection from the flu, COVID-19, RSV, and other respiratory infections can help minimize potential complications for people with asthma exposed to these illnesses. Policymakers should take steps to improve rather than limit access to health care and vaccines for people with asthma."
Mitchell Grayson, MD, professor of pediatrics and Chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University, and chair of AAFA's Medical Scientific Council says the actions people with asthma take now will make a difference in how they experience Asthma Peak Season.
"Achieving well-controlled asthma is possible when you live in a healthy environment and have access to appropriate care and treatment. If you have asthma, work with your doctor (preferably an asthma specialist) to develop an Asthma Action Plan, take any asthma medicines as prescribed, get updated vaccines, and limit your exposure to your asthma triggers. Putting your plan into place now can help you stay healthy through the fall and winter."
* * *
About the Research
AAFA publishes the Asthma Capitals(R) report to monitor the nationwide impacts of asthma. The report analyzes asthma data across the United States and ranks cities by the most critical of health outcomes - asthma prevalence, emergency department visits due to asthma attacks, and asthma-related mortality. The outcomes are not weighted equally. The report also examines asthma risk factors that influence the outcomes.
AAFA evaluates data for the 100 most-populated cities in the continental United States, based on metropolitan statistical data in the contiguous ("lower 48") states. MSAs are cities and their surrounding areas (like suburbs and nearby rural areas). The report does not reflect:
* Cities and areas not in the top 100 list by population size.
* Completely rural areas that are not located within a metropolitan statistical area.
* Anchorage, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Navajo Nation Reservation; or Cherokee Nation Reservation, due to lack of matching data with other cities, counties, and states.
The 2026 Asthma Capitals report is an independent research project of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), made possible by support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Sanofi, and Regeneron. AAFA also thanks Komodo Health and Pollen Sense, LLC for additional support for data used in this report.
* * *
About AAFA
Founded in 1953, AAFA is the oldest and largest non-profit patient organization dedicated to saving lives and improving the quality of life for people affected by asthma and allergic diseases through support, advocacy, education, and research. AAFA offers extensive support for individuals and families affected by asthma and allergic diseases, such as food allergies and atopic dermatitis (eczema). Through its online patient support communities, network of regional chapters, and collaborations with community-based groups, AAFA empowers patients and their families by providing practical, evidence-based information and community programs and services. AAFA is the first asthma and allergy patient advocacy group certified to meet the standards of excellence set by the National Health Council. For more information, visit: aafa.org and kidswithfoodallergies.org
* * *
REPORT: https://aafa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/aafa-2026-asthma-capitals-report.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://aafa.org/report-aafa-names-2026-asthma-capitals-highlights-risk-factors-that-increase-asthma-related-er-visits-and-deaths/
National Scleroderma Foundation: Two CAR-T Clinical Trials Paused: An Update
DANVERS, Massachusetts, Sept. 1 -- The National Scleroderma Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Two CAR-T Clinical Trials Paused: An Update
*
National Scleroderma Foundation leadership is aware of the pause in two CAR-T clinical development programs and is closely following developments.
For people living with scleroderma, particularly those with severe disease and limited treatment options, emerging approaches such as CAR-T and other cellular therapies have generated much-needed hope. We recognize that news of a clinical trial pause can therefore be deeply concerning to people living ... Show Full Article DANVERS, Massachusetts, Sept. 1 -- The National Scleroderma Foundation posted the following news: * * * Two CAR-T Clinical Trials Paused: An Update * National Scleroderma Foundation leadership is aware of the pause in two CAR-T clinical development programs and is closely following developments. For people living with scleroderma, particularly those with severe disease and limited treatment options, emerging approaches such as CAR-T and other cellular therapies have generated much-needed hope. We recognize that news of a clinical trial pause can therefore be deeply concerning to people livingwith scleroderma, their families and care partners.
Safety must always be the first priority in clinical research. It is important that investigators, regulators, and trial sponsors fully evaluate the available information, understand what occurred, and determine the appropriate path forward.
At the same time, we would caution against drawing broader conclusions about CAR-T therapy, and other cellular therapies, or their potential in scleroderma based on a single clinical development. Scleroderma remains a disease with significant unmet need, and continued rigorous research into CAR-T and other innovative approaches is essential.
While the National Scleroderma Foundation does not endorse specific drugs, treatments or clinical trials, we regularly provide educational information about clinical research and emerging therapies, including CAR-T. That content is developed with medical and scientific experts and informed by people with lived experience, and is provided strictly for educational purposes.
Clinical research is an important and ongoing conversation within the scleroderma community. People living with scleroderma and their families closely follow advances in research because there is an urgent need for better treatments and, ultimately, a cure. There is tremendous interest in clinical trial participation, but also a clear need for patients to have reliable information to help them make informed decisions.
Our role is to help people understand clinical trials broadly: what questions to ask, how to weigh potential benefits and risks, where to find trusted information, and why it is important to work closely with their own health care providers when considering whether a particular study is appropriate for them.
Whenever a safety concern emerges in a clinical trial, our community pays close attention.
We are still learning about the circumstances surrounding these pauses, and it would be premature to speculate about what they may mean. We will continue to follow the information as it becomes available, advocate for clear and timely communication with the patient community, and support the rigorous research needed to advance new treatment options for people living with scleroderma.
***
Original text here: https://scleroderma.org/two-car-t-clinical-trials-paused-an-update/
* * *
Two CAR-T Clinical Trials Paused: An Update
*
National Scleroderma Foundation leadership is aware of the pause in two CAR-T clinical development programs and is closely following developments.
For people living with scleroderma, particularly those with severe disease and limited treatment options, emerging approaches such as CAR-T and other cellular therapies have generated much-needed hope. We recognize that news of a clinical trial pause can therefore be deeply concerning to people living ... Show Full Article DANVERS, Massachusetts, Sept. 1 -- The National Scleroderma Foundation posted the following news: * * * Two CAR-T Clinical Trials Paused: An Update * National Scleroderma Foundation leadership is aware of the pause in two CAR-T clinical development programs and is closely following developments. For people living with scleroderma, particularly those with severe disease and limited treatment options, emerging approaches such as CAR-T and other cellular therapies have generated much-needed hope. We recognize that news of a clinical trial pause can therefore be deeply concerning to people livingwith scleroderma, their families and care partners.
Safety must always be the first priority in clinical research. It is important that investigators, regulators, and trial sponsors fully evaluate the available information, understand what occurred, and determine the appropriate path forward.
At the same time, we would caution against drawing broader conclusions about CAR-T therapy, and other cellular therapies, or their potential in scleroderma based on a single clinical development. Scleroderma remains a disease with significant unmet need, and continued rigorous research into CAR-T and other innovative approaches is essential.
While the National Scleroderma Foundation does not endorse specific drugs, treatments or clinical trials, we regularly provide educational information about clinical research and emerging therapies, including CAR-T. That content is developed with medical and scientific experts and informed by people with lived experience, and is provided strictly for educational purposes.
Clinical research is an important and ongoing conversation within the scleroderma community. People living with scleroderma and their families closely follow advances in research because there is an urgent need for better treatments and, ultimately, a cure. There is tremendous interest in clinical trial participation, but also a clear need for patients to have reliable information to help them make informed decisions.
Our role is to help people understand clinical trials broadly: what questions to ask, how to weigh potential benefits and risks, where to find trusted information, and why it is important to work closely with their own health care providers when considering whether a particular study is appropriate for them.
Whenever a safety concern emerges in a clinical trial, our community pays close attention.
We are still learning about the circumstances surrounding these pauses, and it would be premature to speculate about what they may mean. We will continue to follow the information as it becomes available, advocate for clear and timely communication with the patient community, and support the rigorous research needed to advance new treatment options for people living with scleroderma.
***
Original text here: https://scleroderma.org/two-car-t-clinical-trials-paused-an-update/
FFRF Contacts Pentagon Over Its Christianizing of History Curriculum
MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 1 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF contacts Pentagon over its Christianizing of history curriculum
A new history curriculum for the federal school system serving military families appears designed to promote Christianity while presenting Islam as a threat to Western civilization.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has written a letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft that expresses serious constitutional and educational concerns over the introduction of a new "Western Civilization ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 1 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF contacts Pentagon over its Christianizing of history curriculum A new history curriculum for the federal school system serving military families appears designed to promote Christianity while presenting Islam as a threat to Western civilization. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has written a letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft that expresses serious constitutional and educational concerns over the introduction of a new "Western Civilizationto 1500" course. The department's education arm reportedly operates approximately 160 schools in 11 countries, educating roughly 70,000 children of active-duty military personnel and civilian service members.
Beginning this fall, high school students may take the course to satisfy their world history graduation requirement. The course will use "The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition, Volume I: The Ancient World and Christendom," published by Encounter Books, with suggested lesson plans developed in partnership with Hillsdale College. Hillsdale College, a small ultraconservative Christian college in Michigan devoted to the "teachings and practices of the Christian faith," has forged a close relationship with President Trump's White House, including producing propaganda for America's 250th anniversary. FFRF has previously warned about the Department of Education's inappropriate history partnership with Hillsdale College.
Historians and educators who've reviewed excerpts of the textbook have warned that it misleadingly equates Western civilization with Christianity -- and portrays Islam as a threat to both. For example, the book reportedly credits Christianity with promoting "humane cosmopolitanism" while characterizing Arabs as resentful or bitter toward Christians and Jews. A section on "Holy War and Martyrdom in Battle" reportedly defends Christian warfare, including the Crusades, with an accompanying depiction of Islam as glorifying violence and warfare.
"This is exactly the kind of religious favoritism that has no place in a federal public school," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Military families represent the full religious -- and nonreligious -- diversity of our country, where Christians are 62 percent of the population, but religiously unaffiliated are 29 percent and other religions 7 percent."
In fact, Gaylor points out, "18 percent of active military members are atheist/agnostic. Another 32 percent have no religious affiliation, according to researcher Ryan Burge, putting the 'Nones' overall at half of current military members! Their children do not deserve Christian nationalist disinformation dressed up as history."
FFRF's concerns extend beyond a single textbook. "War" Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly advocated classical Christian education and has repeatedly linked Christianity with American identity and Western civilization. In his 2022 book, "Battle for the American Mind," Hegseth characterized secular education as a threat to America and Western civilization and encouraged parents to send their children to classical Christian schools.
Against that backdrop, the leadership of the department's education section has reportedly been reorganized to promote "patriotic values and classical learning." Most significantly, Craft reportedly told his subordinates that classical learning was a priority coming directly from Hegseth and that the Department of War Education Activity had been tasked with determining how lessons from classical learning in private schools could be introduced into "a public school setting like us."
FFRF stresses that maintaining this distinction is constitutionally critical.
"Private religious schools are free to teach students that Christianity represents the pinnacle of civilization, that American institutions are divinely inspired, or that other religions are theologically mistaken," FFRF's letter explains. "Federal public schools are not."
The First Amendment requires the government to remain neutral toward religion. Public schools may objectively teach about Christianity, Islam and other religions and their roles in history. But government schools may not promote Christianity, disparage other faiths or use history instruction to inculcate students with a favored religious worldview.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality "between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." FFRF warns that the Department of War Education Activity must not place the federal government's imprimatur on "religious apologetics masquerading as history."
"Service members make extraordinary sacrifices for a Constitution that protects Americans of every faith and no faith," adds FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line, who authored FFRF's letter. "Their children should not become a captive audience for an experiment in importing Christian education into federal public schools. Teaching about Christianity is appropriate in the right context. Teaching a preferred Christian version of history is not."
FFRF is asking the Department of War Education Activity to immediately conduct a thorough constitutional and academic review of "The Golden Thread" and all accompanying curricular materials before allowing the course to proceed. Among other steps, FFRF is urging it to ensure that Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religious traditions are presented objectively; submit the textbook and lesson plans for independent review by qualified historians and religious studies scholars; publicly release the curriculum, teacher guidance and textbook-selection materials; disclose who was involved in developing and selecting the course; and explain what safeguards are in place to prevent "classical learning" initiatives from becoming a vehicle for promoting classical Christian education. FFRF is also asking it to suspend any instructional materials that promote Christianity, disparage Islam or another religion, or otherwise violate the religious neutrality required of federal public schools.
Students of military families deserve rigorous history, not religious propaganda, FFRF concludes. The federal government must educate, not evangelize.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
INFODOC: https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Department-of-War-Education-Activity-Military-School-Curriculum.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-contacts-pentagon-over-its-christianizing-of-history-curriculum/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF contacts Pentagon over its Christianizing of history curriculum
A new history curriculum for the federal school system serving military families appears designed to promote Christianity while presenting Islam as a threat to Western civilization.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has written a letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft that expresses serious constitutional and educational concerns over the introduction of a new "Western Civilization ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 1 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF contacts Pentagon over its Christianizing of history curriculum A new history curriculum for the federal school system serving military families appears designed to promote Christianity while presenting Islam as a threat to Western civilization. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has written a letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft that expresses serious constitutional and educational concerns over the introduction of a new "Western Civilizationto 1500" course. The department's education arm reportedly operates approximately 160 schools in 11 countries, educating roughly 70,000 children of active-duty military personnel and civilian service members.
Beginning this fall, high school students may take the course to satisfy their world history graduation requirement. The course will use "The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition, Volume I: The Ancient World and Christendom," published by Encounter Books, with suggested lesson plans developed in partnership with Hillsdale College. Hillsdale College, a small ultraconservative Christian college in Michigan devoted to the "teachings and practices of the Christian faith," has forged a close relationship with President Trump's White House, including producing propaganda for America's 250th anniversary. FFRF has previously warned about the Department of Education's inappropriate history partnership with Hillsdale College.
Historians and educators who've reviewed excerpts of the textbook have warned that it misleadingly equates Western civilization with Christianity -- and portrays Islam as a threat to both. For example, the book reportedly credits Christianity with promoting "humane cosmopolitanism" while characterizing Arabs as resentful or bitter toward Christians and Jews. A section on "Holy War and Martyrdom in Battle" reportedly defends Christian warfare, including the Crusades, with an accompanying depiction of Islam as glorifying violence and warfare.
"This is exactly the kind of religious favoritism that has no place in a federal public school," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Military families represent the full religious -- and nonreligious -- diversity of our country, where Christians are 62 percent of the population, but religiously unaffiliated are 29 percent and other religions 7 percent."
In fact, Gaylor points out, "18 percent of active military members are atheist/agnostic. Another 32 percent have no religious affiliation, according to researcher Ryan Burge, putting the 'Nones' overall at half of current military members! Their children do not deserve Christian nationalist disinformation dressed up as history."
FFRF's concerns extend beyond a single textbook. "War" Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly advocated classical Christian education and has repeatedly linked Christianity with American identity and Western civilization. In his 2022 book, "Battle for the American Mind," Hegseth characterized secular education as a threat to America and Western civilization and encouraged parents to send their children to classical Christian schools.
Against that backdrop, the leadership of the department's education section has reportedly been reorganized to promote "patriotic values and classical learning." Most significantly, Craft reportedly told his subordinates that classical learning was a priority coming directly from Hegseth and that the Department of War Education Activity had been tasked with determining how lessons from classical learning in private schools could be introduced into "a public school setting like us."
FFRF stresses that maintaining this distinction is constitutionally critical.
"Private religious schools are free to teach students that Christianity represents the pinnacle of civilization, that American institutions are divinely inspired, or that other religions are theologically mistaken," FFRF's letter explains. "Federal public schools are not."
The First Amendment requires the government to remain neutral toward religion. Public schools may objectively teach about Christianity, Islam and other religions and their roles in history. But government schools may not promote Christianity, disparage other faiths or use history instruction to inculcate students with a favored religious worldview.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality "between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." FFRF warns that the Department of War Education Activity must not place the federal government's imprimatur on "religious apologetics masquerading as history."
"Service members make extraordinary sacrifices for a Constitution that protects Americans of every faith and no faith," adds FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line, who authored FFRF's letter. "Their children should not become a captive audience for an experiment in importing Christian education into federal public schools. Teaching about Christianity is appropriate in the right context. Teaching a preferred Christian version of history is not."
FFRF is asking the Department of War Education Activity to immediately conduct a thorough constitutional and academic review of "The Golden Thread" and all accompanying curricular materials before allowing the course to proceed. Among other steps, FFRF is urging it to ensure that Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religious traditions are presented objectively; submit the textbook and lesson plans for independent review by qualified historians and religious studies scholars; publicly release the curriculum, teacher guidance and textbook-selection materials; disclose who was involved in developing and selecting the course; and explain what safeguards are in place to prevent "classical learning" initiatives from becoming a vehicle for promoting classical Christian education. FFRF is also asking it to suspend any instructional materials that promote Christianity, disparage Islam or another religion, or otherwise violate the religious neutrality required of federal public schools.
Students of military families deserve rigorous history, not religious propaganda, FFRF concludes. The federal government must educate, not evangelize.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
INFODOC: https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Department-of-War-Education-Activity-Military-School-Curriculum.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-contacts-pentagon-over-its-christianizing-of-history-curriculum/
[Category: Religion]