Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 31 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344
*
Teamsters abandon legal effort to block worker-backed union removal petition
Milwaukee, WI (December 31, 2025) - Employees of Krause Funeral Home & Cremation Services have freed themselves from the unwanted "representation" of Teamsters Local 344 union officials. The workers' victory comes after Krause management withdrew recognition of the Teamsters based on an employee-backed petition showing that ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 31 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344 * Teamsters abandon legal effort to block worker-backed union removal petition Milwaukee, WI (December 31, 2025) - Employees of Krause Funeral Home & Cremation Services have freed themselves from the unwanted "representation" of Teamsters Local 344 union officials. The workers' victory comes after Krause management withdrew recognition of the Teamsters based on an employee-backed petition showing thatthe union had lost majority support.
While Teamsters union bosses initially tried to block the ouster, claiming Krause committed an unfair labor practice by withdrawing recognition, union officials quickly backed down after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a Motion to Intervene with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of Krause employee Noah Watry.
In October, Watry submitted a "decertification petition" to the NLRB, in which he and his coworkers requested that the NLRB hold a vote to remove the Teamsters union. That petition contained more than enough signatures from employees in his work unit (which includes funeral directors, embalmers, and apprentices at Krause's facilities in Milwaukee, Brookfield, and New Berlin) to trigger a decertification election under NLRB rules.
Watry shared a copy of this employee petition with Krause officials, who, following the NLRB's Levitz Furn iture Co. precedent, withdrew recognition from the union after seeing that the petition signers also requested that their employer withdraw recognition.
Teamsters union agents sought to block the employee petition and the employer's withdrawal by filing unfair labor practice charges against Krause with the NLRB, alleging that it had withdrawn recognition illicitly. Even though Krause had followed NLRB case law in withdrawing, an NLRB Regional Office issued a complaint against the funeral home company. Watry defended the withdrawal that he and his coworkers had requested by filing a Motion to Intervene.
NLRB Region 18 eventually referred the case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which set the stage for a hearing on the union's legal claims. However, before the ALJ could move forward with the proceedings, Teamsters lawyers withdrew all charges against Krause, likely knowing that a hearing would reveal the meritless nature of union officials' unfair labor practice charges. This effectively laid to rest the Teamsters presence in Krause's facilities.
Wisconsin is one of 26 states with Right to Work safeguards that protect workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. Yet, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers in a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
"This case illustrates clearly the lengths that union officials will go in order to hold on to power in a workplace where workers would prefer to be independent," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "The Foundation is pleased to have been able to aid Mr. Watry and his colleagues in navigating the convoluted federal labor bureaucracy that places hardworking Americans like them at a disadvantage whenever they seek to exercise their rights.
"While this case worked out in Mr. Watry's favor, it's important to remember that he and his coworkers have the benefit of Right to Work and could not be forced to subsidize the same Teamsters union that was trying to trap them," Mix added. "That is why every American deserves Right to Work protections, and even in states where Right to Work exists, it must be defended."
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/krause-workers-remove-teamsters-12312025/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Systems of Trust
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Systems of Trust
What sheepdogs teach us about liberty.
By Benjamin BH Ko
On the Isle of Lewis, crofters still work the old way: one man, two dogs, a flock and the Atlantic wind. Watching Leslie and his collies, Bruce and Jude, round up sheep across the moor, I was struck by how little command was needed. After a whistle and a word, Bruce and Jude's instincts took care of the rest. It was order without control, and freedom within purpose. This is liberty properly understood.
Lewis ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Systems of Trust What sheepdogs teach us about liberty. By Benjamin BH Ko On the Isle of Lewis, crofters still work the old way: one man, two dogs, a flock and the Atlantic wind. Watching Leslie and his collies, Bruce and Jude, round up sheep across the moor, I was struck by how little command was needed. After a whistle and a word, Bruce and Jude's instincts took care of the rest. It was order without control, and freedom within purpose. This is liberty properly understood. Lewisis home to many traditional industries: crofting, tweed weaving and fishing. It is a place where life still depends on skill, community and respect for the elements. When Leslie led his dogs up the slope, the scene felt timeless - as if little had changed in hundreds of years. Yet what struck me most was not nostalgia, but what this simple working relationship revealed about freedom, trust and the limits of control.
Bruce and Jude know exactly what to do when faced with a stubborn or stray sheep. Leslie doesn't bark a dozen new commands; he trusts their judgement. They read the terrain, sense the flock's movement, and decide how best to bring order. It's a partnership built on mutual understanding. The dogs aren't free in the sense of doing whatever they please. Instead, they're free within the bounds of purpose and discipline. Their obedience doesn't crush their independence; it makes their independence possible.
That relationship holds a lesson far beyond the croft. Today, governments too often resemble over-anxious shepherds, issuing endless directives in an attempt to control every variable. If Leslie tried to script each move Bruce and Jude made, chaos would follow. They'd be confused, hesitant and paralysed by instruction. The croft would fall apart under the weight of micromanagement. The same is true in governance: when the state presumes it must command every detail of life, initiative disappears, trust erodes and competence declines.
The partnership between crofter and dog is a vivid example of order emerging from freedom, not imposed from above but grown from within. The dogs act through local knowledge: they understand their environment, the flock and the subtle cues of their master. They don't need constant direction because the system they're part of already carries shared norms and mutual trust. That is how real cooperation happens, not through regulation, but through relationship.
Liberty isn't lawlessness. Bruce and Jude don't dash off into the heather the moment Leslie's whistle falls silent. Their freedom is earnedrooted in discipline, skill and trust. The same kind of freedom sustains the island itself. Across Lewis, you'll find honesty boxes beside country roads, where locals leave fresh eggs, freshly baked goods and even second-hand tweed clothing with only a tin for payment. There's no CCTV or bureaucracy, just trust that people will do the right thing. In addition, if a crofter falls ill, a neighbour will tend their flock. Responsibility here is personal, not outsourced to an agency or committee.
Life on the island runs on initiative and mutual respect, not official instruction. No one decreed that honesty boxes must exist, or that crofters must help one another. These customs endure because it worked in the past and still does now. That's what gives Lewis its quiet strength: a sense that freedom is not a problem to be solved, but a condition to be sustained.
Compare that with the modern political impulse to regulate everything from speech to stove tops. Too often, policymakers assume that order must come from above - from central planners in Whitehall or Holyrood. Yet on the boggy hills of Lewis, order arises naturally from trust and shared purpose. The dogs don't need a policy paper to know what to do. They need training, trust and space to act. The same is true for free people.
Freedom doesn't mean chaos; it means responsibility and room to exercise it. The moors of Lewis quietly remind us that systems built on trust work better than those built on control. The more power that drifts upward to the state, the weaker those local bonds become. Freedom, once replaced by bureaucracy, rarely returns.
Watching Leslie, Bruce and Jude herd sheep against the Atlantic wind, it was easy to see why this relationship has endured for centuries. It's efficient, humane and rooted in mutual understanding; a living metaphor for liberty. The crofter doesn't need to dominate his dogs. Instead, he trusts them to do their work. That trust, once earned, becomes the foundation of order. And whether on the hillside or in society at large, that's what freedom really should be: not the absence of structure, but the presence of trust.
This article originally ran at CapX.
* * *
Benjamin BH Ko
Benjamin B.H. Ko is a Masters student at the University of St Andrews and an intern at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/systems-of-trust/
"What I had was an awareness": Allan Houston on early detection and a family fight against prostate cancer
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Dec. 30 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:* * *
"What I had was an awareness": Allan Houston on early detection and a family fight against prostate cancer
*
Allan Houston understands the power of early detection on a deeply personal level. The former New York Knicks standout, two-time NBA All-Star and Olympic gold medalist watched his father fight and survive cancerand then faced the very same diagnosis 13 years later.
Wade Houston, the former head men's basketball coach at the University of Tennessee, the first African American head coach in ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Dec. 30 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news: * * * "What I had was an awareness": Allan Houston on early detection and a family fight against prostate cancer * Allan Houston understands the power of early detection on a deeply personal level. The former New York Knicks standout, two-time NBA All-Star and Olympic gold medalist watched his father fight and survive cancerand then faced the very same diagnosis 13 years later. Wade Houston, the former head men's basketball coach at the University of Tennessee, the first African American head coach inthe SEC and father to Allan Houston, beat his prostate cancer diagnosis in 2010.
Prostate cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Black men in the United Statesand Black men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer compared to white men. Black men and men who have a first-degree relativesuch as a parent, child or siblingwho has been diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65 also have a higher risk of developing it. Allan fits into both of these categories.
Read more: How genetics affects your cancer riskand what you can do about it
Competing for their health
Since his son faced a significantly higher cancer risk, Wade understood that sharing his experience with him wasn't just helpful, it was essentialand that made all the difference for Allen.
"What I had was an awareness," Allan said. "I knew that it had been running through my familymy father had gone through itso the minute he had gone through it, I was already on alert, and I was already going twice a year to get checked."
He began screening through prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), a test that measures the level of PSA protein in the blood. (Higher PSA levels can potentially indicate cancer.) In 2023, Allen was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
As a lifelong athlete, Allan is familiar with competition, but cancer brought a different kind of challengeone that tested him mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Throughout his own journey, Allan reflected on his father's determination to stay healthy for his family, which he now carries forward for his own seven children.
"I have to be there for them, and take that competitive spirit to [my] health," Allan said.
Talking about it
Allan highlighted how many men remain hesitant to speak openly about their experiences, especially with prostate cancer, but that his father was different in this regard.
"He was very open and willing to do whatever it took," Allan said. Wade was determined to do everything possible to remain present for his family and support their legacy.
That same determination now resonates with Allan. Fortunately, Allan was already aware of his cancer risk early on because of his father's diagnosis.
Though a family history of prostate cancer can increase your risk, it's important to know that only approximately 10% of cancer cases are hereditary. Most cancers are diagnosed in people with no family history of the disease, which is why it's important for everyone to get their routine cancer screenings.
Prostate cancer doesn't typically present with symptoms in the early stages, so those routine screenings can be critical in detecting it early for better health outcomes.
Read also: Should I get screened for prostate cancer?
Current screening guidelines recommend talking to your health care provider about prostate cancer screening if you are age 40+ and have a strong family history, age 45+ and are Black OR have a family history, and age 50+ if you're at average risk. You and your provider can discuss the pros and cons of screening to make the best decision for you.
Allan's cancer prevention message
Allan committed fully to doing whatever was necessary to become cancer-free and has since become an advocate for men's health and early detection.
"We're protectors, we're providers and we're survivors, and I think you have to take that same mindset into preventive care," Allan said on his message to men.
He attended the NBA Total Health Fair in Las Vegas, Nevada, presented by Evernorth health services in December 2025. The fair was hosted in partnership with the Prevent Cancer Foundation, Nevada Cancer Coalition, Goodr and the Bill & Lillie Heinrich YMCA. He also serves on the board of directors for ZERO Prostate Cancer.
"You just have to eliminate the temporary discomfort of fear for what's going to be better in the long term," Allan said.
For more information on prostate cancer screenings, what they entail and who they're for, visit preventcancer.org/prostate.
***
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/what-i-had-was-an-awareness-allan-houston-on-early-detection-and-a-family-fight-against-prostate-cancer/
Unity Fund Awards More Than $3 Million in Final 2025 Grants to Strengthen San Diego's Safety Net
SAN DIEGO, California, Dec. 29 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Unity Fund Awards More Than $3 Million in Final 2025 Grants to Strengthen San Diego's Safety Net
*
December 29, 2025 - San Diego, CA San Diego Foundation today announced more than $3 million in Unity Fund grants in the final funding round of 2025, supporting local nonprofits working to strengthen San Diego's food, housing and healthcare safety net amid ongoing federal cutbacks. Since launching the San Diego Unity Fund, San Diego Foundation has raised more than $32 million and granted and committed ... Show Full Article SAN DIEGO, California, Dec. 29 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Unity Fund Awards More Than $3 Million in Final 2025 Grants to Strengthen San Diego's Safety Net * December 29, 2025 - San Diego, CA San Diego Foundation today announced more than $3 million in Unity Fund grants in the final funding round of 2025, supporting local nonprofits working to strengthen San Diego's food, housing and healthcare safety net amid ongoing federal cutbacks. Since launching the San Diego Unity Fund, San Diego Foundation has raised more than $32 million and granted and committednearly $20 million to support dozens of local nonprofits responding to urgent needs across the region.
These grants will help keep essential services in place as public funding declines, including emergency rent and utility assistance to prevent homelessness, fresh food distribution through schools and neighborhood markets, and trauma-informed healthcare and mental health support for families and individuals facing crisis.
The announcement comes as San Diego County braces for the loss of more than $300 million a year in government funding that helps keep people fed, housed and healthy. More than 400,000 residents are at risk of losing access to basic support, including nearly 100,000 who may lose food assistance.
"These final grants of 2025 reflect the strength of San Diego coming together in a moment of real challenge," said Mark Stuart, President and CEO of San Diego Foundation. "As we close out the year, this funding helps stabilize essential services now and positions our community to move forward stronger in the year ahead."
Union of Pan Asian Communities is among the grantees, awarded $175,000 from the San Diego Unity Fund to sustain its Community Violence Response Team while transitioning to a Medi Cal billing model amid federal funding reductions.
"We are profoundly grateful to be a recipient of the San Diego Unity Fund at San Diego Foundation," said Wendy Urushima-Conn, president and CEO of the Union of Pan Asian Communities. "In light of recent funding cuts, this bridge support arrives at a pivotal moment for our Community Violence Response Team. It ensures we can continue standing with families in their most challenging moments by providing trauma intervention, strengthened case management and housing navigation services. We appreciate the Foundation's ongoing commitment to anticipating and responding to the evolving needs of our community."
Sherman Heights Development Corporation is also among the grantees, awarded $175,000 from the San Diego Unity Fund to help stabilize housing and strengthen community-based services in one of San Diego's most historically underserved neighborhoods.
"This funding will have an immediate and meaningful impact for families in our community, allowing us to meet them where they are during a time of real uncertainty," said Alexis Villanueva, CEO of City Heights CDC. "The San Diego Unity Fund support allows us to expand Feeding City Heights at a critical moment, ensuring families can access culturally relevant meals, grocery support and emergency food assistance with dignity. At the same time, it strengthens our partnerships with local businesses, helping stabilize both households and the neighborhood economy."
Nearly $3 million in San Diego Unity Fund grants will support more than two dozen organizations working across food security, housing stability and healthcare access. The grants will help prevent homelessness, keep nutritious food accessible through trusted community sites and sustain healthcare and mental health services facing public funding gaps.
Grantees include Alabaster Jar Project, Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest San Diego, BrightSide, Brighter Bites San Diego, California Rural Legal Assistance Inc., Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego, Center for Community Solutions, City Heights Community Development Corporation, Crisis House, Foundation for Women Warriors, Global Communities, Interfaith Shelter Network of San Diego, JIREH Providers, License to Freedom, Majdal Arab Community Center of San Diego, Operation HOPE North County, ProduceGood, Promises 2Kids, Rise and Thrive Program Inc., San Diego Hunger Coalition, San Diego LGBT Community Center, Shoreline Community Services, Survivors of Torture International, TrueCare, Union of Pan Asian Communities and Urban Street Angels.
Created in response to federal funding reductions impacting food, housing and healthcare programs, the San Diego Unity Fund is San Diego Foundation's rapid response fund for local nonprofits. To learn more and donate see here.
About San Diego Foundation
San Diego Foundation believes in just, equitable and resilient communities where every San Diegan can prosper, thrive and feel like they belong. We partner with donors, nonprofits and regional leaders to co-create solutions that respond to community needs and strengthen San Diego. Since our founding in 1975, our community foundation has granted $1.8 billion to nonprofits to improve quality of life in San Diego County and beyond. Join us in commemorating 50 years of impact and looking toward the next 50 by learning more at SDFoundation.org.
Media Contact
Hiram Soto, Director of Marketing & Communications
Email: hsoto@sdfoundation.org
Phone: 858-349-7940
***
Original text here: https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/unity-fund-awards-more-than-3-million-in-final-2025-grants-to-strengthen-san-diegos-safety-net/
The Tariff Vindication That Still Isn't
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:* * *
The Tariff Vindication That Still Isn't
*
Working Americans are paying the price.
The financial columnist, Matthew Lynn, is back at it. His latest essay asserts that economists still have egg on their faces because the Trump tariffs are, according to him, being paid by foreign corporations, not Americans. As he writes, Volkswagen took a EUR5 billion hit, Toyota warned of $9 billion in losses, and Adidas is eating EUR120 million. Checkmate, free traders.
I already responded to Lynn's previous ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news: * * * The Tariff Vindication That Still Isn't * Working Americans are paying the price. The financial columnist, Matthew Lynn, is back at it. His latest essay asserts that economists still have egg on their faces because the Trump tariffs are, according to him, being paid by foreign corporations, not Americans. As he writes, Volkswagen took a EUR5 billion hit, Toyota warned of $9 billion in losses, and Adidas is eating EUR120 million. Checkmate, free traders. I already responded to Lynn's previousattempt at tariff vindication last month. This latest requires a fresh rebuttal, not because the new article is more sophisticated, but because it manages to commit an even more fundamental economic error while ignoring the inconvenient mountain of evidence since "Liberation Day."
Let's start with a refresher on Econ 101 and what it really predicts will happen when a nation imposes tariffs.
What Do Tariffs Actually Do?
As Lynn acknowledges, "the tariffs are a tax." Because they are a tax, they are going to be paid by someone in some form. You can't have money flowing into the Treasury without someone paying that extra money in some way. Broadly speaking, we can divide the potential payors of American-imposed tariffs into three camps: American consumers, American importers, and foreigners.
One of the oft-cited effects of a tariff is to reduce the amount of imports coming into America. This makes sense and is in fact one of the numerous goals administration officials have pointed to. Insofar as American consumers and importers end up paying the tariff, they will buy less of the now-more-expensive foreign products. We're already seeing this happen in the US, which Lynn alludes to throughout his article.
If foreigners pay the tariff, they'll sell less of the now-tariffed goods to the US. This will, as President Trump and others have correctly identified, hurt their bottom line. To offset at least some of this, these countries will try to sell more of their products to their domestic consumers or consumers in countries other than the US. This is exactly what we have seen and what we are seeing, as other countries around the world are securing new trade deals with one another and deliberately excluding the United States from said deals.
So, Lynn is correct to point out that foreign corporations have incurred costs because of the Trump tariffs. However, despite his repeated implication to the contrary, this is not money that goes to the US Treasury. Volkswagen, for example, has raised the price of its 2026 models by up to 6.5 percent, largely due to tariffs, and has indicated that this is just the beginning. That's more money coming out of American consumers' pockets. At these higher prices, American consumers are purchasing fewer Volkswagens than last year. Volkswagen's losses from the tariffs include an almost 30 percent decline in profits from auto sales. Importantly, sales that do not happen count toward the reduced profit that Volkswagen reported but generate no tariff revenue for the Treasury to collect. That Lynn, a financial commentator, does not understand this distinction is deeply troubling.
Who Really Pays the Tariff?
Lynn's central argument rests on a fundamental confusion between what economists refer to as the "legal incidence" and the "economic incidence" of a tax. Legally, because tariffs are a tax on imports, it is the US importers who must write the check to Customs and Border Protection. But this says nothing about who actually pays the tariff.
For example, when landlords' property taxes go up, who pays? The landlord will obviously write the check to the county assessor, but unless Lynn thinks that landlords are running charities, that cost gets passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent, less frequent maintenance, or fewer included benefits (utilities or access to designated parking, for example). The legal incidence falls on the landlord, but the economic incidence falls disproportionately on renters, i.e., young Americans already besieged by high housing costs.
Tariffs work the same way. US Customs and Border Protection bills the American importer directly, which is the legal incidence of the tariff. But the economic burden gets distributed among American consumers, American importers, and foreign exporters, depending on the particulars of the individual markets.
Lynn cites the Harvard Pricing Lab finding an approximately 20 percent "pass-through rate," meaning that American consumers are only paying about one-fifth of the tariff costs. He treats this as a permanent feature of the tariff regime and as proof that foreigners are footing the bill. But the question isn't who writes the check today, it's who bears the cost over time. And here, the evidence directly contradicts Lynn's fables.
As we have seen, pass-through rates are not static, but evolve over time as markets adjust. And every piece of evidence suggests that the pass-through rate has been and is continuing to rise rapidly. Goldman Sachs and the Council on Foreign Relations tracked the evolution over just this administration. Their findings are stunning: In June, US businesses absorbed about 64 percent of the tariff costs, American consumers about 22 percent, and foreign exporters about 14 percent in the form of reduced profits. Just four months later, American businesses absorbed just 27 percent, while American consumers absorbed 55 percent and exporters absorbed 18 percent. Projections for 2026 continue the trend with consumers absorbing 67 percent, exporters 25 percent, and importers just 8 percent.
The logic behind this is simple and has been echoed by President Trump and Scott Bessent themselves. In the initial months following Liberation Day, American importers could not quickly shift to alternative suppliers, giving them little leverage to demand price cuts from existing foreign vendors. Many American importers also believed (or hoped?) that the tariffs were simply a negotiating tool that would be bargained away. Having built up inventories before April, they were able to avoid raising consumer prices, with the belief that the "temporary pains would be worth the long term gains."
That's no longer the case. As the BLS notes in its latest import price index report, the price of imports has barely changed. This matters because US importers, not foreign sellers, are legally required to write the tariff check. American buyers pay the foreign company's price, then pay the tariff on top of it. If foreigners were truly absorbing the tariffs, they'd have to lower their prices to compensate, and we would see a decrease in the import price index. We haven't. The index is flat, which is evidence that the burden of the tariff is, as economists warned, being paid disproportionately by Americans in one form or another. As the Council on Foreign Relations analysis points out, by October, importers have "had time to seek alternative suppliers, giving them a bit more negotiating leverage." More importantly, the "trade deals" that the administration has inked have made it clear that substantially higher tariffs are here to stay. All of this gives importers and retailers good reason to continue passing more of the costs along to consumers.
We are already seeing evidence of this happening. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's survey of small and medium-sized businesses, for example, confirms this dynamic. Firms expecting tariffs to persist for a year or longer plan to pass through three times more of their cost increases to consumers than firms expecting short-lived tariffs. As of August, over 45 percent of affected businesses expected their costs to be impacted for longer than a year.
But how does all of this compare to the pass-through rate felt during the 2018-2019 tariffs? The Harvard Pricing Lab the same data that Lynn citesactually undermines his entire argument. After just six months, the 2025 tariff pass-through rate is indeed around 20 percent. But if we compare this to the 2018 tariffs, the difference is night and day. After Trump's first-term tariffs, the pass-through rate stayed under 5 percent after a full year. This isn't evidence that these tariffs are working. It's evidence that these tariffs are hitting consumers harder and faster than the previous round.
What Businesses Are Saying
All of these numbers and statistics can certainly feel abstract. The lived, human reality is decidedly not.
The Federal Reserve's Beige Book, which collects both quantitative and qualitative reports from businesses across the country, tells a consistent story. In Cleveland, "some manufacturers and auto dealers reported passing along 100 percent of tariff increases to customers, while others said that they are slow[ly] raising prices in response to tariffs." In Chicago, "manufacturers attributed higher raw materials prices to tariffs and several said that they had passed on those increases to customers." In Richmond, a glass manufacturer reported that its supplier was driven out of business by the tariffs, forcing consolidation among remaining suppliers, eliminating regional jobs, and driving prices higher.
Survey data from Cleveland shows that 87 percent of manufacturing firms report increased costs due to tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding them. For firms that receive at least half of their materials from imports, 75 percent reported that they would pass at least a majority of the tariffs on to consumers. None reported that they would absorb the full cost themselves.
Philip Luck, former deputy chief economist at the State Department, put it succinctly : the president promised "millions and millions of jobs" from the tariffs, but those promises are completely out of step with reality.
The Manufacturing Renaissance That Isn't
Lynn alleges that tariffs are working as intended. If that's the case, we should see American manufacturing employment surging. After all, the entire point of the tariffs is to reshore American manufacturing jobssomething President Trump and his administration have been remarkably clear about.
So how's that going?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing sector has lost jobs for the past five months. The jobs report for September found 6,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, which brings the total job losses in manufacturing to 59,000 since April's "Liberation Day." The Institute for Supply Management finds similar figures, with eight consecutive months of contracting manufacturing employment.
These aren't statistical blips, and they're not the result of "fake data." They form a pattern. Manufacturing job openings have plunged by over 100,000 since Trump took office. Factory hiring in May fell to its weakest rate since 2016, including the pace of hiring during the COVID pandemic.
But these aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. They reflect the real, human toll felt by communities across the country. In Detroit, for example, a city that President Trump marked his 100th day in office by promising that "a lot of auto jobs coming" (sic), has been besieged by struggles in both the automotive and steel industries. Stellantis laid off 900 workers at five Midwest plants, specifically citing tariff-created conditions. Steel manufacturer, Cleveland-Cliffs, cut 1,200 jobs in Michigan and Minnesota.
This is not a surprise to anyone who remembers even recent history. When President Bush imposed steel tariffs in 2002, the effect was clear: steel manufacturing employment suffered, so much so that Bush had to rescind the tariffs ahead of schedule, yet the effect persisted years after their removal. Likewise, Trump's 2018 steel tariffs did save about 1,000 steel jobs in the short run but wiped out roughly 75,000 manufacturing jobs due to higher input costs.
The Real Story
Lynn wants us to believe that economists were wrong, that tariffs are a wealth transfer from Beijing and Berlin to Washington, and that Americans are getting a free ride while foreigners foot the bill. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
Still, Lynn and I agree on one thing: "there's nothing inherently wrong with a government robustly promoting the interest of its own citizens." The problem is that tariffs are not promoting America's interest. They are taxing American consumers, destroying American manufacturing jobs, and actively pushing trading partners away from the US such that our industries will have fewer, not more, customers on the world stage.
The American people are, on a per-capita basis, the most industrious and productive people on the planet. We don't need "protection" from the rest of the world. We need the freedom to trade with willing partners, the ability to buy inputs at competitive prices, and partnerships with foreign buyers so we can export our products to the rest of the world.
The tariff vindication that Lynn keeps promising remains as elusive as ever. And working Americans are paying the price. It's time to end this failed experiment once and for all.
This article originally appeared at Law & Liberty.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-tariff-vindication-that-still-isnt/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Brussels Bets the Farm
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Brussels Bets the Farm
By Claudia Ascensao Nunes
Why the EU-Mercosur agreement is not a free trade deal.
In Brussels, we have witnessed a scene that has become increasingly common: protests by European farmers marked by escalating hostility, including burning tires and clashes with police. This discontent is the cumulative reaction to a process that has dragged on for more than 25 years, and is now being pushed toward completion under conditions that are deeply damaging to European farmers. ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Brussels Bets the Farm By Claudia Ascensao Nunes Why the EU-Mercosur agreement is not a free trade deal. In Brussels, we have witnessed a scene that has become increasingly common: protests by European farmers marked by escalating hostility, including burning tires and clashes with police. This discontent is the cumulative reaction to a process that has dragged on for more than 25 years, and is now being pushed toward completion under conditions that are deeply damaging to European farmers.
Some invoke the benefits of free markets, and, under normal circumstances, these do indeed offer the best outcomes for both producers and consumers. The problem is that between European farmers and producers from Mercosura trade bloc that includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguaythe market can never be truly free, because farmers in each bloc operate under fundamentally different regulatory conditions.
The European Union (EU) requires its farmers to comply with increasingly stringent environmental, sanitary, and labor standards under the European Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)including specific rules such as GAEC 8, which obliges farmers to leave portions of their land uncultivated as fallow areas or nonproductive features like hedgerows or biodiversity zones. These requirements significantly raise production costs. At the same time, the EU seeks to open its market to products from countries that are not subject to comparable rules and can sell at lower prices. Under these conditions, to speak of a "free market" is a conceptual error. There is no market freedom when costs are imposed asymmetrically by political decision.
In practice, this forces European farmers to give up part of their productive capacity in order to meet politically defined environmental objectives, without any proportional compensation in income and without equivalent obligations being imposed on imported products. This represents an indirect cost imposed by regulatory decisions. The farmer produces less, while continuing to compete in an open market with external producers who are not required to withdraw land from production.
The same applies to the severe restrictions on the use of pesticides and fertilizers imposed by the Farm to Fork strategy. European farmers are compelled to rely on alternative inputs that are often more expensive and operationally less effective, not because they fail environmental or ecological standards, but because they tend to provide narrower protection, require more frequent application, and function reliably only under specific agronomic conditions. This increases exposure to pests and crop disease, raises production costs, and makes yields more volatile, particularly for small farms.
Producers in Mercosur countries are not operating without regulation: These countries have their own environmental, sanitary, and labor rules, and agricultural exports to the European Union must comply with EU food safety standards at the border. However, these requirements are not comparable in scope or economic impact to the EU's production-level constraints.
Under the Farm to Fork strategy, the EU has set targets to reduce pesticide use and risk by 50% and fertilizer use by at least 20% by 2030, implementing these goals through restrictions on inputs and bans on numerous active substances. Many substances prohibited in the EU, such as Chlorothalonil, remain authorized for agricultural use in Mercosur countries.
While Mercosur producers may be subject to national regulations and sustainability objectives, they are not required to internalize equivalent production-level constraints that systematically reduce output or raise compliance costs. As a result, European farmers face regulatory pressures that are not shared by their external competitors, creating an artificial price gap driven by regulatory asymmetry rather than differences in productive efficiency.
Added to these pressures are the costs associated with labor and social standards in force within the EU. European farmers must comply with high minimum wages, social security contributions, and strict rules governing hiring and workplace safety, at a time of severe agricultural labor shortages. These obligations are legitimate within an economic system that values social protection and workers' rights. However, they become a source of distortion when the EU opens its market to products from countries where labor costs are substantially lower, regulations are less demanding, and enforcement is weaker. Once again, price differences do not reflect greater productive efficiency but a profoundly unequal regulatory framework.
At the same time, European farmers face an effective reduction in support under the CAP, as financial assistance is increasingly conditional on compliance with environmental requirements and administrative controls. Farmers who fail to meet these conditions risk losing income support. This model disproportionately affects small farmers, who lack the financial and administrative capacity to absorb additional costs, continuously adapt to new rules, and compete in a liberalized market without regulatory reciprocity.
More than a simple trade agreement, the EU-Mercosur dossier is becoming a source of division within the EU itself. The public opposition of French President Emmanuel Macron and the resistance of other member states with vulnerable agricultural sectors reveal deep differences among countries with divergent economic priorities. When an agreement places national governments under intense social pressure and forces member states to choose between preserving European unity and protecting internal stability, the issue ceases to be merely agricultural or commercial and becomes clearly political. Moving forward without correcting these inequalities risks worsening internal tensions and deepening public distrust in European institutions.
If the EU wishes to be honest about the concept of free markets and preserve its agricultural base, it must reduce the environmental, administrative, and social burdens imposed on its own farmers. Maintaining a system in which European producers are burdened with politically imposed costs while competing in an open global market is unsustainable. Continuing on this path will inevitably lead to the disappearance of small farmers, increased concentration of production, and greater dependence on foreign nations for food.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/brussels-bets-the-farm/