Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Trump's Department of Transportation Unevenly Advances Deregulation as Transparency Declines
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner:
* * *
Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
-
The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statements ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner: * * * Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. - The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statementson regulatory priorities. The Unified Agenda is intended as a biannual snapshot of the federal administrative state and tracks the thousands of regulatory actions across hundreds of agencies. While imperfect in many ways, it does provide some valuable insight into forthcoming federal agency actions. For each edition of the Unified Agenda, Reason Foundation surveys the rulemaking activities at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
This edition indicates that the professed deregulatory mission of the second Trump administration continues to be implemented at the Department of Transportation. But this general commitment to deregulation is not uniform, with several rulemaking projects being proposed that would increase regulation. The regulatory proposals generally involve other Trump administration policy priorities, suggesting that the Trump administration's commitment to deregulation has its limits. In addition, the Trump administration's public documentation of its regulatory reform efforts has become noticeably less frequent, raising serious concerns about regulatory transparency.
While it doesn't explicitly spell out its publication schedule, OIRA suggests by the publication name and contents that this will be the only edition published in 2026 after having missed publication of the Fall 2025 Unified Agenda, which also should have included the 2025 Regulatory Plan. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the publication of agency regulatory flexibility agendas in April and October of each year (5 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)). The publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda with an annual Regulatory Plan that accompanies the Fall editions of the Unified Agenda suggest that OIRA has forgone the Spring 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda. Consistent with that, OIRA has labeled it the "2026" edition without a seasonal identifier.
In its 2026 Regulatory Plan statement of regulatory priorities, the U.S. Department of Transportation states that it "oversaw the Federal Government's largest deregulatory program" during the first Trump administration and "intends to build upon this success in the second Trump [a]dministration."
According to OIRA's accounting of agency actions under the Executive Order (EO) 14192 requirement that agencies issue 10 deregulatory actions for each new regulatory action, the U.S. Department of Transportation initiated 78 deregulatory actions and zero regulatory actions in FY 2025 for a cost savings of $23 million. In terms of deregulatory actions, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked third (after the Departments of Treasury and Veterans Affairs) and accounted for 12.1% of reported deregulatory actions across the federal government. In terms of cost savings, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked 13th and accounted for just one-hundredth of one percent of federal-wide regulatory cost savings.
I previously examined the transportation rulemakings contained in Spring 2025, Fall 2024, Spring 2024, Fall 2023, Spring 2023, Fall 2022, Spring 2022, Fall 2021, Spring 2021, and Spring 2020 editions of the Unified Agenda for Reason Foundation. From a historical perspective, Figure 1 below shows that the 2026 volume of regulatory activity at the U.S. Department of Transportation has reverted to closer to the historical average after an unprecedented Spring 2025 edition that exceeded the previous record number of newly published rulemaking projects set in Spring 1996 by nearly 50%.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Of those 315, 45 are new rulemaking projects first published in the 2026 edition. These new rulemaking projects are listed in Table 1 at the bottom of this article.
The Unified Agenda contains rules determined to be "significant regulatory actions," or "economically significant" rules, which had been defined by EO 12866 (1993) as regulations that would have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or otherwise "adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." Rules deemed economically significant are subject to greater scrutiny, most notably a requirement that agencies conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the proposed regulation.
When the Biden administration issued EO 14094 (2023), the annual cost threshold for a rule to be considered a "significant regulatory action" doubled to $200 million plus an inflation adjustment every three years. A discussion of the rationale and implications of this change can be found in my review of the Fall 2023 edition of the Unified Agenda.
One important implication is that EO 14094 made historical comparisons of the stock and flow of "economically significant rules" more challenging. Fortunately, as part of the Congressional Review Act, Congress itself requires a separate "major" rule designation that retains the traditional $100 million threshold (5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2)(A)), allowing for continued like-for-like historical accounting.
Figure 1 maintains the $100 million cost threshold by counting "major" rules instead of "economically significant" rules. While Trump revoked EO 14094 (2023) as part of EO 14148 (2025) and thereby restored the traditional $100 million cost threshold for "economically significant" rules, we have opted to count "major" rules rather than economically significant rules to ensure continuity and historical comparability.
There are currently 12 "major" rules under development at the Department of Transportation. Of the 45 new rulemaking projects that first appeared in the 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda, only one has been designated a "major" rule. However, 23 have a "major" status listed as "undetermined," meaning they could be later designated as "major" rules as they move through the rulemaking process and economic costs are estimated.
Transportation deregulation in the first half of the second Trump administration
Given that Trump signed an executive order titled "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," it should perhaps not be surprising that the U.S. Department of Transportation has categorized many of its newly announced rulemaking actions as "deregulatory." That order, EO 14192, established a regulatory budget, which necessitates the categorization of rules as "regulatory" or "deregulatory." OIRA issued a memo in March 2025 providing guidance on this process.
According to the 2026 Unified Agenda, of the Department of Transportation's 45 newly announced rulemaking projects, 30 are categorized as "deregulatory," seven are categorized as "regulatory," with the remainder being categorized as "fully or partially exempt," "not subject to, not significant," or "other." This works out to a deregulatory-to-regulatory action ratio of 4.29:1, less than half the targeted 10:1 ratio in EO 14192. However, adding the U.S. Department of Transportation's completed regulatory activities from FY 2025 yields a deregulatory-to-regulatory ratio of 15:1, which suggests the current pipeline of regulatory activities is still on track to comply with EO 14192.
Setting aside the raw counts of regulatory actions, the specific actions that are categorized as regulatory or deregulatory reveal Trump administration transportation priorities. The seven actions announced in the 2026 Unified Agenda that are categorized as regulatory are two aviation equipment mandates from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on shielding aircraft altimeters from 5G radio wave interference (2120-AM21) and increasing airliner cockpit voice recording times from two hours to 25 hours (2120-AM19), one that would apply Buy America domestic content requirements to electric vehicle chargers procured under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program (2125-AG29), and four increasing requirements on the trucking workforce from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (2126-AC99, 2126-AD00, 2126-AD03, 2126-AC98).
All but one of these actions is justified as addressing a purported safety market failure. The arguments for the FAA altimeter shielding and 25-hour flight recorder requirements, which reflect a safety policy consensus, are better grounded than the FMCSA's crackdown on noncitizen truck drivers, which appear to be motivated by the Trump administration's broader policy agenda against immigration and has already spawned litigation. The other action, FHWA's Buy America requirements for federally funded electric vehicle charging stations, increases burdens on vehicle technology disfavored by the administration while being consistent with the economic protectionism that has animated the past three presidential administrations.
In contrast, Department of Transportation rulemakings around technologies and practices favored by the Trump administration tend to be categorized as deregulatory. This is most obvious in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's continued work to advance automated vehicle technologies. The 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda contains seven newly published rulemakings designed to clear a regulatory path for vehicle automation technologies and enable commercial deployment, all categorized as deregulatory, which are listed below:
* Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment (2127-AM99);
* Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 (2127-AN02);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles (2127-AM96);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN00);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN03);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicle (2127-AN04);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN05).
The use of regulation by any presidential administration to advance its policy priorities is to be expected. Elections have consequences, after all. While its professed commitment to deregulation is being applied unevenly, the Trump Department of Transportation's attention is welcome. However, if political leadership wishes to see durable deregulatory reforms, action must come from Congress to limit Executive Branch opportunities to engage in discretionary regulation in the first place.
Short of major economic policy reforms, Congress should at the very least demand regulatory transparency. The inconsistent publication of the Unified Agenda by the second Trump administration is concerning in this regard. The failure to meet the Regulatory Flexibility Act's biannual publication requirements is not unprecedented--the Obama administration published just a single edition of the Unified Agenda in 2012--but it is highly atypical. As it stands, the second Trump administration is on track to miss publication of at least two Unified Agenda editions, which would be unprecedented.
Congress should seek an explanation from the administration for this decline in regulatory transparency as well as a commitment to resume regular regulatory agenda publication consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. To further advance regulatory transparency, the U.S. Department of Transportation should resume publication of the Monthly Significant Rulemaking Report, which offered more frequent updates on the development economically significant rules. This report ceased regular publication during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at the end of the first Trump administration, was published only twice during the Biden administration, and was then terminated by the second Trump administration, also without explanation.
* * *
Table 1: U.S. Department of Transportation Rulemaking Projects First Published in the 2026 Unified Agenda
Agency ... Stage of Rulemaking ... Title ... RIN
OST ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Subtitle B of Title 2 on Federal Financial Assistance ... 2105-AF44
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Eliminating T-8 Report of All Cargo Operations ... 2105-AF41
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Corrections to DOT Operating Administration Titles ... 2105-AF42
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Updates to Aviation Economic Procedural Regulations ... 2105-AF43
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Rescinding Portions of Department of Transportation's Title VI Regulations to Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and to Implement Executive Order 14281 ... 2105-AF45
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing to Electronic Payments ... 2120-AM16
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flexibility Enhancements of Weather Reporting Systems ... 2120-AM17
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Improving Emergency Medical Kit Efficacy and Flexibility in Commercial Airline Operations ... 2120-AM18
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector Observation of Pilot-in-Command Requirement ... 2120-AM20
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Requirements for Certain Aircraft to be Equipped with Interference Tolerant NextGen Radio Altimeter Systems ... 2120-AM21
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Space Launch and Reentry Licensing and Permitting User Fees ... 2120-AM22
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of FAA Third-Class Medical Certificate Requirement for Military Pilot Trainees ... 2120-AM23
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flight Operations: Pilot requirements; Use of oxygen ... 2120-AM24
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing Medical Standards For Certain Low-Risk Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Cases ... 2120-AM25
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Streamlined Launch and Reentry License Requirements Improvement ... 2120-AM26
FAA ... Final Rule Stage ... 25 Hour Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) Requirements for Existing Aircraft ... 2120-AM19
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements - Buy America Standard for Electric Vehicle Chargers ... 2125-AG29
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2125-AG30
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... English Language Proficiency, Out of Service Criteria ... 2126-AC99
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Program for Strengthening Certification Requirements of Training Providers ... 2126-AD00
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Passenger Carrier Regulations in 49 CFR Part 374 ... 2126-AD01
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Standards for Broker and Freight Forwarder Qualifications/Knowledge ... 2126-AD02
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards ... 2126-AD03
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (NDCDL) ... 2126-AC98
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Amendments ... 2126-AD04
NHTSA Prerule Stage ... Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment ... 2127-AM99
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Seat Belt Assurance System Compliance Option for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AN01
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 ... 2127-AN02
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AM96
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AM97
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 122a, "Motorcycle Brake Systems" ... 2127-AM98
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AN00
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN03
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN04
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN05
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Litigation Protections for System Safety Program and Risk Reduction Program Information ... 2130-AD62
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Amendments to Streamline and Modernize Regulations Pertaining to New Safety Technology ... 2130-AD63
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ... 2130-AD64
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Major Capital Investment Projects ... 2132-AB62
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Charter Service ... 2132-AB63
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2132-AB64
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Seaway Rules and Regulations: Periodic Updates, Various Categories ... 2135-AA59
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Tariff of Tolls ... 2135-AA60
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Providing Regulatory Relief for Last Mile Delivery of Retail Products ... 2137-AG20
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Advancing Safety of Highway, Rail, and Vessel Transportation ... 2137-AG21
Source: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 2026
Note: RIN = Regulation Identifier Number, a unique alphanumeric code assigned by the Regulatory Information Service Center to each rulemaking project listed in the Unified Agenda. An explanation of Stage of Rulemaking terms can be found on page 13 of the Introduction to the Unified Agenda from the Regulatory Information Service Center.
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/trumps-department-of-transportation-unevenly-advances-deregulation-as-transparency-declines/
* * *
Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
-
The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statements ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner: * * * Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. - The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statementson regulatory priorities. The Unified Agenda is intended as a biannual snapshot of the federal administrative state and tracks the thousands of regulatory actions across hundreds of agencies. While imperfect in many ways, it does provide some valuable insight into forthcoming federal agency actions. For each edition of the Unified Agenda, Reason Foundation surveys the rulemaking activities at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
This edition indicates that the professed deregulatory mission of the second Trump administration continues to be implemented at the Department of Transportation. But this general commitment to deregulation is not uniform, with several rulemaking projects being proposed that would increase regulation. The regulatory proposals generally involve other Trump administration policy priorities, suggesting that the Trump administration's commitment to deregulation has its limits. In addition, the Trump administration's public documentation of its regulatory reform efforts has become noticeably less frequent, raising serious concerns about regulatory transparency.
While it doesn't explicitly spell out its publication schedule, OIRA suggests by the publication name and contents that this will be the only edition published in 2026 after having missed publication of the Fall 2025 Unified Agenda, which also should have included the 2025 Regulatory Plan. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the publication of agency regulatory flexibility agendas in April and October of each year (5 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)). The publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda with an annual Regulatory Plan that accompanies the Fall editions of the Unified Agenda suggest that OIRA has forgone the Spring 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda. Consistent with that, OIRA has labeled it the "2026" edition without a seasonal identifier.
In its 2026 Regulatory Plan statement of regulatory priorities, the U.S. Department of Transportation states that it "oversaw the Federal Government's largest deregulatory program" during the first Trump administration and "intends to build upon this success in the second Trump [a]dministration."
According to OIRA's accounting of agency actions under the Executive Order (EO) 14192 requirement that agencies issue 10 deregulatory actions for each new regulatory action, the U.S. Department of Transportation initiated 78 deregulatory actions and zero regulatory actions in FY 2025 for a cost savings of $23 million. In terms of deregulatory actions, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked third (after the Departments of Treasury and Veterans Affairs) and accounted for 12.1% of reported deregulatory actions across the federal government. In terms of cost savings, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked 13th and accounted for just one-hundredth of one percent of federal-wide regulatory cost savings.
I previously examined the transportation rulemakings contained in Spring 2025, Fall 2024, Spring 2024, Fall 2023, Spring 2023, Fall 2022, Spring 2022, Fall 2021, Spring 2021, and Spring 2020 editions of the Unified Agenda for Reason Foundation. From a historical perspective, Figure 1 below shows that the 2026 volume of regulatory activity at the U.S. Department of Transportation has reverted to closer to the historical average after an unprecedented Spring 2025 edition that exceeded the previous record number of newly published rulemaking projects set in Spring 1996 by nearly 50%.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Of those 315, 45 are new rulemaking projects first published in the 2026 edition. These new rulemaking projects are listed in Table 1 at the bottom of this article.
The Unified Agenda contains rules determined to be "significant regulatory actions," or "economically significant" rules, which had been defined by EO 12866 (1993) as regulations that would have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or otherwise "adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." Rules deemed economically significant are subject to greater scrutiny, most notably a requirement that agencies conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the proposed regulation.
When the Biden administration issued EO 14094 (2023), the annual cost threshold for a rule to be considered a "significant regulatory action" doubled to $200 million plus an inflation adjustment every three years. A discussion of the rationale and implications of this change can be found in my review of the Fall 2023 edition of the Unified Agenda.
One important implication is that EO 14094 made historical comparisons of the stock and flow of "economically significant rules" more challenging. Fortunately, as part of the Congressional Review Act, Congress itself requires a separate "major" rule designation that retains the traditional $100 million threshold (5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2)(A)), allowing for continued like-for-like historical accounting.
Figure 1 maintains the $100 million cost threshold by counting "major" rules instead of "economically significant" rules. While Trump revoked EO 14094 (2023) as part of EO 14148 (2025) and thereby restored the traditional $100 million cost threshold for "economically significant" rules, we have opted to count "major" rules rather than economically significant rules to ensure continuity and historical comparability.
There are currently 12 "major" rules under development at the Department of Transportation. Of the 45 new rulemaking projects that first appeared in the 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda, only one has been designated a "major" rule. However, 23 have a "major" status listed as "undetermined," meaning they could be later designated as "major" rules as they move through the rulemaking process and economic costs are estimated.
Transportation deregulation in the first half of the second Trump administration
Given that Trump signed an executive order titled "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," it should perhaps not be surprising that the U.S. Department of Transportation has categorized many of its newly announced rulemaking actions as "deregulatory." That order, EO 14192, established a regulatory budget, which necessitates the categorization of rules as "regulatory" or "deregulatory." OIRA issued a memo in March 2025 providing guidance on this process.
According to the 2026 Unified Agenda, of the Department of Transportation's 45 newly announced rulemaking projects, 30 are categorized as "deregulatory," seven are categorized as "regulatory," with the remainder being categorized as "fully or partially exempt," "not subject to, not significant," or "other." This works out to a deregulatory-to-regulatory action ratio of 4.29:1, less than half the targeted 10:1 ratio in EO 14192. However, adding the U.S. Department of Transportation's completed regulatory activities from FY 2025 yields a deregulatory-to-regulatory ratio of 15:1, which suggests the current pipeline of regulatory activities is still on track to comply with EO 14192.
Setting aside the raw counts of regulatory actions, the specific actions that are categorized as regulatory or deregulatory reveal Trump administration transportation priorities. The seven actions announced in the 2026 Unified Agenda that are categorized as regulatory are two aviation equipment mandates from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on shielding aircraft altimeters from 5G radio wave interference (2120-AM21) and increasing airliner cockpit voice recording times from two hours to 25 hours (2120-AM19), one that would apply Buy America domestic content requirements to electric vehicle chargers procured under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program (2125-AG29), and four increasing requirements on the trucking workforce from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (2126-AC99, 2126-AD00, 2126-AD03, 2126-AC98).
All but one of these actions is justified as addressing a purported safety market failure. The arguments for the FAA altimeter shielding and 25-hour flight recorder requirements, which reflect a safety policy consensus, are better grounded than the FMCSA's crackdown on noncitizen truck drivers, which appear to be motivated by the Trump administration's broader policy agenda against immigration and has already spawned litigation. The other action, FHWA's Buy America requirements for federally funded electric vehicle charging stations, increases burdens on vehicle technology disfavored by the administration while being consistent with the economic protectionism that has animated the past three presidential administrations.
In contrast, Department of Transportation rulemakings around technologies and practices favored by the Trump administration tend to be categorized as deregulatory. This is most obvious in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's continued work to advance automated vehicle technologies. The 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda contains seven newly published rulemakings designed to clear a regulatory path for vehicle automation technologies and enable commercial deployment, all categorized as deregulatory, which are listed below:
* Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment (2127-AM99);
* Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 (2127-AN02);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles (2127-AM96);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN00);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN03);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicle (2127-AN04);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN05).
The use of regulation by any presidential administration to advance its policy priorities is to be expected. Elections have consequences, after all. While its professed commitment to deregulation is being applied unevenly, the Trump Department of Transportation's attention is welcome. However, if political leadership wishes to see durable deregulatory reforms, action must come from Congress to limit Executive Branch opportunities to engage in discretionary regulation in the first place.
Short of major economic policy reforms, Congress should at the very least demand regulatory transparency. The inconsistent publication of the Unified Agenda by the second Trump administration is concerning in this regard. The failure to meet the Regulatory Flexibility Act's biannual publication requirements is not unprecedented--the Obama administration published just a single edition of the Unified Agenda in 2012--but it is highly atypical. As it stands, the second Trump administration is on track to miss publication of at least two Unified Agenda editions, which would be unprecedented.
Congress should seek an explanation from the administration for this decline in regulatory transparency as well as a commitment to resume regular regulatory agenda publication consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. To further advance regulatory transparency, the U.S. Department of Transportation should resume publication of the Monthly Significant Rulemaking Report, which offered more frequent updates on the development economically significant rules. This report ceased regular publication during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at the end of the first Trump administration, was published only twice during the Biden administration, and was then terminated by the second Trump administration, also without explanation.
* * *
Table 1: U.S. Department of Transportation Rulemaking Projects First Published in the 2026 Unified Agenda
Agency ... Stage of Rulemaking ... Title ... RIN
OST ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Subtitle B of Title 2 on Federal Financial Assistance ... 2105-AF44
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Eliminating T-8 Report of All Cargo Operations ... 2105-AF41
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Corrections to DOT Operating Administration Titles ... 2105-AF42
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Updates to Aviation Economic Procedural Regulations ... 2105-AF43
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Rescinding Portions of Department of Transportation's Title VI Regulations to Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and to Implement Executive Order 14281 ... 2105-AF45
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing to Electronic Payments ... 2120-AM16
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flexibility Enhancements of Weather Reporting Systems ... 2120-AM17
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Improving Emergency Medical Kit Efficacy and Flexibility in Commercial Airline Operations ... 2120-AM18
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector Observation of Pilot-in-Command Requirement ... 2120-AM20
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Requirements for Certain Aircraft to be Equipped with Interference Tolerant NextGen Radio Altimeter Systems ... 2120-AM21
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Space Launch and Reentry Licensing and Permitting User Fees ... 2120-AM22
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of FAA Third-Class Medical Certificate Requirement for Military Pilot Trainees ... 2120-AM23
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flight Operations: Pilot requirements; Use of oxygen ... 2120-AM24
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing Medical Standards For Certain Low-Risk Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Cases ... 2120-AM25
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Streamlined Launch and Reentry License Requirements Improvement ... 2120-AM26
FAA ... Final Rule Stage ... 25 Hour Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) Requirements for Existing Aircraft ... 2120-AM19
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements - Buy America Standard for Electric Vehicle Chargers ... 2125-AG29
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2125-AG30
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... English Language Proficiency, Out of Service Criteria ... 2126-AC99
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Program for Strengthening Certification Requirements of Training Providers ... 2126-AD00
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Passenger Carrier Regulations in 49 CFR Part 374 ... 2126-AD01
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Standards for Broker and Freight Forwarder Qualifications/Knowledge ... 2126-AD02
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards ... 2126-AD03
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (NDCDL) ... 2126-AC98
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Amendments ... 2126-AD04
NHTSA Prerule Stage ... Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment ... 2127-AM99
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Seat Belt Assurance System Compliance Option for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AN01
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 ... 2127-AN02
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AM96
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AM97
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 122a, "Motorcycle Brake Systems" ... 2127-AM98
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AN00
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN03
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN04
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN05
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Litigation Protections for System Safety Program and Risk Reduction Program Information ... 2130-AD62
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Amendments to Streamline and Modernize Regulations Pertaining to New Safety Technology ... 2130-AD63
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ... 2130-AD64
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Major Capital Investment Projects ... 2132-AB62
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Charter Service ... 2132-AB63
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2132-AB64
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Seaway Rules and Regulations: Periodic Updates, Various Categories ... 2135-AA59
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Tariff of Tolls ... 2135-AA60
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Providing Regulatory Relief for Last Mile Delivery of Retail Products ... 2137-AG20
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Advancing Safety of Highway, Rail, and Vessel Transportation ... 2137-AG21
Source: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 2026
Note: RIN = Regulation Identifier Number, a unique alphanumeric code assigned by the Regulatory Information Service Center to each rulemaking project listed in the Unified Agenda. An explanation of Stage of Rulemaking terms can be found on page 13 of the Introduction to the Unified Agenda from the Regulatory Information Service Center.
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/trumps-department-of-transportation-unevenly-advances-deregulation-as-transparency-declines/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Transit Contracting Works When Agencies Pay for Performance
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera:
* * *
Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance
Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination.
-
When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works.
The separation of responsibilities depends ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera: * * * Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination. - When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works. The separation of responsibilities dependson the contract. For example, in Douglas County, Georgia, as part of a 2025 agreement with transportation company Via, the company handles service planning, routing technology, call-center operations, vehicles, maintenance, and marketing, while the county sets service requirements and priorities, administers the contract, and monitors performance. This is how many contracted transit agreements work.
Competitive procurement allows agencies to compare providers, replace poor performers, and add services without immediately expanding in-house capacity. A 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey found that 61% of the 463 agencies that responded contracted for some operations or support services. Among large agencies, the share reached about 92%. Respondents cited lower costs, specialized expertise, greater flexibility, and the ability to launch service without first purchasing vehicles, building facilities, or hiring an entire workforce.
But not all transit modes are contracted equally. According to 2024 National Transit Database (NTD) data, purchased transportation accounted for about 61% of demand-response operating expenses but only about 1% of heavy-rail operating expenses. Rail systems require a more specialized skillset that not all contractors possess. However, some U.S. rail systems and most systems in Europe and Japan are contracted, indicating it is feasible.
Where competition exists, contractors that fail to meet performance standards risk penalties, lower evaluations, or contract termination. These consequences create financial incentives to address maintenance, staffing, and complaints, but they do not guarantee better service. GAO found mixed evidence. Some studies reported no measurable difference from in-house operations, while others found more collisions or breakdowns. Results depend on contract design and enforcement.
Effective contract enforcement requires criteria that evaluate service delivery, reliability, safety, vehicle condition, preventable breakdowns, and complaints in ways that meet the jurisdiction's goals. Giving one measure too much weight can distort an operator's decisions. For example, an operator could improve on-time performance or reduce reported breakdowns by cutting routes or canceling trips.
This kind of contracting only works if agencies select operators capable of meeting the contract's performance standards. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allows best-value procurement rather than requiring selection based solely on the lowest price. An unusually cheap proposal may rely on unrealistic staffing assumptions, deferred maintenance, or service levels the bidder cannot sustain. Evaluating factors such as safety, past performance, workforce and maintenance plans, management experience, and financial capacity alongside price gives agencies a better chance of selecting a reliable operator. Agencies must then verify performance, audit reported results, and enforce the agreement throughout the contract.
Transit agencies across the country are already applying these principles. Foothill Transit shows how a public agency can retain control while private companies operate service. Foothill sets routes, fares, service levels, and capital plans, while Keolis and Transdev operate and maintain its buses. After Foothill replaced routes previously run by the Southern California Rapid Transit District with competitively contracted service, ridership rose about 30%. One comparison found that Foothill carried 14% more riders than continued public operation was projected to carry, with no evidence that service quality worsened. Foothill's current Keolis contract also ties incentives to on-time performance, customer service, and maintenance.
Wilson, North Carolina, shows another reason agencies contract services. Rather than develop and operate the new service in-house, the city hired Via to run RIDE, which replaced its fixed-route bus system. In 2024, RIDE provided 63% more trips at a 37% lower operating cost per trip than Wilson's former system. The switch also expanded coverage and reduced wait times at similar funding levels, giving Wilson specialized operating capacity without having to develop those capabilities in-house.
Cost savings are possible, but they should not be assumed. Running services in-house can sometimes be less expensive, especially if an agency already has the staff, facilities, and management needed to operate efficiently. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 258 reported that earlier federally funded studies found operating-cost savings of about 10% to 50% for some competitively contracted bus and demand-response services. However, the report warned that these results are difficult to generalize because the studies used different methods and often did not fully include procurement, contract administration, monitoring, and other transaction costs. Reported savings resulted from lower contractor wages and benefits translating to greater efficiency. As labor is the primary operating cost of transit services, lowering these costs while maintaining or improving service quality is crucial to improving efficiency.
The broader lesson is that successful contracting relies more on how agencies design, procure, and manage contracts than on whether the service is public or private. Agencies considering contracting should therefore follow four principles:
1. Contract only services with clearly assigned responsibilities and measurable performance standards.
2. Use best-value procurement rather than selecting operators based on price alone.
3. Tie payment and contract renewal to measurable rider outcomes, including reliability, safety, completed service, and customer experience.
4. Retain the staff, data, and authority needed to verify performance and enforce every agreement.
Transit agencies should decide who operates each service based on the required capabilities, available competition, total cost, and verified performance. Neither a contractor nor an in-house department should keep the work simply because it already has it. If another arrangement can provide better service or needed capabilities at a justified full cost, the agency should make the change.
* * *
Neliann Rivera is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/transit-contracting-works-when-agencies-pay-for-performance/
* * *
Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance
Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination.
-
When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works.
The separation of responsibilities depends ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera: * * * Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination. - When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works. The separation of responsibilities dependson the contract. For example, in Douglas County, Georgia, as part of a 2025 agreement with transportation company Via, the company handles service planning, routing technology, call-center operations, vehicles, maintenance, and marketing, while the county sets service requirements and priorities, administers the contract, and monitors performance. This is how many contracted transit agreements work.
Competitive procurement allows agencies to compare providers, replace poor performers, and add services without immediately expanding in-house capacity. A 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey found that 61% of the 463 agencies that responded contracted for some operations or support services. Among large agencies, the share reached about 92%. Respondents cited lower costs, specialized expertise, greater flexibility, and the ability to launch service without first purchasing vehicles, building facilities, or hiring an entire workforce.
But not all transit modes are contracted equally. According to 2024 National Transit Database (NTD) data, purchased transportation accounted for about 61% of demand-response operating expenses but only about 1% of heavy-rail operating expenses. Rail systems require a more specialized skillset that not all contractors possess. However, some U.S. rail systems and most systems in Europe and Japan are contracted, indicating it is feasible.
Where competition exists, contractors that fail to meet performance standards risk penalties, lower evaluations, or contract termination. These consequences create financial incentives to address maintenance, staffing, and complaints, but they do not guarantee better service. GAO found mixed evidence. Some studies reported no measurable difference from in-house operations, while others found more collisions or breakdowns. Results depend on contract design and enforcement.
Effective contract enforcement requires criteria that evaluate service delivery, reliability, safety, vehicle condition, preventable breakdowns, and complaints in ways that meet the jurisdiction's goals. Giving one measure too much weight can distort an operator's decisions. For example, an operator could improve on-time performance or reduce reported breakdowns by cutting routes or canceling trips.
This kind of contracting only works if agencies select operators capable of meeting the contract's performance standards. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allows best-value procurement rather than requiring selection based solely on the lowest price. An unusually cheap proposal may rely on unrealistic staffing assumptions, deferred maintenance, or service levels the bidder cannot sustain. Evaluating factors such as safety, past performance, workforce and maintenance plans, management experience, and financial capacity alongside price gives agencies a better chance of selecting a reliable operator. Agencies must then verify performance, audit reported results, and enforce the agreement throughout the contract.
Transit agencies across the country are already applying these principles. Foothill Transit shows how a public agency can retain control while private companies operate service. Foothill sets routes, fares, service levels, and capital plans, while Keolis and Transdev operate and maintain its buses. After Foothill replaced routes previously run by the Southern California Rapid Transit District with competitively contracted service, ridership rose about 30%. One comparison found that Foothill carried 14% more riders than continued public operation was projected to carry, with no evidence that service quality worsened. Foothill's current Keolis contract also ties incentives to on-time performance, customer service, and maintenance.
Wilson, North Carolina, shows another reason agencies contract services. Rather than develop and operate the new service in-house, the city hired Via to run RIDE, which replaced its fixed-route bus system. In 2024, RIDE provided 63% more trips at a 37% lower operating cost per trip than Wilson's former system. The switch also expanded coverage and reduced wait times at similar funding levels, giving Wilson specialized operating capacity without having to develop those capabilities in-house.
Cost savings are possible, but they should not be assumed. Running services in-house can sometimes be less expensive, especially if an agency already has the staff, facilities, and management needed to operate efficiently. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 258 reported that earlier federally funded studies found operating-cost savings of about 10% to 50% for some competitively contracted bus and demand-response services. However, the report warned that these results are difficult to generalize because the studies used different methods and often did not fully include procurement, contract administration, monitoring, and other transaction costs. Reported savings resulted from lower contractor wages and benefits translating to greater efficiency. As labor is the primary operating cost of transit services, lowering these costs while maintaining or improving service quality is crucial to improving efficiency.
The broader lesson is that successful contracting relies more on how agencies design, procure, and manage contracts than on whether the service is public or private. Agencies considering contracting should therefore follow four principles:
1. Contract only services with clearly assigned responsibilities and measurable performance standards.
2. Use best-value procurement rather than selecting operators based on price alone.
3. Tie payment and contract renewal to measurable rider outcomes, including reliability, safety, completed service, and customer experience.
4. Retain the staff, data, and authority needed to verify performance and enforce every agreement.
Transit agencies should decide who operates each service based on the required capabilities, available competition, total cost, and verified performance. Neither a contractor nor an in-house department should keep the work simply because it already has it. If another arrangement can provide better service or needed capabilities at a justified full cost, the agency should make the change.
* * *
Neliann Rivera is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/transit-contracting-works-when-agencies-pay-for-performance/
Health Foundation Responds to British Prime Minister's Devolution Plans
LONDON, England, Aug. 1 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by Interim Director of Health and Inequalities David Finch:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to Prime Minister's devolution plans
Responding to the Prime Minister's remarks on devolution, David Finch Interim Director of Health and Inequalities, at the Health Foundation, said:
'People's health is influenced by many factors, including decent housing, good jobs and reliable transport, and these can be very different depending on where you live. That's why it makes sense to give local areas greater power to design solutions ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Aug. 1 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by Interim Director of Health and Inequalities David Finch: * * * Health Foundation responds to Prime Minister's devolution plans Responding to the Prime Minister's remarks on devolution, David Finch Interim Director of Health and Inequalities, at the Health Foundation, said: 'People's health is influenced by many factors, including decent housing, good jobs and reliable transport, and these can be very different depending on where you live. That's why it makes sense to give local areas greater power to design solutionsthat reflect their community's needs.
'When done well, devolution can help to improve health and reduce inequalities by taking a preventative approach to public services, joining up support across sectors and focusing on the outcomes that matter most locally.
'But it will be important to ensure that places with weaker economies and less ability to raise revenues locally don't get left behind, which could risk a further widening of existing inequalities, with local areas supported to build the capability needed to make these reforms work over the long term.
'Improving health is not only important for people's quality of life but is also key in supporting the government's mission to boost growth and living standards in every part of the country.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/health-foundation-responds-to-prime-minister-s-devolution-plans
* * *
Health Foundation responds to Prime Minister's devolution plans
Responding to the Prime Minister's remarks on devolution, David Finch Interim Director of Health and Inequalities, at the Health Foundation, said:
'People's health is influenced by many factors, including decent housing, good jobs and reliable transport, and these can be very different depending on where you live. That's why it makes sense to give local areas greater power to design solutions ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Aug. 1 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by Interim Director of Health and Inequalities David Finch: * * * Health Foundation responds to Prime Minister's devolution plans Responding to the Prime Minister's remarks on devolution, David Finch Interim Director of Health and Inequalities, at the Health Foundation, said: 'People's health is influenced by many factors, including decent housing, good jobs and reliable transport, and these can be very different depending on where you live. That's why it makes sense to give local areas greater power to design solutionsthat reflect their community's needs.
'When done well, devolution can help to improve health and reduce inequalities by taking a preventative approach to public services, joining up support across sectors and focusing on the outcomes that matter most locally.
'But it will be important to ensure that places with weaker economies and less ability to raise revenues locally don't get left behind, which could risk a further widening of existing inequalities, with local areas supported to build the capability needed to make these reforms work over the long term.
'Improving health is not only important for people's quality of life but is also key in supporting the government's mission to boost growth and living standards in every part of the country.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/health-foundation-responds-to-prime-minister-s-devolution-plans
WLF Urges FTC to Withdraw Unconstitutional "Ideological Bias" Proposal
WASHINGTON, July 31 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges FTC to Withdraw Unconstitutional "Ideological Bias" Proposal
*
"The Constitution forbids the Federal Trade Commission from acting as the Federal Truth Commission."
-Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
Click here to read WLF's comment.
(Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to withdraw a proposed policy statement contending that AI systems with "undisclosed ideological objectives" violate a federal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 31 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges FTC to Withdraw Unconstitutional "Ideological Bias" Proposal * "The Constitution forbids the Federal Trade Commission from acting as the Federal Truth Commission." -Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click here to read WLF's comment. (Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to withdraw a proposed policy statement contending that AI systems with "undisclosed ideological objectives" violate a federallaw barring unfair or deceptive business practices.
Under the proposed policy, if a company touted its AI system as a superior model at answering user queries, but the platform gave answers the federal government found insufficiently supported, the FTC could bring an enforcement action. The proposed statement suggests that companies can avoid this liability by posting a conspicuous disclaimer advising users that the platform has a hidden agenda.
WLF's comment explains why this proposal violates the First Amendment and should be withdrawn. The FTC's proposed policy rests on the false premise that there is an easily administrable distinction between fact and opinion, and that the government can police facts without infringing on protected speech. That is not so. And the Commission's proposed disclaimer regime is no fix. Two First Amendment wrongs (speech regulation and compelled-speech) can't make a constitutional right.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/07/31/communicating/wlf-urges-ftc-to-withdraw-unconstitutional-ideological-bias-proposal/
* * *
WLF Urges FTC to Withdraw Unconstitutional "Ideological Bias" Proposal
*
"The Constitution forbids the Federal Trade Commission from acting as the Federal Truth Commission."
-Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
Click here to read WLF's comment.
(Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to withdraw a proposed policy statement contending that AI systems with "undisclosed ideological objectives" violate a federal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 31 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges FTC to Withdraw Unconstitutional "Ideological Bias" Proposal * "The Constitution forbids the Federal Trade Commission from acting as the Federal Truth Commission." -Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click here to read WLF's comment. (Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to withdraw a proposed policy statement contending that AI systems with "undisclosed ideological objectives" violate a federallaw barring unfair or deceptive business practices.
Under the proposed policy, if a company touted its AI system as a superior model at answering user queries, but the platform gave answers the federal government found insufficiently supported, the FTC could bring an enforcement action. The proposed statement suggests that companies can avoid this liability by posting a conspicuous disclaimer advising users that the platform has a hidden agenda.
WLF's comment explains why this proposal violates the First Amendment and should be withdrawn. The FTC's proposed policy rests on the false premise that there is an easily administrable distinction between fact and opinion, and that the government can police facts without infringing on protected speech. That is not so. And the Commission's proposed disclaimer regime is no fix. Two First Amendment wrongs (speech regulation and compelled-speech) can't make a constitutional right.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/07/31/communicating/wlf-urges-ftc-to-withdraw-unconstitutional-ideological-bias-proposal/
Lumina Foundation Issues Commentary: Hidden Student Success Strategy? Rethink Course Scheduling
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 31 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by Strategy Director for Research and Evaluation Wendy Sedlak and Grantmaking Portfolio Director Wayne Taliaferro:
* * *
A hidden student success strategy? Rethink course scheduling.
A student's course schedule is one of the most consequential (and often overlooked) factors shaping whether they stay on track for their degree or credential.
Yet the path to earning a degree or credential remains unnecessarily difficult for far too many students. Beyond juggling work, family, financial, and academic demands, ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 31 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by Strategy Director for Research and Evaluation Wendy Sedlak and Grantmaking Portfolio Director Wayne Taliaferro: * * * A hidden student success strategy? Rethink course scheduling. A student's course schedule is one of the most consequential (and often overlooked) factors shaping whether they stay on track for their degree or credential. Yet the path to earning a degree or credential remains unnecessarily difficult for far too many students. Beyond juggling work, family, financial, and academic demands,they can also encounter barriers created by the institutions themselves. Administrative friction points such as registration, enrollment, and course access can disrupt momentum and, in some cases, derail progress altogether.
Colleges can't control every challenge students face. But they can look at whether their own systems help or hinder progress. By reducing unnecessary roadblocks, they can make it easier for students to move through their programs. Scheduling isn't just an operational decision. It's a student success one.
When students can't access the courses they need, run into course availability issues, struggle to build schedules around their lives, or are unable to plan ahead, progress can quickly stall. Delayed completion often means additional costs, lost time, and a greater risk that students will stop out before earning a credential.
A required course that's unavailable can delay graduation. A class offered only during working hours can force students to choose between their paycheck or their education. Courses that routinely conflict with one another can slow students' progress. These are consequences that far too many students face.
Of course, scheduling reform is not as simple as it sounds. Colleges must balance a range of dynamics and demands, from faculty availability and workloads to department structures and course sequences, as well as the realities of physical space, available resources, and change management, among many other considerations. The complexity is real, but so is the need and opportunity for change.
The shift is less about creating a perfect schedule than about recognizing that scheduling decisions are student success decisions.
The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) is helping colleges rethink scheduling through its Student-Centered Course Scheduling initiative. AASCU is working with over 30 institutions to redesign how courses are offered, sequenced, and staffed, using data to better align course availability with student demand. The work combines data, policy review, cross-campus collaboration, and continuous improvement to transform course scheduling from an administrative exercise into a student success strategy. With support from Lumina Foundation, AASCU recently expanded the initiative to bring these strategies to more colleges.
Participating institutions use real-time data to identify capacity constraints, add sections where demand is highest, resolve conflicts between required courses, revisit outdated scheduling policies, and build multi-term schedules that give students greater confidence about what courses will be available in future semesters. Rather than rebuilding schedules each term, institutions continuously evaluate whether course offerings are helping students make steady progress toward a credential.
Early results show that, across AASCU's pilot institutions, completion of first-year English and math courses increased by 12 percent, and students earned an average of 1.4 additional productive credits per year. Individual campuses also improved classroom utilization, reduced scheduling conflicts, and increased the number of students taking full course loads. These are all solid indicators that better scheduling can help students maintain momentum toward graduation.
Recent research from our partners at Persistence Plus reinforces this idea. Through their work on continuous enrollment, they found that students value greater predictability, clearer pathways, and fewer administrative hurdles that can interrupt their momentum. Campus administrators understand this, too. The findings point to a simple but powerful insight: students are more likely to persist when institutions make it easier to keep moving forward.
Student-centered scheduling isn't the magical fix for every issue facing higher ed. But it addresses one challenge within an institution's control.
When students can reliably enroll in the courses they need, when they need them, they're more likely to maintain momentum, complete their programs, and, ultimately, earn the credential they came for.
* * *
About the Authors
Wayne Taliaferro directs Lumina's grantmaking portfolio focused on enhancing student success at two- and four-year colleges.
Wendy Sedlak, Ph.D., is the strategy director for research and evaluation at Lumina Foundation, which works to help all Americans continue to learn and train after high school. Before joining Lumina, Sedlak worked at Equal Measure, where she directed projects to benefit students, including many complex national systems-change evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/a-hidden-student-success-strategy-rethink-course-scheduling/
* * *
A hidden student success strategy? Rethink course scheduling.
A student's course schedule is one of the most consequential (and often overlooked) factors shaping whether they stay on track for their degree or credential.
Yet the path to earning a degree or credential remains unnecessarily difficult for far too many students. Beyond juggling work, family, financial, and academic demands, ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 31 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by Strategy Director for Research and Evaluation Wendy Sedlak and Grantmaking Portfolio Director Wayne Taliaferro: * * * A hidden student success strategy? Rethink course scheduling. A student's course schedule is one of the most consequential (and often overlooked) factors shaping whether they stay on track for their degree or credential. Yet the path to earning a degree or credential remains unnecessarily difficult for far too many students. Beyond juggling work, family, financial, and academic demands,they can also encounter barriers created by the institutions themselves. Administrative friction points such as registration, enrollment, and course access can disrupt momentum and, in some cases, derail progress altogether.
Colleges can't control every challenge students face. But they can look at whether their own systems help or hinder progress. By reducing unnecessary roadblocks, they can make it easier for students to move through their programs. Scheduling isn't just an operational decision. It's a student success one.
When students can't access the courses they need, run into course availability issues, struggle to build schedules around their lives, or are unable to plan ahead, progress can quickly stall. Delayed completion often means additional costs, lost time, and a greater risk that students will stop out before earning a credential.
A required course that's unavailable can delay graduation. A class offered only during working hours can force students to choose between their paycheck or their education. Courses that routinely conflict with one another can slow students' progress. These are consequences that far too many students face.
Of course, scheduling reform is not as simple as it sounds. Colleges must balance a range of dynamics and demands, from faculty availability and workloads to department structures and course sequences, as well as the realities of physical space, available resources, and change management, among many other considerations. The complexity is real, but so is the need and opportunity for change.
The shift is less about creating a perfect schedule than about recognizing that scheduling decisions are student success decisions.
The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) is helping colleges rethink scheduling through its Student-Centered Course Scheduling initiative. AASCU is working with over 30 institutions to redesign how courses are offered, sequenced, and staffed, using data to better align course availability with student demand. The work combines data, policy review, cross-campus collaboration, and continuous improvement to transform course scheduling from an administrative exercise into a student success strategy. With support from Lumina Foundation, AASCU recently expanded the initiative to bring these strategies to more colleges.
Participating institutions use real-time data to identify capacity constraints, add sections where demand is highest, resolve conflicts between required courses, revisit outdated scheduling policies, and build multi-term schedules that give students greater confidence about what courses will be available in future semesters. Rather than rebuilding schedules each term, institutions continuously evaluate whether course offerings are helping students make steady progress toward a credential.
Early results show that, across AASCU's pilot institutions, completion of first-year English and math courses increased by 12 percent, and students earned an average of 1.4 additional productive credits per year. Individual campuses also improved classroom utilization, reduced scheduling conflicts, and increased the number of students taking full course loads. These are all solid indicators that better scheduling can help students maintain momentum toward graduation.
Recent research from our partners at Persistence Plus reinforces this idea. Through their work on continuous enrollment, they found that students value greater predictability, clearer pathways, and fewer administrative hurdles that can interrupt their momentum. Campus administrators understand this, too. The findings point to a simple but powerful insight: students are more likely to persist when institutions make it easier to keep moving forward.
Student-centered scheduling isn't the magical fix for every issue facing higher ed. But it addresses one challenge within an institution's control.
When students can reliably enroll in the courses they need, when they need them, they're more likely to maintain momentum, complete their programs, and, ultimately, earn the credential they came for.
* * *
About the Authors
Wayne Taliaferro directs Lumina's grantmaking portfolio focused on enhancing student success at two- and four-year colleges.
Wendy Sedlak, Ph.D., is the strategy director for research and evaluation at Lumina Foundation, which works to help all Americans continue to learn and train after high school. Before joining Lumina, Sedlak worked at Equal Measure, where she directed projects to benefit students, including many complex national systems-change evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/a-hidden-student-success-strategy-rethink-course-scheduling/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: How Education Entrepreneurs Can Overcome Regulatory Challenges
DETROIT, Michigan, July 31 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Denise Lever, founder of Baker Creek Academy and TrailblazED Microschool Leadership Forge:
* * *
How Education Entrepreneurs Can Overcome Regulatory Challenges
Develop enough understanding to ask informed questions, document decisions, and know when to seek guidance.
-
When the state fire marshal called in the early days of running my microschool, I wasn't sure what to think. We had worked closely with our local fire department and town government. Our learning center had been inspected, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 31 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Denise Lever, founder of Baker Creek Academy and TrailblazED Microschool Leadership Forge: * * * How Education Entrepreneurs Can Overcome Regulatory Challenges Develop enough understanding to ask informed questions, document decisions, and know when to seek guidance. - When the state fire marshal called in the early days of running my microschool, I wasn't sure what to think. We had worked closely with our local fire department and town government. Our learning center had been inspected,approved, and operating successfully for years. I had no reason to think that there was another layer of oversight that we had not navigated yet. I wondered what would trigger this new round of scrutiny? Was this a legitimate regulatory issue, or overreach?
As a former wildland firefighter, I had spent years assessing structures, studying fire behavior, and making the hard decisions on which buildings we were likely to save and which ones we might have to walk away from. A general fire inspection did not intimidate me.
However, I realized that I didn't know enough to determine whether this fire marshal inquiry was legitimate or not.
Then the inspection revealed that this was about educational occupancy, not fire safety.
The fire marshal's finding nearly cost us everything. Our learning center couldn't move forward with a lease renewal. We couldn't book vendors for our summer programs, or market our upcoming founders' retreat. We didn't even know if we could finalize enrollment for next semester. I hadn't anticipated that tutoring the three Rs could trigger an entirely new level of regulations. Unfortunately, I hear some version of this story regularly from the founders I coach.
When founders start education businesses, the conversations revolve around the learners. Founders focus on curriculum, culture, families, vision, and mission. Then months, and sometimes years, later, the questions shift to different concerns.
"Do I need a business license?" "Where do I get insurance?" "How do I know who has jurisdiction?" and, eventually, "Do you know a good lawyer?"
Many founders willingly invest hundreds of hours learning about child development, curriculum, and how to build a learning community culture. What many don't anticipate is that bringing that vision to life also requires understanding lease agreements, zoning, employment law, insurance, building codes, and a host of other regulations that have little to do with education and everything to do with operating a successful education business.
Building a successful learning community requires far more than understanding how children learn. The challenge isn't a lack of vision or commitment to compliance. It's the breadth of knowledge required to turn that vision into reality.
One of the clearest signs that the education entrepreneurship movement is maturing isn't that more founders are finding the courage to build new learning environments. It's that organizations are emerging to help these founders succeed and their programs to prosper.
Over the last few years, I have begun to see a pattern that reminds me of my homeschooling journey. People aren't just solving these problems for themselves. They are sharing what they have learned with others. Mentors answer late-night emails to offer support. Long-time operators share their hard-won experience at conferences and on podcasts. Founder groups connect newcomers to resources, networks, and coaches.
This is what healthy communities do: they pass along knowledge that enables others to blossom.
I recently had the opportunity to interview Lynn Swanson, Chief Counsel for Education at Stand Together, when I guest hosted Kerry McDonald's LiberatED Podcast.
I asked Lynn what drove Stand Together to develop the Edupreneur Resource Center (ERC). Her answer reinforced what I had been seeing in my own work with education entrepreneurs.
As innovative learning environments began emerging across the country, many edupreneurs found themselves trying to navigate a legal and regulatory landscape they had never encountered before. Lynn explained that the ERC grew out of the recognition that this complexity had become "a barrier to the growth of a vibrant marketplace of education alternatives for families."
The ERC was designed with two purposes in mind: helping founders understand the regulatory landscape in which they operate, and supporting education entrepreneurs when they face regulatory overreach or intervention.
One of the most enlightening insights Lynn shared was that perfect compliance is very hard to achieve. Regulations overlap, agencies have different jurisdictions, codes change, and interpretations can vary. Lynn also said, "Don't assume you are wrong." Develop enough understanding to ask informed questions, document decisions, and know when to seek guidance.
The ERC offers micro-courses, state-specific compliance guides, practical checklists, and personalized guidance. Most importantly, the ERC helps founders navigate a complex regulatory landscape with greater confidence.
Healthy ecosystems don't simply produce entrepreneurs. They produce knowledge, relationships, and support systems that help entrepreneurs to flourish.
Looking back, the lesson learned isn't how to prepare for a fire inspection. It's how a knowledge gap could grow to an existential crisis and threaten everything we've built.
Baker Creek Academy wasn't just my business. It was the learning community our families had intentionally chosen as an alternative to the traditional system. If I failed to understand the regulations that govern our program, families could lose the alternative they trusted me to provide.
I realized that my responsibility extended beyond the learners I guide and the founders I lead. I had a duty to understand the regulatory terrain well enough to protect the learning community we had built.
Founders don't have the luxury of remaining experts only in education. Families are not only trusting us with their children, but with building stable and sustainable programs that they can count on. We must become good stewards of not only our mission and vision, but the programs we built to serve them.
The ERC is significant because it helps create the conditions where educational freedom can flourish. Through shared knowledge, guidance, and support, founders are building environments that are both innovative and sustainable. Importantly, the ERC is strengthening the broader ecosystem by making it easier for the next generation of edupreneurs to serve families with confidence.
Education pluralism depends on more than courageous founders. It depends on experienced founders, mentors, and organizations willing to invest their knowledge so that others can thrive.
* * *
Denise Lever is the founder of Baker Creek Academy and TrailblazED Microschool Leadership Forge. A former wildland firefighter and longtime homeschool mom, she now leads a growing network of self-directed microschools and mentors education founders nationwide.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-education-entrepreneurs-can-overcome-regulatory-challenges/
* * *
How Education Entrepreneurs Can Overcome Regulatory Challenges
Develop enough understanding to ask informed questions, document decisions, and know when to seek guidance.
-
When the state fire marshal called in the early days of running my microschool, I wasn't sure what to think. We had worked closely with our local fire department and town government. Our learning center had been inspected, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 31 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Denise Lever, founder of Baker Creek Academy and TrailblazED Microschool Leadership Forge: * * * How Education Entrepreneurs Can Overcome Regulatory Challenges Develop enough understanding to ask informed questions, document decisions, and know when to seek guidance. - When the state fire marshal called in the early days of running my microschool, I wasn't sure what to think. We had worked closely with our local fire department and town government. Our learning center had been inspected,approved, and operating successfully for years. I had no reason to think that there was another layer of oversight that we had not navigated yet. I wondered what would trigger this new round of scrutiny? Was this a legitimate regulatory issue, or overreach?
As a former wildland firefighter, I had spent years assessing structures, studying fire behavior, and making the hard decisions on which buildings we were likely to save and which ones we might have to walk away from. A general fire inspection did not intimidate me.
However, I realized that I didn't know enough to determine whether this fire marshal inquiry was legitimate or not.
Then the inspection revealed that this was about educational occupancy, not fire safety.
The fire marshal's finding nearly cost us everything. Our learning center couldn't move forward with a lease renewal. We couldn't book vendors for our summer programs, or market our upcoming founders' retreat. We didn't even know if we could finalize enrollment for next semester. I hadn't anticipated that tutoring the three Rs could trigger an entirely new level of regulations. Unfortunately, I hear some version of this story regularly from the founders I coach.
When founders start education businesses, the conversations revolve around the learners. Founders focus on curriculum, culture, families, vision, and mission. Then months, and sometimes years, later, the questions shift to different concerns.
"Do I need a business license?" "Where do I get insurance?" "How do I know who has jurisdiction?" and, eventually, "Do you know a good lawyer?"
Many founders willingly invest hundreds of hours learning about child development, curriculum, and how to build a learning community culture. What many don't anticipate is that bringing that vision to life also requires understanding lease agreements, zoning, employment law, insurance, building codes, and a host of other regulations that have little to do with education and everything to do with operating a successful education business.
Building a successful learning community requires far more than understanding how children learn. The challenge isn't a lack of vision or commitment to compliance. It's the breadth of knowledge required to turn that vision into reality.
One of the clearest signs that the education entrepreneurship movement is maturing isn't that more founders are finding the courage to build new learning environments. It's that organizations are emerging to help these founders succeed and their programs to prosper.
Over the last few years, I have begun to see a pattern that reminds me of my homeschooling journey. People aren't just solving these problems for themselves. They are sharing what they have learned with others. Mentors answer late-night emails to offer support. Long-time operators share their hard-won experience at conferences and on podcasts. Founder groups connect newcomers to resources, networks, and coaches.
This is what healthy communities do: they pass along knowledge that enables others to blossom.
I recently had the opportunity to interview Lynn Swanson, Chief Counsel for Education at Stand Together, when I guest hosted Kerry McDonald's LiberatED Podcast.
I asked Lynn what drove Stand Together to develop the Edupreneur Resource Center (ERC). Her answer reinforced what I had been seeing in my own work with education entrepreneurs.
As innovative learning environments began emerging across the country, many edupreneurs found themselves trying to navigate a legal and regulatory landscape they had never encountered before. Lynn explained that the ERC grew out of the recognition that this complexity had become "a barrier to the growth of a vibrant marketplace of education alternatives for families."
The ERC was designed with two purposes in mind: helping founders understand the regulatory landscape in which they operate, and supporting education entrepreneurs when they face regulatory overreach or intervention.
One of the most enlightening insights Lynn shared was that perfect compliance is very hard to achieve. Regulations overlap, agencies have different jurisdictions, codes change, and interpretations can vary. Lynn also said, "Don't assume you are wrong." Develop enough understanding to ask informed questions, document decisions, and know when to seek guidance.
The ERC offers micro-courses, state-specific compliance guides, practical checklists, and personalized guidance. Most importantly, the ERC helps founders navigate a complex regulatory landscape with greater confidence.
Healthy ecosystems don't simply produce entrepreneurs. They produce knowledge, relationships, and support systems that help entrepreneurs to flourish.
Looking back, the lesson learned isn't how to prepare for a fire inspection. It's how a knowledge gap could grow to an existential crisis and threaten everything we've built.
Baker Creek Academy wasn't just my business. It was the learning community our families had intentionally chosen as an alternative to the traditional system. If I failed to understand the regulations that govern our program, families could lose the alternative they trusted me to provide.
I realized that my responsibility extended beyond the learners I guide and the founders I lead. I had a duty to understand the regulatory terrain well enough to protect the learning community we had built.
Founders don't have the luxury of remaining experts only in education. Families are not only trusting us with their children, but with building stable and sustainable programs that they can count on. We must become good stewards of not only our mission and vision, but the programs we built to serve them.
The ERC is significant because it helps create the conditions where educational freedom can flourish. Through shared knowledge, guidance, and support, founders are building environments that are both innovative and sustainable. Importantly, the ERC is strengthening the broader ecosystem by making it easier for the next generation of edupreneurs to serve families with confidence.
Education pluralism depends on more than courageous founders. It depends on experienced founders, mentors, and organizations willing to invest their knowledge so that others can thrive.
* * *
Denise Lever is the founder of Baker Creek Academy and TrailblazED Microschool Leadership Forge. A former wildland firefighter and longtime homeschool mom, she now leads a growing network of self-directed microschools and mentors education founders nationwide.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-education-entrepreneurs-can-overcome-regulatory-challenges/
Cayuga Community Fund Distributes More Than $165,000 in Grants
SYRACUSE, New York, July 31 -- The Cayuga Community Fund, a geographically-specific fund administered by the Central New York Community Foundation, issued the following news release:
* * *
Cayuga Community Fund Distributes More Than $165,000 in Grants
The Cayuga Community Fund has announced its 2026 grant recipients.
-
The Cayuga Community Fund, an affiliate fund of the Central New York Community Foundation, distributed $169,509 to 26 nonprofit organizations that serve residents of Cayuga County.
Auburn Church of the Nazarene received $10,000 for continuation of the Free Laundry Saturdays ... Show Full Article SYRACUSE, New York, July 31 -- The Cayuga Community Fund, a geographically-specific fund administered by the Central New York Community Foundation, issued the following news release: * * * Cayuga Community Fund Distributes More Than $165,000 in Grants The Cayuga Community Fund has announced its 2026 grant recipients. - The Cayuga Community Fund, an affiliate fund of the Central New York Community Foundation, distributed $169,509 to 26 nonprofit organizations that serve residents of Cayuga County. Auburn Church of the Nazarene received $10,000 for continuation of the Free Laundry Saturdaysevent. The monthly program provides free laundry services, complimentary supplies, and access to an on-site mobile pantry for Auburn-area residents.
Auburn Community Cats TNR received $7,500 for the expansion of TNR clinic services. The program provides humane trapping, spay and neuter surgeries, vaccinations and colony management support to help stabilize and reduce the outdoor cat population.
Auburn Community Garden received $4,850 for the creation of an urban youth education farm. An urban youth education farm is a small city farm used to teach kids how to grow food, learn about sustainable agriculture, and donate fresh produce to people in need.
Auburn Public Theater received $9,089 for the purchase of wireless audio equipment.
Aurora of CNY received $7,603 for the Sense of Inclusion program, which delivers educational presentations to schools, medical providers, community groups, first responders, and law enforcement to promote greater understanding and inclusion for individuals with sensory loss.
Booker T. Washington Community Center received $3,444 for the purchase of an adaptive swing. An inclusive play and therapy seat designed to securely support children or adults with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities.
Cayuga Counseling Services received $10,000 to train staff in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR).
Cayuga Museum of History and Art received $3,500 for additional safety and accessibility upgrades to the museum.
Central New York Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Alliance received $10,000 to expand the Tick-Borne Disease Prevention and Education Program into Cayuga County.
Healing H'Arts Equestrian Center received $2,000 for an Equine Assisted Learning Course. The program provides equine-assisted educational experiences through interactive horse workshops and therapeutic services led by occupational therapist Kirsta Malone.
King Ferry Food Pantry received $10,000 for the purchase of food items for pantry clients.
Literacy Volunteers of Cayuga County received $5,000 to purchase supplies for the training and tutor workbook and resource library.
Merry-Go-Round Playhouse | The Rev Theatre Company received $5,000 for the continuation of the REV On Tour program in Cayuga County. The program brings live theatrical performances and educational arts experiences directly to schools, libraries and community venues throughout Cayuga County.
Mozaic received $5,000 for the launch of a community closet in Auburn. The Community Closet offers free clothing and other essential items to individuals and families in need, helping remove barriers to everyday living.
Nutrition Education For All received $2,000 to expand the Healthy Start nutrition education program for second-grade students at Genesee Elementary School.
NYS Equal Rights Heritage Center received $5,000 in support of the "Harriet: A Taste of Freedom" exhibition.
Perform 4 Purpose received $10,000 to purchase a second set of professional sound and stage equipment.
Rising Phoenix Sports Program received $7,800 for implementation of its program at the Harriet Tubman Residential Center. Through sports-based activities, the program helps girls in juvenile justice facilities build resilience, strengthen leadership skills and support their social and emotional well-being.
Running Start received $10,000 for the expansion of the 1st Amendment 1st Vote program to all high schools in Cayuga County. The program educates students about the First Amendment, civic engagement and the importance of informed participation in the democratic process.
Safe & Warm received $10,000 for the creation of the "Home at Last" rental deposit fund. The fund helps individuals and families overcome financial barriers to securing stable housing by assisting with rental security deposits.
Schweinfurth Art Center | Schweinfurth Memorial Art Center received $7,500 for the expansion of scholarship opportunities for children and adults.
Seward House Museum received $9,269 to purchase audio equipment for museum accessibility.
Sleep in Heavenly Peace received $4,054 to construct and deliver beds to children in Auburn.
Syracuse Rescue Mission Alliance received $8,400 for a summer youth recreation program that provides local educational outings, seasonal events, and enriching activities that encourage connection, recreation and positive youth development.
Syracuse Shakespeare in the Park received $1,000 for a future performance of "The Taming of the Shrew" at the Seward House.
Westminster Presbyterian Church received $1,500 for the installation of a hearing assistance system.
* * *
The Cayuga Community Fund, created in 2008, is a geographically-specific fund created to serve as a source of permanent charitable dollars available to nonprofits serving residents of Cayuga County. Grants are awarded from the endowment fund annually to aid vital programs in education, health, social services, the arts, civic and environmental concerns, as well as the preservation of historic resources in Cayuga County. The Cayuga Community Fund has granted more than $775,000 to nonprofit groups since 2010. To learn more about the Cayuga Community Fund, including how to make a contribution, visit cnycf.org/cayuga. The Cayuga Community Fund is an affiliate fund of the Central New York Community Foundation, cnycf.org.
* * *
About the Central New York Community Foundation
The Central New York Community Foundation is a public charity that turns community dollars into community change. Established in 1927, it receives contributions from donors, manages them to grow over time and then distributes funding to address the region's greatest needs. The foundation has invested more than $350 million in community projects that benefit Central New York. It also serves as a civic leader, convener and sponsor of strategic initiatives that foster a thriving and equitable region and address the most critical issues of our time.
* * *
Original text here: https://cnycf.org/cayuga-community-fund-distributes-more-than-165000-in-grants/
* * *
Cayuga Community Fund Distributes More Than $165,000 in Grants
The Cayuga Community Fund has announced its 2026 grant recipients.
-
The Cayuga Community Fund, an affiliate fund of the Central New York Community Foundation, distributed $169,509 to 26 nonprofit organizations that serve residents of Cayuga County.
Auburn Church of the Nazarene received $10,000 for continuation of the Free Laundry Saturdays ... Show Full Article SYRACUSE, New York, July 31 -- The Cayuga Community Fund, a geographically-specific fund administered by the Central New York Community Foundation, issued the following news release: * * * Cayuga Community Fund Distributes More Than $165,000 in Grants The Cayuga Community Fund has announced its 2026 grant recipients. - The Cayuga Community Fund, an affiliate fund of the Central New York Community Foundation, distributed $169,509 to 26 nonprofit organizations that serve residents of Cayuga County. Auburn Church of the Nazarene received $10,000 for continuation of the Free Laundry Saturdaysevent. The monthly program provides free laundry services, complimentary supplies, and access to an on-site mobile pantry for Auburn-area residents.
Auburn Community Cats TNR received $7,500 for the expansion of TNR clinic services. The program provides humane trapping, spay and neuter surgeries, vaccinations and colony management support to help stabilize and reduce the outdoor cat population.
Auburn Community Garden received $4,850 for the creation of an urban youth education farm. An urban youth education farm is a small city farm used to teach kids how to grow food, learn about sustainable agriculture, and donate fresh produce to people in need.
Auburn Public Theater received $9,089 for the purchase of wireless audio equipment.
Aurora of CNY received $7,603 for the Sense of Inclusion program, which delivers educational presentations to schools, medical providers, community groups, first responders, and law enforcement to promote greater understanding and inclusion for individuals with sensory loss.
Booker T. Washington Community Center received $3,444 for the purchase of an adaptive swing. An inclusive play and therapy seat designed to securely support children or adults with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities.
Cayuga Counseling Services received $10,000 to train staff in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR).
Cayuga Museum of History and Art received $3,500 for additional safety and accessibility upgrades to the museum.
Central New York Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Alliance received $10,000 to expand the Tick-Borne Disease Prevention and Education Program into Cayuga County.
Healing H'Arts Equestrian Center received $2,000 for an Equine Assisted Learning Course. The program provides equine-assisted educational experiences through interactive horse workshops and therapeutic services led by occupational therapist Kirsta Malone.
King Ferry Food Pantry received $10,000 for the purchase of food items for pantry clients.
Literacy Volunteers of Cayuga County received $5,000 to purchase supplies for the training and tutor workbook and resource library.
Merry-Go-Round Playhouse | The Rev Theatre Company received $5,000 for the continuation of the REV On Tour program in Cayuga County. The program brings live theatrical performances and educational arts experiences directly to schools, libraries and community venues throughout Cayuga County.
Mozaic received $5,000 for the launch of a community closet in Auburn. The Community Closet offers free clothing and other essential items to individuals and families in need, helping remove barriers to everyday living.
Nutrition Education For All received $2,000 to expand the Healthy Start nutrition education program for second-grade students at Genesee Elementary School.
NYS Equal Rights Heritage Center received $5,000 in support of the "Harriet: A Taste of Freedom" exhibition.
Perform 4 Purpose received $10,000 to purchase a second set of professional sound and stage equipment.
Rising Phoenix Sports Program received $7,800 for implementation of its program at the Harriet Tubman Residential Center. Through sports-based activities, the program helps girls in juvenile justice facilities build resilience, strengthen leadership skills and support their social and emotional well-being.
Running Start received $10,000 for the expansion of the 1st Amendment 1st Vote program to all high schools in Cayuga County. The program educates students about the First Amendment, civic engagement and the importance of informed participation in the democratic process.
Safe & Warm received $10,000 for the creation of the "Home at Last" rental deposit fund. The fund helps individuals and families overcome financial barriers to securing stable housing by assisting with rental security deposits.
Schweinfurth Art Center | Schweinfurth Memorial Art Center received $7,500 for the expansion of scholarship opportunities for children and adults.
Seward House Museum received $9,269 to purchase audio equipment for museum accessibility.
Sleep in Heavenly Peace received $4,054 to construct and deliver beds to children in Auburn.
Syracuse Rescue Mission Alliance received $8,400 for a summer youth recreation program that provides local educational outings, seasonal events, and enriching activities that encourage connection, recreation and positive youth development.
Syracuse Shakespeare in the Park received $1,000 for a future performance of "The Taming of the Shrew" at the Seward House.
Westminster Presbyterian Church received $1,500 for the installation of a hearing assistance system.
* * *
The Cayuga Community Fund, created in 2008, is a geographically-specific fund created to serve as a source of permanent charitable dollars available to nonprofits serving residents of Cayuga County. Grants are awarded from the endowment fund annually to aid vital programs in education, health, social services, the arts, civic and environmental concerns, as well as the preservation of historic resources in Cayuga County. The Cayuga Community Fund has granted more than $775,000 to nonprofit groups since 2010. To learn more about the Cayuga Community Fund, including how to make a contribution, visit cnycf.org/cayuga. The Cayuga Community Fund is an affiliate fund of the Central New York Community Foundation, cnycf.org.
* * *
About the Central New York Community Foundation
The Central New York Community Foundation is a public charity that turns community dollars into community change. Established in 1927, it receives contributions from donors, manages them to grow over time and then distributes funding to address the region's greatest needs. The foundation has invested more than $350 million in community projects that benefit Central New York. It also serves as a civic leader, convener and sponsor of strategic initiatives that foster a thriving and equitable region and address the most critical issues of our time.
* * *
Original text here: https://cnycf.org/cayuga-community-fund-distributes-more-than-165000-in-grants/