Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Welcome Blank Wall: Fla. School Takes Down Godly Banner After FFRF Complaint
MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 22 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
September 21, 2026
A welcome blank wall: Fla. school takes down godly banner after FFRF complaint
A Florida public middle school in Panama City, Fla., has removed a prominent "God is Love" banner from its gym after the Freedom From Religion Foundation intervened on behalf of a concerned parent.
For roughly three years, the large religious banner hung inside the gym at Mowat Middle School in Lynn Haven, part of Bay District Schools. The banner incorporated the school's official "M," ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 22 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 21, 2026 A welcome blank wall: Fla. school takes down godly banner after FFRF complaint A Florida public middle school in Panama City, Fla., has removed a prominent "God is Love" banner from its gym after the Freedom From Religion Foundation intervened on behalf of a concerned parent. For roughly three years, the large religious banner hung inside the gym at Mowat Middle School in Lynn Haven, part of Bay District Schools. The banner incorporated the school's official "M,"its Mustang identity and school colors, making the religious proclamation appear to be an official message of the school. Mowat identifies its students as "Mustangs," and district materials confirm its traditional school colors include navy and yellow.
A parent who contacted FFRF said they first noticed the banner in August 2023 and had been troubled by it ever since.
"It has bothered me for three years," the parent told FFRF. "The official M and the Mustangs logo make it feel like the school is endorsing one religion over others. It just hit me that my kids see this religious propaganda every single time they enter that gym. It's impossible to miss."
FFRF contacted the district and asked it to remove the banner, which clearly violates the principle of separation between religion and government.
"As the district is aware, public schools may not constitutionally show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to Superintendent Mark McQueen.
Mowat Middle School was undeniably signaling clear favoritism toward religion over nonreligion. There was no other reasonable way to interpret this banner other than an official school-sponsored religious pronouncement that a god is real and that "God is Love." The school was also coercing students to read and reflect upon an overtly religious message every single time they enter their school's gym.
Thirty-four percent of Floridians are non-Christian, including 27 percent who are atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular."
Fortunately, FFRF has recently received welcome news directly from the parent: The banner is gone.
"Thank you, thank you, thank you for your help," the parent wrote to FFRF after confirming its removal. The parent sent FFRF a new photo of the gym showing the large space on the wall where the banner once hung, adding: "That big blank spot on the wall feels so right."
FFRF welcomes the school's response, which shows respect for the Constitution and for families by leaving decisions about what to believe where it belongs: with students and their families.
"Students should never have to walk into their public school and be confronted with a declaration about what they are supposed to believe," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "We're delighted that this inappropriate religious display has been removed."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including nearly 2,000 members and a chapter in Florida, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/a-welcome-blank-wall-fla-school-takes-down-godly-banner-after-ffrf-complaint/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
September 21, 2026
A welcome blank wall: Fla. school takes down godly banner after FFRF complaint
A Florida public middle school in Panama City, Fla., has removed a prominent "God is Love" banner from its gym after the Freedom From Religion Foundation intervened on behalf of a concerned parent.
For roughly three years, the large religious banner hung inside the gym at Mowat Middle School in Lynn Haven, part of Bay District Schools. The banner incorporated the school's official "M," ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 22 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 21, 2026 A welcome blank wall: Fla. school takes down godly banner after FFRF complaint A Florida public middle school in Panama City, Fla., has removed a prominent "God is Love" banner from its gym after the Freedom From Religion Foundation intervened on behalf of a concerned parent. For roughly three years, the large religious banner hung inside the gym at Mowat Middle School in Lynn Haven, part of Bay District Schools. The banner incorporated the school's official "M,"its Mustang identity and school colors, making the religious proclamation appear to be an official message of the school. Mowat identifies its students as "Mustangs," and district materials confirm its traditional school colors include navy and yellow.
A parent who contacted FFRF said they first noticed the banner in August 2023 and had been troubled by it ever since.
"It has bothered me for three years," the parent told FFRF. "The official M and the Mustangs logo make it feel like the school is endorsing one religion over others. It just hit me that my kids see this religious propaganda every single time they enter that gym. It's impossible to miss."
FFRF contacted the district and asked it to remove the banner, which clearly violates the principle of separation between religion and government.
"As the district is aware, public schools may not constitutionally show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to Superintendent Mark McQueen.
Mowat Middle School was undeniably signaling clear favoritism toward religion over nonreligion. There was no other reasonable way to interpret this banner other than an official school-sponsored religious pronouncement that a god is real and that "God is Love." The school was also coercing students to read and reflect upon an overtly religious message every single time they enter their school's gym.
Thirty-four percent of Floridians are non-Christian, including 27 percent who are atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular."
Fortunately, FFRF has recently received welcome news directly from the parent: The banner is gone.
"Thank you, thank you, thank you for your help," the parent wrote to FFRF after confirming its removal. The parent sent FFRF a new photo of the gym showing the large space on the wall where the banner once hung, adding: "That big blank spot on the wall feels so right."
FFRF welcomes the school's response, which shows respect for the Constitution and for families by leaving decisions about what to believe where it belongs: with students and their families.
"Students should never have to walk into their public school and be confronted with a declaration about what they are supposed to believe," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "We're delighted that this inappropriate religious display has been removed."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including nearly 2,000 members and a chapter in Florida, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/a-welcome-blank-wall-fla-school-takes-down-godly-banner-after-ffrf-complaint/
[Category: Religion]
Rockefeller Foundation: Around 100 Former Heads of State and Government Call on Current Leaders To Renew International Cooperation
NEW YORK, Sept. 22 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Around 100 Former Heads of State and Government Call on Current Leaders To Renew International Cooperation
Former leaders urge a renewed framework for cooperation grounded in human dignity, the rule of law and mutual respect.
New global polling shows broad public support for countries working together.
-
NEW YORK, September 21, 2026 -- Around 100 former heads of state and government from every continent and across political traditions today issued a joint call for current leaders to renew international ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 22 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Around 100 Former Heads of State and Government Call on Current Leaders To Renew International Cooperation Former leaders urge a renewed framework for cooperation grounded in human dignity, the rule of law and mutual respect. New global polling shows broad public support for countries working together. - NEW YORK, September 21, 2026 -- Around 100 former heads of state and government from every continent and across political traditions today issued a joint call for current leaders to renew internationalcooperation grounded in common principles and translate those principles into concrete results for people around the world.
Against that backdrop, the former leaders underscore that today's challenges -- from conflict, climate change and pandemics to inequality, migration and transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence -- require not more unilateral responses, but better international cooperation: grounded in human dignity, the rule of law and mutual respect; honoring sovereignty while recognizing interdependence; and delivering tangible benefits for people and communities.
"Even amid multiplying threats and growing pessimism, most people around the world still want to work together to solve problems. Leaders should listen," said Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. "These former leaders are showing us how: seeking the common ground new polling shows exists. The Rockefeller Foundation looks forward to working with all those who want to take risks and build new coalitions to tackle the toughest challenges facing humanity."
The call comes as new global polling suggests that, despite rising nationalism, populism and isolationism, public demand for international cooperation remains strong. A survey conducted by Focaldata with support from The Rockefeller Foundation in association with its public charity, RFCC, found that 57% of people across 34 countries agree that their country should cooperate with other countries to solve global challenges, even if it means compromising on some national interests. In every country surveyed, a majority said they would support their country's leader publicly endorsing a shared set of principles for international cooperation alongside other current and former world leaders.
The polling also points to substantial agreement about what those principles should protect and advance. More than 80% of respondents supported including commitments to ensure that all human beings can live with dignity and to take collective action on threats to life, peace and security.
"We know that, even in a divided world, there is remarkable common ground -- with a clear majority in every continent including the United States -- committed to the need for cooperation and the principles that should underpin it," said The Rt. Honorable Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and member of The Rockefeller Foundation's Board of Trustees. "At 57% in favor to just 10% against, we find that a decisive majority want leaders to support shared principles around cooperation. What we have now set out is a statement on the principles of cooperation, as an important step toward turning that common ground into a stronger basis for cooperation -- for leaders around the world to engage with, shape and ultimately put into practice."
The statement is part of the wider Principles of Cooperation initiative, developed over the past year through The Rockefeller Foundation's Build the Shared Future effort, building on dialogues convened in diverse and dynamic communities around the world. The Principles of Cooperation initiative seeks to help establish a stronger basis for international cooperation capable of addressing the shared challenges of the twenty-first century and fostering more equitable partnership between the Global North and South.
Drawing on global polling into public attitudes toward cooperation, consultations with think tanks, civil society and the private sector across regions, and engagement with former leaders, the initiative is designed to build broad, cross-regional ownership around a common foundation for future cooperation and a practical agenda for collective action. The statement represents an important step in that wider effort, creating a pathway for further engagement with current leaders and, over time, broader support for and adoption of shared principles for international cooperation.
"The world does not need us to agree on everything. It needs us to find enough common ground to act together. From across regions and political traditions, nearly 100 former heads of state and government are sending a clear message: in a fragmented world, we must choose cooperation over confrontation. The challenges of our time demand nothing less," said Laura Chinchilla, former President of Costa Rica and President of Club de Madrid.
"The challenges confronting our world do not stop at national borders, and neither can our responsibility to address them. We may differ in our histories, our politics and our perspectives, but we must not allow those differences to prevent us from working together. At a time when trust in international cooperation is being tested, this broad coalition of former leaders sends a simple message: dialogue remains possible, common ground can be found, and cooperation remains essential to building a more peaceful and prosperous future," said Olusegun Obasanjo, former President of Nigeria and Member of Club de Madrid
In the statement, the former leaders welcome the purpose and ambition of the initiative and call on current leaders to engage with and shape it, build a framework for cooperation on this basis, and work to translate it into practical action. The signatories also commit to lend their experience and support to the effort, contributing to its development and championing the call for renewed cooperation in their countries, communities and international forums.
The statement is intended to build momentum for continued engagement around the principles and their wider adoption, while underscoring the stakes of the choices ahead: decisions made now will shape not only relations between states, but the security, prosperity and wellbeing of future generations.
A Call to Action for Renewed International Cooperation: Joint Statement by Former Heads of State and Government
We, former heads of state and government from different regions of the world, are united in the belief that the global challenges we face today can only be overcome through international cooperation. Yet, the international order that enables such cooperation is fracturing. The rules on which it was built are being willfully set aside or ignored, narrow interests increasingly prevail over common purpose, and the result is deepening tension, conflict, inequality and mistrust.
Societies everywhere confront challenges that no country can solve alone: economic instability, humanitarian crises, climate change, pandemics, irregular migration, new and renewed conflicts, organized crime, and the profound implications of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. These realities require not less cooperation, but better cooperation: grounded in human dignity, the rule of law, and mutual respect. As the world changes, cooperation must also renew itself -- honoring sovereignty, while recognizing interdependence, and delivering tangible benefits for people and communities.
Despite rising nationalism, populism, and isolationism, the demand for international cooperation remains strong across regions and political traditions. We believe that, if cooperation is to endure in a more fragmented and multipolar world, it must rest on a common foundation of principles capable of bridging differences and commanding broad support.
We therefore welcome the Principles of Cooperation initiative and endorse its purpose and ambition: to help rebuild trust, bridge differences and establish a stronger basis for international cooperation based on common principles.
We commit to lend our experience and support to this effort: contributing to its development and championing its call for renewed international cooperation in our countries, our communities and international forums.
At a time of accelerating geopolitical and economic challenges, we call on current leaders to seize this opportunity: to engage with and shape the initiative, build a framework for cooperation on this basis, and work to translate it into practical action. The choices made now will shape not only relations between states, but the security, prosperity and well-being of future generations.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance, including with our public charity, RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC). For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/100-former-heads-state-government-current-leaders-renew-international-cooperation/
* * *
Around 100 Former Heads of State and Government Call on Current Leaders To Renew International Cooperation
Former leaders urge a renewed framework for cooperation grounded in human dignity, the rule of law and mutual respect.
New global polling shows broad public support for countries working together.
-
NEW YORK, September 21, 2026 -- Around 100 former heads of state and government from every continent and across political traditions today issued a joint call for current leaders to renew international ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 22 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Around 100 Former Heads of State and Government Call on Current Leaders To Renew International Cooperation Former leaders urge a renewed framework for cooperation grounded in human dignity, the rule of law and mutual respect. New global polling shows broad public support for countries working together. - NEW YORK, September 21, 2026 -- Around 100 former heads of state and government from every continent and across political traditions today issued a joint call for current leaders to renew internationalcooperation grounded in common principles and translate those principles into concrete results for people around the world.
Against that backdrop, the former leaders underscore that today's challenges -- from conflict, climate change and pandemics to inequality, migration and transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence -- require not more unilateral responses, but better international cooperation: grounded in human dignity, the rule of law and mutual respect; honoring sovereignty while recognizing interdependence; and delivering tangible benefits for people and communities.
"Even amid multiplying threats and growing pessimism, most people around the world still want to work together to solve problems. Leaders should listen," said Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. "These former leaders are showing us how: seeking the common ground new polling shows exists. The Rockefeller Foundation looks forward to working with all those who want to take risks and build new coalitions to tackle the toughest challenges facing humanity."
The call comes as new global polling suggests that, despite rising nationalism, populism and isolationism, public demand for international cooperation remains strong. A survey conducted by Focaldata with support from The Rockefeller Foundation in association with its public charity, RFCC, found that 57% of people across 34 countries agree that their country should cooperate with other countries to solve global challenges, even if it means compromising on some national interests. In every country surveyed, a majority said they would support their country's leader publicly endorsing a shared set of principles for international cooperation alongside other current and former world leaders.
The polling also points to substantial agreement about what those principles should protect and advance. More than 80% of respondents supported including commitments to ensure that all human beings can live with dignity and to take collective action on threats to life, peace and security.
"We know that, even in a divided world, there is remarkable common ground -- with a clear majority in every continent including the United States -- committed to the need for cooperation and the principles that should underpin it," said The Rt. Honorable Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and member of The Rockefeller Foundation's Board of Trustees. "At 57% in favor to just 10% against, we find that a decisive majority want leaders to support shared principles around cooperation. What we have now set out is a statement on the principles of cooperation, as an important step toward turning that common ground into a stronger basis for cooperation -- for leaders around the world to engage with, shape and ultimately put into practice."
The statement is part of the wider Principles of Cooperation initiative, developed over the past year through The Rockefeller Foundation's Build the Shared Future effort, building on dialogues convened in diverse and dynamic communities around the world. The Principles of Cooperation initiative seeks to help establish a stronger basis for international cooperation capable of addressing the shared challenges of the twenty-first century and fostering more equitable partnership between the Global North and South.
Drawing on global polling into public attitudes toward cooperation, consultations with think tanks, civil society and the private sector across regions, and engagement with former leaders, the initiative is designed to build broad, cross-regional ownership around a common foundation for future cooperation and a practical agenda for collective action. The statement represents an important step in that wider effort, creating a pathway for further engagement with current leaders and, over time, broader support for and adoption of shared principles for international cooperation.
"The world does not need us to agree on everything. It needs us to find enough common ground to act together. From across regions and political traditions, nearly 100 former heads of state and government are sending a clear message: in a fragmented world, we must choose cooperation over confrontation. The challenges of our time demand nothing less," said Laura Chinchilla, former President of Costa Rica and President of Club de Madrid.
"The challenges confronting our world do not stop at national borders, and neither can our responsibility to address them. We may differ in our histories, our politics and our perspectives, but we must not allow those differences to prevent us from working together. At a time when trust in international cooperation is being tested, this broad coalition of former leaders sends a simple message: dialogue remains possible, common ground can be found, and cooperation remains essential to building a more peaceful and prosperous future," said Olusegun Obasanjo, former President of Nigeria and Member of Club de Madrid
In the statement, the former leaders welcome the purpose and ambition of the initiative and call on current leaders to engage with and shape it, build a framework for cooperation on this basis, and work to translate it into practical action. The signatories also commit to lend their experience and support to the effort, contributing to its development and championing the call for renewed cooperation in their countries, communities and international forums.
The statement is intended to build momentum for continued engagement around the principles and their wider adoption, while underscoring the stakes of the choices ahead: decisions made now will shape not only relations between states, but the security, prosperity and wellbeing of future generations.
A Call to Action for Renewed International Cooperation: Joint Statement by Former Heads of State and Government
We, former heads of state and government from different regions of the world, are united in the belief that the global challenges we face today can only be overcome through international cooperation. Yet, the international order that enables such cooperation is fracturing. The rules on which it was built are being willfully set aside or ignored, narrow interests increasingly prevail over common purpose, and the result is deepening tension, conflict, inequality and mistrust.
Societies everywhere confront challenges that no country can solve alone: economic instability, humanitarian crises, climate change, pandemics, irregular migration, new and renewed conflicts, organized crime, and the profound implications of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. These realities require not less cooperation, but better cooperation: grounded in human dignity, the rule of law, and mutual respect. As the world changes, cooperation must also renew itself -- honoring sovereignty, while recognizing interdependence, and delivering tangible benefits for people and communities.
Despite rising nationalism, populism, and isolationism, the demand for international cooperation remains strong across regions and political traditions. We believe that, if cooperation is to endure in a more fragmented and multipolar world, it must rest on a common foundation of principles capable of bridging differences and commanding broad support.
We therefore welcome the Principles of Cooperation initiative and endorse its purpose and ambition: to help rebuild trust, bridge differences and establish a stronger basis for international cooperation based on common principles.
We commit to lend our experience and support to this effort: contributing to its development and championing its call for renewed international cooperation in our countries, our communities and international forums.
At a time of accelerating geopolitical and economic challenges, we call on current leaders to seize this opportunity: to engage with and shape the initiative, build a framework for cooperation on this basis, and work to translate it into practical action. The choices made now will shape not only relations between states, but the security, prosperity and well-being of future generations.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance, including with our public charity, RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC). For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/100-former-heads-state-government-current-leaders-renew-international-cooperation/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Policy for Short-Term Rentals - Balancing Property Rights and Community Preferences
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 22 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Policy for short-term rentals: Balancing property rights and community preferences
Short-term rental restrictions do little to improve housing affordability and often impose sweeping burdens on responsible hosts, guests, and platforms.
Eliza Terziev
Housing Policy Analyst
September 21, 2026
Across the country, state and local governments are passing increasingly restrictive short-term rental policies. These efforts are based on concerns about rising housing costs and neighborhood nuisances. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 22 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Policy for short-term rentals: Balancing property rights and community preferences Short-term rental restrictions do little to improve housing affordability and often impose sweeping burdens on responsible hosts, guests, and platforms. Eliza Terziev Housing Policy Analyst September 21, 2026 Across the country, state and local governments are passing increasingly restrictive short-term rental policies. These efforts are based on concerns about rising housing costs and neighborhood nuisances.However, these worries are often overstated or unsupported by the existing research on the origins of the housing crisis. Further, the types of proposed policy solutions frequently violate principles of property rights.
STRs generate substantial economic benefits through private income and increased tax revenue, while helping many homeowners offset rising living costs. Beyond these practical benefits, the right to rent one's own home should not be unduly restricted in the name of goals that can be achieved through simpler and more justifiable means, namely, expanding the supply of housing, which should be done through deregulation. Rather than restricting STRs and the digital platforms that support them, policymakers should create and adopt rules that allow them to operate with minimal barriers while addressing legitimate community concerns through targeted enforcement.
Motivations for restriction vs. the data
Home price appreciation
A common justification for restricting short-term rentals (STRs) is the belief that they are a major driver of the current housing crisis. Home prices have risen dramatically, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, with real residential property prices increasing nearly 17% between quarter one of 2020 and quarter one of 2026. While this period is when home price increases became steep enough to cause national legislative concern, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) reports that nationally, the housing market has "experienced positive annual appreciation each quarter since the start of 2012."
The cause of this appreciation is well documented. Excessive state and local regulations on land use and new home development have prevented regional markets from adjusting to changing demand. Although housing markets vary significantly from place to place, excessive regulation is a common thread. Across many jurisdictions, developers and homeowners must navigate rules such as large minimum lot sizes, single-family-exclusive zoning, restrictions on innovative building technologies, among many other barriers, all of which are associated with higher home prices where they are present. Collectively, these regulations have compounded over time to create an environment hostile to new housing development.
Updated 2026 estimates from the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) find that cumulative regulatory costs account for $131,734, or 26.4%, of the cost of a new single-family home. For multifamily development, this figure jumps to 40.6%. These costs are then passed down to the buyer and influence the production of new units. A recent study using data from greater Boston found that eliminating multiple restrictive regulations, like the ones previously mentioned, has the potential to more than double the supply of housing and reduce its price.
These newer findings build on decades of research flagging over-regulated markets as creating a mismatch between the need for new homes and the amount of development permitted. In a 2003 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper, economists estimate a "regulatory tax," the gap between home prices and physical construction costs across 21 U.S. metro areas. They find the tax is small in most cities but exceeds 50% of home value in Manhattan and San Francisco and reaches 30 to 50% in a few other high-demand coastal markets. They attribute this finding to land-use regulation constraining new housing supply, driven by the increased ability of local homeowners to organize and block new development.
STRs have made a comparatively small contribution to rising home prices. A 2020 nationwide analysis of STR listings using data from Airbnb found that a 1% increase in listings within a ZIP code was associated with a 0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in home prices. For the median ZIP code, this translated to an increase of approximately $9 in monthly rent and $1,800 in home values. Larger effects are to be expected in markets with high tourism demand and more constrained housing supply. These tend to be the markets with the most restrictive land-use rules to begin with, which limit their ability to absorb additional short-term demand, further pointing to the importance of removing laws that restrict supply.
Well-functioning housing markets should be able to adjust to both demand from permanent residents and that coming from those who wish to rent out their property for short periods. If STRs are meaningfully subtracting from the housing supply, the subsequent increase in prices signals that development should increase. This response has failed to materialize, either because local markets are overly restricted, or, as has been demonstrated in some areas, the permanent and short-term housing markets are not as intertwined as has been believed. Homes used for STRs and permanent residents are not always necessarily substitutes for each other, or mutually exclusive. In Santa Monica, for example, two years after the city's 2015 crackdown on STRs, listings had fallen 60%, but there was no significant change in rents. This finding suggests that restricting STRs as a means of improving housing affordability does not necessarily have the desired effect.
While the growth of the STR market due to the rising popularity of digital platforms naturally causes some disruption in already constrained markets, removing restrictions that prevent supply adjustment is the most straightforward and effective way to address these challenges.
On neighborhood nuisances
Another common justification for restricting STRs is the fear that they will attract party-throwers and cause disturbances in the surrounding neighborhoods. The evidence here is mixed as well, and dependent on the local dynamics at play. Some research finds that an increase in short-term rentals in a neighborhood is associated with higher levels of revelry, while others find that there is no significant impact or even a decrease. A 2024 study found that New York City saw a 5.1% decrease in noise complaints following the entry of Airbnb. The authors of this study attribute these findings to a lower physical occupancy of these units, with guests spending more time outside of the rental. They further note that platform governance is a possible contributing factor.
Both Airbnb and VRBO, two of the largest STR platforms, have built-in accountability screening systems that flag potential party throwers and ban guests who have verified complaints issued against them. The introduction of these features makes it easier for hosts to reject risky bookings ahead of time to prevent both damage to their home and potential noise risks to the neighborhood.
Further, most localities already have laws dealing with excessive neighborhood noise regardless of whether it comes from permanent residents or those in short-term accommodation. Nuisance laws are in place so that neighbors have a means of recourse when someone causes a disturbance in a neighborhood. If excessive noise is the concern, improving enforcement of the rules already on the books is a more targeted solution than restricting STRs.
Recent restrictive laws
Despite the limited, at best, evidence supporting the idea that STRs are behind the housing crisis, or always associated with neighborhood disturbances, both of these justifications have frequently been used to create policy that places undue restrictions on both the operation of local STR owners themselves and the digital platforms that support STRs. Table 1 depicts just a few examples of recent local ordinances targeting STRs through a variety of avenues:
* * *
Table 1: Recent local ordinances limiting the operation of short-term rentals
As Table 1 displays, restrictions can take many forms. While measures typically target hosts directly, they can also take more indirect forms by targeting the digital platforms that facilitate the majority of short-tem rental bookings.
* * *
A South Carolina case illustrates this covert approach. House Bill 3876 would have required hosts who use a property management company to handle tax collection and remittance separately from the digital platform used to facilitate their bookings. While this may appear to be a minor administrative requirement, the legislation failed to account for the way digital platforms are designed to integrate tax collection and remittance into the booking process. As a result, the requirement would have created significant operational challenges for platforms and could have made it very difficult for them to continue operating in the state.
Proposed restrictions of this kind are not unique to South Carolina. Increasingly, regulations can affect digital platforms, including STR platforms, through both direct restrictions on the platforms themselves, and through indirect rules governing how hosts, property managers, and platforms must interact with each other. These indirect restrictions can have significant consequences for the viability of digital platforms, especially when digital platforms are required to enforce these restrictions for the regulator, even when the legislation is framed as a requirement imposed primarily on hosts.
Regulatory efforts have, in many cases, advanced faster than policymakers' understanding of the underlying technology or of which level of government is best equipped to regulate this market. This combination of factors has created uncertainty over who bears responsibility for enforcement, who is liable when errors occur, and whether the resulting policies are appropriately aligned with the objectives they are intended to achieve.
Platforms, profits, and principles
The growth of the short-term rental market, along with increasing political attention to its regulation, can be traced to the rise of the digital platforms that facilitate these transactions. Digital platforms substantially reduce the transaction costs associated with operating an STR by centralizing listings, providing mechanisms for quality assurance, and facilitating tax collection and remittance, among other features. By lowering barriers to participation, digital platforms have helped make operating an STR and staying in one more accessible and scalable, and the result is a huge and growing market.
Notably, in 2023 the United States short-term rental market reached $64 billion in annual revenue, and that figure has only grown since then. In 2025, Airbnb alone collected and remitted a total of $2.7 billion in taxes, and 46% of hosts reported that the additional income generated through STR listings helps them manage the rise in cost of living they are experiencing.
These economic benefits are important, but they are not the only or even primary reason to avoid excessively restricting short-term rentals. The more important argument is rooted in the ability for owners to use their property as they see fit. Homeowners should be free to decide how to use their own property, including earning income from it, if they do not interfere with their neighbors' ability to use and enjoy theirs. The burden should therefore be on those seeking to restrict short-term rentals to show that they cause meaningful harm, rather than on property owners to justify a lawful use of their own homes.
Rather than assuming that STRs inherently harm communities, policymakers should begin with the presumption that homeowners are generally free to use their property as they choose, while protecting neighbors from unwanted externalities. The goal should be to establish clear, simple, and predictable rules that allow responsible STR operation, while providing neighbors with effective avenues for redress when hosts create genuine nuisances or fail to meet their responsibilities. At the same time, digital platforms should be subject to uniform, statewide standards that are practical at scale. Together, these clear rules can allow both responsible hosts and the platforms that support them to operate while ensuring that communities have protection when problems arise.
Policy recommendations
1. Deregulate land use rules to address housing affordability
The root of the nation's housing affordability crisis is not the prevalence of STRs, but decades of policies that have constrained the construction of new housing. Housing markets depend on numerous local factors, and STRs may reduce housing supply in some high-demand tourist destinations. However, they are not the primary driver of rising home prices or rents in most areas and should not be unduly restricted when other policies would better address this concern.
A responsive, well-functioning housing market should be able to accommodate both the demand for permanent housing and the desire of some property owners to rent their homes on a short-term basis. Many communities have made it difficult or impossible to build enough housing to meet growing demand, particularly for smaller, denser, and more affordable homes.
To expand housing supply and improve affordability, policymakers should focus on removing barriers that limit new housing construction. Every area will have different avenues for reform that are dependent on its existing laws. Broadly, policy areas of interest can include removing single-family-exclusive zoning, reducing and standardizing minimum lot sizes, reducing parking requirements, and updating burdensome building codes and aesthetic standards.
Reforming land use code to be responsive to evolving market dynamics sets localities up for future success in addition to creating a path to respond to current affordability challenges. Even the most extreme and enforced ban on STRs cannot create the dynamic housing market needed to cultivate sustainable affordability.
2. Make policy related to digital platforms at the state level
State level regulation offers the clarity and consistency necessary for digital STR platforms to operate that a patchwork of hundreds of local rules cannot. For both platforms and hosts to engage in this market with confidence, they need to create expectations about the future and plan accordingly. When every municipality defines STRs differently, imposes varying licensing requirements, and sets its own enforcement timelines, platforms are forced to either develop numerous bespoke compliance systems or simply stop operating to avoid penalties. A single statewide framework for digital platforms to follow allows for variation in policy where differing preferences exist while being zoomed out enough for compliance to be feasible.
Statewide policy also enables stronger and more standardized enforcement of existing rules when differences across localities naturally arise due to varying preferences and tourism landscapes.
Moreover, despite frequent records requests sent to digital platforms, local governments often lack the technical capacity or legal authority to require and store data collected from platforms needed for enforcement of their rules. A state can set clear reporting standards, protect privacy more consistently, and create centralized enforcement mechanisms that ensure rules are followed and data are only sent over for legitimate reasons.
Communities differ in how they want STRs to fit into local planning, but digital platforms operate at a scale unsuited to the level of granularity that currently exists. Digital platforms reduce transaction costs and make compliance more efficient, but they can only deliver these benefits when the regulatory environment is compatible with the realities of their operation. Creating policy to provide clarity and consistency for digital platforms at the state level, while still allowing localities to regulate local-level hosts, is the most direct way to preserve the variation each area requires while still ensuring laws are coherent, enforceable, and fair.
3. Enforce local nuisance laws
Many local governments already have tools to address disruptive behavior that are more precise than broad restrictions on STRs. Local nuisance ordinances allow authorities to respond to verified complaints, issue fines, or take corrective action when a neighborhood disturbance, like a party, takes place. These laws apply equally to all residents and visitors, regardless of whether someone is staying in an STR, a hotel, or a permanent home. Enforcing these existing laws directly addresses the disturbance. Targeting the problematic conduct rather than the lodging type avoids sweeping policies that penalize responsible hosts and guests while still providing a mode for recourse when genuine disturbances occur.
Further, major STR platforms already have screening tools aimed at reducing the likelihood of noisy gatherings, including flagging high risk bookings and providing hosts with alerts or controls. These measures help, but they are not a substitute for public enforcement. Ultimately, responsibility for regulating noise and nuisance behavior rests with local governments and does not require sweeping measures that target STRs.
Relying on nuisance enforcement rather than restricting STRs is a more targeted, fair, and effective policy path. It addresses the actual problem--excessive noise--without undermining responsible hosts, limiting visitor options, or creating broad regulations that fail to distinguish between good and bad actors.
Key takeaways
Short term rentals are neither the root cause of today's housing affordability challenges nor uniquely responsible for neighborhood disruptions. The true driver of rising housing costs is local land use systems failing to permit enough new housing to meet demand. Restricting STRs, either directly through restrictions on hosts or indirectly through restrictions on digital platforms, does little to improve affordability and often imposes sweeping burdens on responsible hosts, guests, and platforms.
Creating a more coherent and effective policy framework moving forward starts with the premise that homeowners should be free to use their property as they choose unless they impose harm on their neighbors. Protecting that principle requires targeted enforcement of actual nuisances, statewide consistency for digital platform related rules, and removal of land use barriers that prevent the construction of new homes.
Shifting policy focus away from punitive short-term rental restrictions and toward reforms that expand housing supply and clarify regulatory responsibilities sets the stage for policy that cultivates both community well-being and economic opportunity.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/policy-for-short-term-rentals-balancing-property-rights-and-community-preferences/
* * *
Policy for short-term rentals: Balancing property rights and community preferences
Short-term rental restrictions do little to improve housing affordability and often impose sweeping burdens on responsible hosts, guests, and platforms.
Eliza Terziev
Housing Policy Analyst
September 21, 2026
Across the country, state and local governments are passing increasingly restrictive short-term rental policies. These efforts are based on concerns about rising housing costs and neighborhood nuisances. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 22 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Policy for short-term rentals: Balancing property rights and community preferences Short-term rental restrictions do little to improve housing affordability and often impose sweeping burdens on responsible hosts, guests, and platforms. Eliza Terziev Housing Policy Analyst September 21, 2026 Across the country, state and local governments are passing increasingly restrictive short-term rental policies. These efforts are based on concerns about rising housing costs and neighborhood nuisances.However, these worries are often overstated or unsupported by the existing research on the origins of the housing crisis. Further, the types of proposed policy solutions frequently violate principles of property rights.
STRs generate substantial economic benefits through private income and increased tax revenue, while helping many homeowners offset rising living costs. Beyond these practical benefits, the right to rent one's own home should not be unduly restricted in the name of goals that can be achieved through simpler and more justifiable means, namely, expanding the supply of housing, which should be done through deregulation. Rather than restricting STRs and the digital platforms that support them, policymakers should create and adopt rules that allow them to operate with minimal barriers while addressing legitimate community concerns through targeted enforcement.
Motivations for restriction vs. the data
Home price appreciation
A common justification for restricting short-term rentals (STRs) is the belief that they are a major driver of the current housing crisis. Home prices have risen dramatically, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, with real residential property prices increasing nearly 17% between quarter one of 2020 and quarter one of 2026. While this period is when home price increases became steep enough to cause national legislative concern, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) reports that nationally, the housing market has "experienced positive annual appreciation each quarter since the start of 2012."
The cause of this appreciation is well documented. Excessive state and local regulations on land use and new home development have prevented regional markets from adjusting to changing demand. Although housing markets vary significantly from place to place, excessive regulation is a common thread. Across many jurisdictions, developers and homeowners must navigate rules such as large minimum lot sizes, single-family-exclusive zoning, restrictions on innovative building technologies, among many other barriers, all of which are associated with higher home prices where they are present. Collectively, these regulations have compounded over time to create an environment hostile to new housing development.
Updated 2026 estimates from the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) find that cumulative regulatory costs account for $131,734, or 26.4%, of the cost of a new single-family home. For multifamily development, this figure jumps to 40.6%. These costs are then passed down to the buyer and influence the production of new units. A recent study using data from greater Boston found that eliminating multiple restrictive regulations, like the ones previously mentioned, has the potential to more than double the supply of housing and reduce its price.
These newer findings build on decades of research flagging over-regulated markets as creating a mismatch between the need for new homes and the amount of development permitted. In a 2003 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper, economists estimate a "regulatory tax," the gap between home prices and physical construction costs across 21 U.S. metro areas. They find the tax is small in most cities but exceeds 50% of home value in Manhattan and San Francisco and reaches 30 to 50% in a few other high-demand coastal markets. They attribute this finding to land-use regulation constraining new housing supply, driven by the increased ability of local homeowners to organize and block new development.
STRs have made a comparatively small contribution to rising home prices. A 2020 nationwide analysis of STR listings using data from Airbnb found that a 1% increase in listings within a ZIP code was associated with a 0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in home prices. For the median ZIP code, this translated to an increase of approximately $9 in monthly rent and $1,800 in home values. Larger effects are to be expected in markets with high tourism demand and more constrained housing supply. These tend to be the markets with the most restrictive land-use rules to begin with, which limit their ability to absorb additional short-term demand, further pointing to the importance of removing laws that restrict supply.
Well-functioning housing markets should be able to adjust to both demand from permanent residents and that coming from those who wish to rent out their property for short periods. If STRs are meaningfully subtracting from the housing supply, the subsequent increase in prices signals that development should increase. This response has failed to materialize, either because local markets are overly restricted, or, as has been demonstrated in some areas, the permanent and short-term housing markets are not as intertwined as has been believed. Homes used for STRs and permanent residents are not always necessarily substitutes for each other, or mutually exclusive. In Santa Monica, for example, two years after the city's 2015 crackdown on STRs, listings had fallen 60%, but there was no significant change in rents. This finding suggests that restricting STRs as a means of improving housing affordability does not necessarily have the desired effect.
While the growth of the STR market due to the rising popularity of digital platforms naturally causes some disruption in already constrained markets, removing restrictions that prevent supply adjustment is the most straightforward and effective way to address these challenges.
On neighborhood nuisances
Another common justification for restricting STRs is the fear that they will attract party-throwers and cause disturbances in the surrounding neighborhoods. The evidence here is mixed as well, and dependent on the local dynamics at play. Some research finds that an increase in short-term rentals in a neighborhood is associated with higher levels of revelry, while others find that there is no significant impact or even a decrease. A 2024 study found that New York City saw a 5.1% decrease in noise complaints following the entry of Airbnb. The authors of this study attribute these findings to a lower physical occupancy of these units, with guests spending more time outside of the rental. They further note that platform governance is a possible contributing factor.
Both Airbnb and VRBO, two of the largest STR platforms, have built-in accountability screening systems that flag potential party throwers and ban guests who have verified complaints issued against them. The introduction of these features makes it easier for hosts to reject risky bookings ahead of time to prevent both damage to their home and potential noise risks to the neighborhood.
Further, most localities already have laws dealing with excessive neighborhood noise regardless of whether it comes from permanent residents or those in short-term accommodation. Nuisance laws are in place so that neighbors have a means of recourse when someone causes a disturbance in a neighborhood. If excessive noise is the concern, improving enforcement of the rules already on the books is a more targeted solution than restricting STRs.
Recent restrictive laws
Despite the limited, at best, evidence supporting the idea that STRs are behind the housing crisis, or always associated with neighborhood disturbances, both of these justifications have frequently been used to create policy that places undue restrictions on both the operation of local STR owners themselves and the digital platforms that support STRs. Table 1 depicts just a few examples of recent local ordinances targeting STRs through a variety of avenues:
* * *
Table 1: Recent local ordinances limiting the operation of short-term rentals
As Table 1 displays, restrictions can take many forms. While measures typically target hosts directly, they can also take more indirect forms by targeting the digital platforms that facilitate the majority of short-tem rental bookings.
* * *
A South Carolina case illustrates this covert approach. House Bill 3876 would have required hosts who use a property management company to handle tax collection and remittance separately from the digital platform used to facilitate their bookings. While this may appear to be a minor administrative requirement, the legislation failed to account for the way digital platforms are designed to integrate tax collection and remittance into the booking process. As a result, the requirement would have created significant operational challenges for platforms and could have made it very difficult for them to continue operating in the state.
Proposed restrictions of this kind are not unique to South Carolina. Increasingly, regulations can affect digital platforms, including STR platforms, through both direct restrictions on the platforms themselves, and through indirect rules governing how hosts, property managers, and platforms must interact with each other. These indirect restrictions can have significant consequences for the viability of digital platforms, especially when digital platforms are required to enforce these restrictions for the regulator, even when the legislation is framed as a requirement imposed primarily on hosts.
Regulatory efforts have, in many cases, advanced faster than policymakers' understanding of the underlying technology or of which level of government is best equipped to regulate this market. This combination of factors has created uncertainty over who bears responsibility for enforcement, who is liable when errors occur, and whether the resulting policies are appropriately aligned with the objectives they are intended to achieve.
Platforms, profits, and principles
The growth of the short-term rental market, along with increasing political attention to its regulation, can be traced to the rise of the digital platforms that facilitate these transactions. Digital platforms substantially reduce the transaction costs associated with operating an STR by centralizing listings, providing mechanisms for quality assurance, and facilitating tax collection and remittance, among other features. By lowering barriers to participation, digital platforms have helped make operating an STR and staying in one more accessible and scalable, and the result is a huge and growing market.
Notably, in 2023 the United States short-term rental market reached $64 billion in annual revenue, and that figure has only grown since then. In 2025, Airbnb alone collected and remitted a total of $2.7 billion in taxes, and 46% of hosts reported that the additional income generated through STR listings helps them manage the rise in cost of living they are experiencing.
These economic benefits are important, but they are not the only or even primary reason to avoid excessively restricting short-term rentals. The more important argument is rooted in the ability for owners to use their property as they see fit. Homeowners should be free to decide how to use their own property, including earning income from it, if they do not interfere with their neighbors' ability to use and enjoy theirs. The burden should therefore be on those seeking to restrict short-term rentals to show that they cause meaningful harm, rather than on property owners to justify a lawful use of their own homes.
Rather than assuming that STRs inherently harm communities, policymakers should begin with the presumption that homeowners are generally free to use their property as they choose, while protecting neighbors from unwanted externalities. The goal should be to establish clear, simple, and predictable rules that allow responsible STR operation, while providing neighbors with effective avenues for redress when hosts create genuine nuisances or fail to meet their responsibilities. At the same time, digital platforms should be subject to uniform, statewide standards that are practical at scale. Together, these clear rules can allow both responsible hosts and the platforms that support them to operate while ensuring that communities have protection when problems arise.
Policy recommendations
1. Deregulate land use rules to address housing affordability
The root of the nation's housing affordability crisis is not the prevalence of STRs, but decades of policies that have constrained the construction of new housing. Housing markets depend on numerous local factors, and STRs may reduce housing supply in some high-demand tourist destinations. However, they are not the primary driver of rising home prices or rents in most areas and should not be unduly restricted when other policies would better address this concern.
A responsive, well-functioning housing market should be able to accommodate both the demand for permanent housing and the desire of some property owners to rent their homes on a short-term basis. Many communities have made it difficult or impossible to build enough housing to meet growing demand, particularly for smaller, denser, and more affordable homes.
To expand housing supply and improve affordability, policymakers should focus on removing barriers that limit new housing construction. Every area will have different avenues for reform that are dependent on its existing laws. Broadly, policy areas of interest can include removing single-family-exclusive zoning, reducing and standardizing minimum lot sizes, reducing parking requirements, and updating burdensome building codes and aesthetic standards.
Reforming land use code to be responsive to evolving market dynamics sets localities up for future success in addition to creating a path to respond to current affordability challenges. Even the most extreme and enforced ban on STRs cannot create the dynamic housing market needed to cultivate sustainable affordability.
2. Make policy related to digital platforms at the state level
State level regulation offers the clarity and consistency necessary for digital STR platforms to operate that a patchwork of hundreds of local rules cannot. For both platforms and hosts to engage in this market with confidence, they need to create expectations about the future and plan accordingly. When every municipality defines STRs differently, imposes varying licensing requirements, and sets its own enforcement timelines, platforms are forced to either develop numerous bespoke compliance systems or simply stop operating to avoid penalties. A single statewide framework for digital platforms to follow allows for variation in policy where differing preferences exist while being zoomed out enough for compliance to be feasible.
Statewide policy also enables stronger and more standardized enforcement of existing rules when differences across localities naturally arise due to varying preferences and tourism landscapes.
Moreover, despite frequent records requests sent to digital platforms, local governments often lack the technical capacity or legal authority to require and store data collected from platforms needed for enforcement of their rules. A state can set clear reporting standards, protect privacy more consistently, and create centralized enforcement mechanisms that ensure rules are followed and data are only sent over for legitimate reasons.
Communities differ in how they want STRs to fit into local planning, but digital platforms operate at a scale unsuited to the level of granularity that currently exists. Digital platforms reduce transaction costs and make compliance more efficient, but they can only deliver these benefits when the regulatory environment is compatible with the realities of their operation. Creating policy to provide clarity and consistency for digital platforms at the state level, while still allowing localities to regulate local-level hosts, is the most direct way to preserve the variation each area requires while still ensuring laws are coherent, enforceable, and fair.
3. Enforce local nuisance laws
Many local governments already have tools to address disruptive behavior that are more precise than broad restrictions on STRs. Local nuisance ordinances allow authorities to respond to verified complaints, issue fines, or take corrective action when a neighborhood disturbance, like a party, takes place. These laws apply equally to all residents and visitors, regardless of whether someone is staying in an STR, a hotel, or a permanent home. Enforcing these existing laws directly addresses the disturbance. Targeting the problematic conduct rather than the lodging type avoids sweeping policies that penalize responsible hosts and guests while still providing a mode for recourse when genuine disturbances occur.
Further, major STR platforms already have screening tools aimed at reducing the likelihood of noisy gatherings, including flagging high risk bookings and providing hosts with alerts or controls. These measures help, but they are not a substitute for public enforcement. Ultimately, responsibility for regulating noise and nuisance behavior rests with local governments and does not require sweeping measures that target STRs.
Relying on nuisance enforcement rather than restricting STRs is a more targeted, fair, and effective policy path. It addresses the actual problem--excessive noise--without undermining responsible hosts, limiting visitor options, or creating broad regulations that fail to distinguish between good and bad actors.
Key takeaways
Short term rentals are neither the root cause of today's housing affordability challenges nor uniquely responsible for neighborhood disruptions. The true driver of rising housing costs is local land use systems failing to permit enough new housing to meet demand. Restricting STRs, either directly through restrictions on hosts or indirectly through restrictions on digital platforms, does little to improve affordability and often imposes sweeping burdens on responsible hosts, guests, and platforms.
Creating a more coherent and effective policy framework moving forward starts with the premise that homeowners should be free to use their property as they choose unless they impose harm on their neighbors. Protecting that principle requires targeted enforcement of actual nuisances, statewide consistency for digital platform related rules, and removal of land use barriers that prevent the construction of new homes.
Shifting policy focus away from punitive short-term rental restrictions and toward reforms that expand housing supply and clarify regulatory responsibilities sets the stage for policy that cultivates both community well-being and economic opportunity.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/policy-for-short-term-rentals-balancing-property-rights-and-community-preferences/
Michigan State University Research Foundation Breaks Ground on Rosenberg Center
EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 22 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
September 21, 2026
Michigan State University Research Foundation Breaks Ground on Rosenberg Center
New Innovation Facility Honors Cisplatin Pioneer Dr. Barnett Rosenberg and Accelerates Michigan's Innovation Economy
-
EAST LANSING, Mich., Sept. 17, 2026 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation celebrated the groundbreaking of the Rosenberg Center, a transformative innovation facility that will become a centerpiece and a foundational asset for research ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 22 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 21, 2026 Michigan State University Research Foundation Breaks Ground on Rosenberg Center New Innovation Facility Honors Cisplatin Pioneer Dr. Barnett Rosenberg and Accelerates Michigan's Innovation Economy - EAST LANSING, Mich., Sept. 17, 2026 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation celebrated the groundbreaking of the Rosenberg Center, a transformative innovation facility that will become a centerpiece and a foundational asset for researchcommercialization, entrepreneurship, and corporate innovation in Greater Lansing.
The facility is named in honor of the late Dr. Barnett Rosenberg, the Michigan State University scientist whose discovery of cisplatin revolutionized cancer treatment and helped establish one of the most successful university technology commercialization stories in history.
Located at 195 Crescent Road in East Lansing, the 65,000-square-foot facility will serve as the headquarters of the Michigan State University Research Foundation and its affiliated organizations while providing flexible innovation space for startup companies, corporate partners, researchers, and entrepreneurs. The project is part of the Foundation's broader vision to transform Greater Lansing into a nationally recognized destination for innovation, research partnerships, and economic development.
"The Rosenberg Center represents more than a building," said David Washburn, Chief Executive Officer of the Michigan State University Research Foundation. "It is a statement about Michigan State University's commitment to discovery, innovation, and impact. Dr. Barnett Rosenberg's groundbreaking work changed the lives of millions of people around the world. By naming this center in his honor, we are connecting one of MSU's greatest scientific achievements with the innovators, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders who will shape the future."
The Rosenberg Center will be developed as an adaptive reuse project of the former IBM and MSU Federal Credit Union building and will include modern office suites, collaborative workspaces, event venues, conference facilities, and incubation space designed to support high-tech, high-growth businesses. The building will serve as a hub where entrepreneurs, researchers, corporations, and investors can connect, collaborate, and accelerate the development of new technologies and ventures.
The facility will become home to the Michigan State University Research Foundation and its innovation-focused subsidiaries, including Spartan Innovations, Red Cedar Ventures, Michigan Rise, and MSU Research Parks, while also supporting university commercialization activities and corporate engagement initiatives. The center is envisioned as a destination for early-stage ventures, corporate innovation teams, and organizations seeking deeper engagement with Michigan State University's research enterprise.
The Rosenberg Center is expected to strengthen the growing innovation district surrounding the site at Spartan Village on Crescent Road which also includes the worldwide headquarters of TechSmith Corporation. The Rosenberg Center is intended to increase collaboration among industry partners, entrepreneurs, researchers, and university stakeholders while supporting key growth sectors including advanced manufacturing, agricultural technology, biomedicine, biotechnology, and sustainability technologies.
The naming of the facility honors Dr. Barnett Rosenberg, whose research at Michigan State University led to the discovery of cisplatin, a groundbreaking cancer therapeutic approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1978. Cisplatin and subsequent platinum-based cancer treatments have improved outcomes for millions of patients worldwide and remain among the most significant medical innovations to emerge from a university research laboratory.
"The discovery and commercialization of cisplatin is central to the story of innovation at Michigan State University," said Jeff Smith, Executive Director of Research Parks for the MSU Research Foundation. "The Rosenberg Center will serve as a gateway for future innovators whose ideas have the potential to solve significant challenges and improve lives around the world."
Upon completion, the Rosenberg Center will stand alongside other Foundation-supported innovation assets across Michigan and help position Greater Lansing as a leading hub for entrepreneurship, technology commercialization, venture formation, and corporate research collaboration.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/michigan-state-university-research-foundation-breaks-ground-on-rosenberg-center/
* * *
September 21, 2026
Michigan State University Research Foundation Breaks Ground on Rosenberg Center
New Innovation Facility Honors Cisplatin Pioneer Dr. Barnett Rosenberg and Accelerates Michigan's Innovation Economy
-
EAST LANSING, Mich., Sept. 17, 2026 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation celebrated the groundbreaking of the Rosenberg Center, a transformative innovation facility that will become a centerpiece and a foundational asset for research ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 22 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 21, 2026 Michigan State University Research Foundation Breaks Ground on Rosenberg Center New Innovation Facility Honors Cisplatin Pioneer Dr. Barnett Rosenberg and Accelerates Michigan's Innovation Economy - EAST LANSING, Mich., Sept. 17, 2026 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation celebrated the groundbreaking of the Rosenberg Center, a transformative innovation facility that will become a centerpiece and a foundational asset for researchcommercialization, entrepreneurship, and corporate innovation in Greater Lansing.
The facility is named in honor of the late Dr. Barnett Rosenberg, the Michigan State University scientist whose discovery of cisplatin revolutionized cancer treatment and helped establish one of the most successful university technology commercialization stories in history.
Located at 195 Crescent Road in East Lansing, the 65,000-square-foot facility will serve as the headquarters of the Michigan State University Research Foundation and its affiliated organizations while providing flexible innovation space for startup companies, corporate partners, researchers, and entrepreneurs. The project is part of the Foundation's broader vision to transform Greater Lansing into a nationally recognized destination for innovation, research partnerships, and economic development.
"The Rosenberg Center represents more than a building," said David Washburn, Chief Executive Officer of the Michigan State University Research Foundation. "It is a statement about Michigan State University's commitment to discovery, innovation, and impact. Dr. Barnett Rosenberg's groundbreaking work changed the lives of millions of people around the world. By naming this center in his honor, we are connecting one of MSU's greatest scientific achievements with the innovators, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders who will shape the future."
The Rosenberg Center will be developed as an adaptive reuse project of the former IBM and MSU Federal Credit Union building and will include modern office suites, collaborative workspaces, event venues, conference facilities, and incubation space designed to support high-tech, high-growth businesses. The building will serve as a hub where entrepreneurs, researchers, corporations, and investors can connect, collaborate, and accelerate the development of new technologies and ventures.
The facility will become home to the Michigan State University Research Foundation and its innovation-focused subsidiaries, including Spartan Innovations, Red Cedar Ventures, Michigan Rise, and MSU Research Parks, while also supporting university commercialization activities and corporate engagement initiatives. The center is envisioned as a destination for early-stage ventures, corporate innovation teams, and organizations seeking deeper engagement with Michigan State University's research enterprise.
The Rosenberg Center is expected to strengthen the growing innovation district surrounding the site at Spartan Village on Crescent Road which also includes the worldwide headquarters of TechSmith Corporation. The Rosenberg Center is intended to increase collaboration among industry partners, entrepreneurs, researchers, and university stakeholders while supporting key growth sectors including advanced manufacturing, agricultural technology, biomedicine, biotechnology, and sustainability technologies.
The naming of the facility honors Dr. Barnett Rosenberg, whose research at Michigan State University led to the discovery of cisplatin, a groundbreaking cancer therapeutic approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1978. Cisplatin and subsequent platinum-based cancer treatments have improved outcomes for millions of patients worldwide and remain among the most significant medical innovations to emerge from a university research laboratory.
"The discovery and commercialization of cisplatin is central to the story of innovation at Michigan State University," said Jeff Smith, Executive Director of Research Parks for the MSU Research Foundation. "The Rosenberg Center will serve as a gateway for future innovators whose ideas have the potential to solve significant challenges and improve lives around the world."
Upon completion, the Rosenberg Center will stand alongside other Foundation-supported innovation assets across Michigan and help position Greater Lansing as a leading hub for entrepreneurship, technology commercialization, venture formation, and corporate research collaboration.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/michigan-state-university-research-foundation-breaks-ground-on-rosenberg-center/
Greater Cincinnati Foundation: Bridge Builder - Night of Celebration and Connection
CINCINNATI, Sept. 22 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Bridge Builder: A night of celebration and connection
September 21, 2026
On September 14, 2026, Greater Cincinnati Foundation's annual gathering of professional advisors brought together wealth advisors, estate planning attorneys and accountants for an evening of connection and celebration at the Cincinnati Ballet.
The highlight of the evening was the presentation of GCF's 2026 Bridge Builder Award to Jody Brant, president and CEO of Katz Teller. Since its inception, the award has recognized professional ... Show Full Article CINCINNATI, Sept. 22 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news: * * * Bridge Builder: A night of celebration and connection September 21, 2026 On September 14, 2026, Greater Cincinnati Foundation's annual gathering of professional advisors brought together wealth advisors, estate planning attorneys and accountants for an evening of connection and celebration at the Cincinnati Ballet. The highlight of the evening was the presentation of GCF's 2026 Bridge Builder Award to Jody Brant, president and CEO of Katz Teller. Since its inception, the award has recognized professionaladvisors who have partnered with GCF, connecting charitably inclined clients with the foundation's resources while demonstrating a deep commitment to community service.
Brant has dedicated his career to helping families, individuals and business owners navigate estate, wealth and tax planning, with a focus on charitable giving and legacy planning. Beyond his professional contributions, he has strengthened the region through extensive nonprofit leadership. He currently serves on the boards of Cincinnati Squash Academy, The Christ Hospital Foundation, the Cincinnati Country Day School Foundation and the Mayerson JCC. He has also chaired the boards of Easterseals Tristate, Jewish Vocational Service and Cincinnati Country Day School.
GCF is honored to work alongside professional advisors, as an extension of their services, to make a lasting impact for their clients and the causes they care about deeply.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.gcfdn.org/blog/bridge-builder-a-night-of-celebration-and-connection/
* * *
Bridge Builder: A night of celebration and connection
September 21, 2026
On September 14, 2026, Greater Cincinnati Foundation's annual gathering of professional advisors brought together wealth advisors, estate planning attorneys and accountants for an evening of connection and celebration at the Cincinnati Ballet.
The highlight of the evening was the presentation of GCF's 2026 Bridge Builder Award to Jody Brant, president and CEO of Katz Teller. Since its inception, the award has recognized professional ... Show Full Article CINCINNATI, Sept. 22 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news: * * * Bridge Builder: A night of celebration and connection September 21, 2026 On September 14, 2026, Greater Cincinnati Foundation's annual gathering of professional advisors brought together wealth advisors, estate planning attorneys and accountants for an evening of connection and celebration at the Cincinnati Ballet. The highlight of the evening was the presentation of GCF's 2026 Bridge Builder Award to Jody Brant, president and CEO of Katz Teller. Since its inception, the award has recognized professionaladvisors who have partnered with GCF, connecting charitably inclined clients with the foundation's resources while demonstrating a deep commitment to community service.
Brant has dedicated his career to helping families, individuals and business owners navigate estate, wealth and tax planning, with a focus on charitable giving and legacy planning. Beyond his professional contributions, he has strengthened the region through extensive nonprofit leadership. He currently serves on the boards of Cincinnati Squash Academy, The Christ Hospital Foundation, the Cincinnati Country Day School Foundation and the Mayerson JCC. He has also chaired the boards of Easterseals Tristate, Jewish Vocational Service and Cincinnati Country Day School.
GCF is honored to work alongside professional advisors, as an extension of their services, to make a lasting impact for their clients and the causes they care about deeply.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.gcfdn.org/blog/bridge-builder-a-night-of-celebration-and-connection/
Foundation for Economic Education Commentary Warns European Regulatory Overreach Stifles Free Trade With Canada
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
September 21, 2026
Europe's Trade Trap
Claudia Ascensao Nunes
How regulation is undermining free trade with Canada.
-
As discussions unfold over the EU's proposed "associate membership" for Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has repeatedly stressed his desire for an economic and geopolitical partnership that preserves national sovereignty. This alliance serves the mutual interests of both the European Union and Canada by reducing strategic dependence on major third-party trading partners, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * September 21, 2026 Europe's Trade Trap Claudia Ascensao Nunes How regulation is undermining free trade with Canada. - As discussions unfold over the EU's proposed "associate membership" for Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has repeatedly stressed his desire for an economic and geopolitical partnership that preserves national sovereignty. This alliance serves the mutual interests of both the European Union and Canada by reducing strategic dependence on major third-party trading partners,particularly the United States and China.
The paradox is that the core economic instrument designed to unite Canada and the EU, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), remains without full ratification by 10 EU national parliaments, nearly a decade after entering into provisional application.
Rather than dismissing the concerns of these 10 member states as blind protectionism, one must understand that Brussels's excessive regulations created the conditions for this impasse.
When the European Commission imposes costly environmental mandates, stringent restrictions, and heavy bureaucratic burdens on its own farmers, it artificially inflates the cost of European food production.
Facing this forced loss of competitiveness created by these regulations, national parliaments react in political self-defense: they block trade agreements to protect domestic sectors that simply cannot compete with foreign partners operating under more functional regulatory frameworks. Protectionism at the border emerges as the inevitable consequence of over-intervention at home.
Canada itself has not derived significant benefits from CETA's provisional application in the agricultural sector, as compliance with European sanitary requirements proved commercially unviable. To access the duty-free tariff quota, Canadian cattle ranchers would need to establish entirely segregated and certified hormone-free production chains. With massive domestic and US markets accepting standard production methods, the cost of navigating Brussels's bureaucracy far outweighed potential profit margins. Consequently, year after year, Canada utilizes less than 3% of its allotted beef quota.
Europe panics over an "invasion" of products that Ottawa has no financial incentive to ship, while Canada discovers that European market access comes wrapped in regulatory barriers that render its benefits moot.
On one hand, product rules aim to protect consumers by enforcing uniform health and safety standards. If a product fails to meet sanitary requirements, it cannot enter the European market. On the other hand, protectionist rules are designed to shield local producers from foreign competitors. In this case, those competitors already meet sanitary standards but can produce more cheaply than local farmers, who are crippled by Brussels's regulatory overreach.
Under CETA, product-based sanitary regulations pushed the certification costs for hormone-free beef so high that exporting became unprofitable. The compliance burden itself acted as an entry barrier, rendering political vetoes by ten European nations largely redundant. In the livestock sector, CETA in its current form has become a zero-sum game that neither side wins or has an incentive to pursue.
If agriculture has become an economic dead end, the push by Mark Carney and Ursula von der Leyen for a deeper alliance is justified because CETA's true value has shifted from agriculture to geopolitics. The European Union does not need Canadian beef; it needs Canada's lithium, nickel, uranium, and green hydrogen to break its reliance on China and Russia. Ottawa, for its part, seeks to diversify exports to buffer itself against political unpredictability in Washington. Unlike the agro-food sector, raw material trade faces no such friction.
In agriculture, Europe has domestic production and fears competition; in critical minerals, Europe faces absolute scarcity and has no domestic extractive industry to protect. There are no mining lobbies demanding tariffs on Canadian ore, nor are there complex sanitary standards blocking exchange. Compared with the agricultural maze, raw material trade finds a regulatory path that is infinitely smoother and strategically imperative.
Yet the illusion of a free market fails on the Canadian side as well, finding its mirror image in Ottawa's domestic policies.
The primary Canadian bottleneck is its own rigid supply management system, a protectionist framework that sets prices and levies steep tariffs to insulate dairy, poultry, and egg producers. Although Canada granted minor cheese quota concessions under CETA, the core of its agricultural protectionism remains intact.
Coupled with this economic barrier is a domestic rift over animal welfare: while Quebec defends foie gras production and exports, the practice of gavage faces mounting pushback in urban centers like Toronto, reflecting the ethical and regulatory debates that divide global markets.
Faced with the prospect of sacrificing future energy and mineral security to appease present-day agricultural panic, the European Union exposes the fundamental flaw of its model. The resistance of national parliaments is the inevitable response to the regulatory monster that the European Commission itself built.
After suffocating its own farmers with bureaucracy, environmental costs, and excessive demands, Brussels cannot act surprised when those farmers demand protection from foreign trade. When a bloc imposes unsustainable burdens at home, it is ultimately forced to build walls at the border.
If Europe wants to be a relevant geopolitical player and a trusted trade partner, it must dismantle its internal regulatory labyrinth and restore the market's freedom to produce, compete, and thrive.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/europes-trade-trap/
* * *
September 21, 2026
Europe's Trade Trap
Claudia Ascensao Nunes
How regulation is undermining free trade with Canada.
-
As discussions unfold over the EU's proposed "associate membership" for Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has repeatedly stressed his desire for an economic and geopolitical partnership that preserves national sovereignty. This alliance serves the mutual interests of both the European Union and Canada by reducing strategic dependence on major third-party trading partners, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * September 21, 2026 Europe's Trade Trap Claudia Ascensao Nunes How regulation is undermining free trade with Canada. - As discussions unfold over the EU's proposed "associate membership" for Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has repeatedly stressed his desire for an economic and geopolitical partnership that preserves national sovereignty. This alliance serves the mutual interests of both the European Union and Canada by reducing strategic dependence on major third-party trading partners,particularly the United States and China.
The paradox is that the core economic instrument designed to unite Canada and the EU, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), remains without full ratification by 10 EU national parliaments, nearly a decade after entering into provisional application.
Rather than dismissing the concerns of these 10 member states as blind protectionism, one must understand that Brussels's excessive regulations created the conditions for this impasse.
When the European Commission imposes costly environmental mandates, stringent restrictions, and heavy bureaucratic burdens on its own farmers, it artificially inflates the cost of European food production.
Facing this forced loss of competitiveness created by these regulations, national parliaments react in political self-defense: they block trade agreements to protect domestic sectors that simply cannot compete with foreign partners operating under more functional regulatory frameworks. Protectionism at the border emerges as the inevitable consequence of over-intervention at home.
Canada itself has not derived significant benefits from CETA's provisional application in the agricultural sector, as compliance with European sanitary requirements proved commercially unviable. To access the duty-free tariff quota, Canadian cattle ranchers would need to establish entirely segregated and certified hormone-free production chains. With massive domestic and US markets accepting standard production methods, the cost of navigating Brussels's bureaucracy far outweighed potential profit margins. Consequently, year after year, Canada utilizes less than 3% of its allotted beef quota.
Europe panics over an "invasion" of products that Ottawa has no financial incentive to ship, while Canada discovers that European market access comes wrapped in regulatory barriers that render its benefits moot.
On one hand, product rules aim to protect consumers by enforcing uniform health and safety standards. If a product fails to meet sanitary requirements, it cannot enter the European market. On the other hand, protectionist rules are designed to shield local producers from foreign competitors. In this case, those competitors already meet sanitary standards but can produce more cheaply than local farmers, who are crippled by Brussels's regulatory overreach.
Under CETA, product-based sanitary regulations pushed the certification costs for hormone-free beef so high that exporting became unprofitable. The compliance burden itself acted as an entry barrier, rendering political vetoes by ten European nations largely redundant. In the livestock sector, CETA in its current form has become a zero-sum game that neither side wins or has an incentive to pursue.
If agriculture has become an economic dead end, the push by Mark Carney and Ursula von der Leyen for a deeper alliance is justified because CETA's true value has shifted from agriculture to geopolitics. The European Union does not need Canadian beef; it needs Canada's lithium, nickel, uranium, and green hydrogen to break its reliance on China and Russia. Ottawa, for its part, seeks to diversify exports to buffer itself against political unpredictability in Washington. Unlike the agro-food sector, raw material trade faces no such friction.
In agriculture, Europe has domestic production and fears competition; in critical minerals, Europe faces absolute scarcity and has no domestic extractive industry to protect. There are no mining lobbies demanding tariffs on Canadian ore, nor are there complex sanitary standards blocking exchange. Compared with the agricultural maze, raw material trade finds a regulatory path that is infinitely smoother and strategically imperative.
Yet the illusion of a free market fails on the Canadian side as well, finding its mirror image in Ottawa's domestic policies.
The primary Canadian bottleneck is its own rigid supply management system, a protectionist framework that sets prices and levies steep tariffs to insulate dairy, poultry, and egg producers. Although Canada granted minor cheese quota concessions under CETA, the core of its agricultural protectionism remains intact.
Coupled with this economic barrier is a domestic rift over animal welfare: while Quebec defends foie gras production and exports, the practice of gavage faces mounting pushback in urban centers like Toronto, reflecting the ethical and regulatory debates that divide global markets.
Faced with the prospect of sacrificing future energy and mineral security to appease present-day agricultural panic, the European Union exposes the fundamental flaw of its model. The resistance of national parliaments is the inevitable response to the regulatory monster that the European Commission itself built.
After suffocating its own farmers with bureaucracy, environmental costs, and excessive demands, Brussels cannot act surprised when those farmers demand protection from foreign trade. When a bloc imposes unsustainable burdens at home, it is ultimately forced to build walls at the border.
If Europe wants to be a relevant geopolitical player and a trusted trade partner, it must dismantle its internal regulatory labyrinth and restore the market's freedom to produce, compete, and thrive.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/europes-trade-trap/
FFRF Disburses $18,450 to 2026 College Student Essay Contest Winners
MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 22 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
September 21, 2026
FFRF disburses $18,450 to 2026 college student essay contest winners
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proudly awarding $18,450 to the 12 winners and eight honorable mentions in the 2026 Kenneth L. Proulx Memorial Essay Contest for Ongoing College Students.
Currently enrolled college students (up to age 24) wrote on the topic of "Why President Trump is wrong that 'you just can't have a great country if you don't have religion.'"
This contest is named for Kenneth ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 22 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 21, 2026 FFRF disburses $18,450 to 2026 college student essay contest winners The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proudly awarding $18,450 to the 12 winners and eight honorable mentions in the 2026 Kenneth L. Proulx Memorial Essay Contest for Ongoing College Students. Currently enrolled college students (up to age 24) wrote on the topic of "Why President Trump is wrong that 'you just can't have a great country if you don't have religion.'" This contest is named for KennethL. Proulx, one of FFRF's most generous benefactors, who died in 2019. The cupola at Freethought Hall, FFRF's office in Madison, Wis., is called the "Above Us Only Sky Kenneth L. Proulx Cupola" or "Ken's Cupola" for short.
The $1,000 prize for sixth place in the ongoing college competition is generously endowed by actor and FFRF Lifetime Member Mr. Madison Arnold. Madison, who is 90, has given a $30,000 endowment as a living bequest, which he calls a "pre-quest."
Essay contest winners, their ages, the colleges or universities they are attending and the award amounts are listed below.
FIRST PLACE
Artem Khaiet, 21, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, $3,500.
SECOND PLACE
Astrid Jepson, 21, UCLA, $3,000.
THIRD PLACE
Alexander Safranak, 19, Bradley University, $2,500.
FOURTH PLACE
Hendrick Ventura Andeliz, 24, American Military University, $2,000.
FIFTH PLACE
Natalie Sowers, 19, Allegheny College, $1,500.
SIXTH PLACE (tie)
(MR. MADISON ARNOLD AWARD)
Whitney Brown, 19, Hutchinson Community College, $1,000.
Aaron Love, 19, University of Kentucky, $1,000.
SEVENTH PLACE
Sean-Patrick Dulcio, 20, Florida A&M University, $750.
EIGHTH PLACE
Ava Jackson, 19, Howard University, $500.
NINTH PLACE (tie)
Amelia Keefe, 20, University of Central Florida, $400.
Anh Nguyen, 20, Georgia Tech, $400.
TENTH PLACE
Kevin Xiong, 21, Baylor University, $300.
HONORABLE MENTIONS ($200 each)
Alfred Conway, 19, George Mason University.
Katherine Chow, 19, New York University.
Mason Gutierrez, 19, Northern Arizona University.
Rowen Hamilton, 21, University of Texas.
Jeremiah Jefferson, 20, College of Wooster.
Olayide Ogunse, 20, Minnesota State University, Mankato
Sapien Saldivar, 20, University of Texas.
Aimee Vega, 20, Purdue University.
FFRF thanks Lisa Treu for managing the details of this and FFRF's other student essay competitions. It also would like to thank our volunteer and staff judges, including: Dan Barker, Anne Bendixen, Craig Crispin, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Susan Gould, Robert Holley, Sammi Lawrence, David Malcolm, Andrea Osburne, Rose Mary Sheldon, PJ Slinger, Jennifer Vines and Matthew Woodruff.
FFRF has offered essay competitions to college students since 1979, high school students since 1994, grad students since 2010, one explicitly for students of color/first in the family since 2016 and a fifth contest for law students since 2019.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 40,000 members across the country, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-disburses-18450-to-2026-college-student-essay-contest-winners/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
September 21, 2026
FFRF disburses $18,450 to 2026 college student essay contest winners
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proudly awarding $18,450 to the 12 winners and eight honorable mentions in the 2026 Kenneth L. Proulx Memorial Essay Contest for Ongoing College Students.
Currently enrolled college students (up to age 24) wrote on the topic of "Why President Trump is wrong that 'you just can't have a great country if you don't have religion.'"
This contest is named for Kenneth ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 22 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 21, 2026 FFRF disburses $18,450 to 2026 college student essay contest winners The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proudly awarding $18,450 to the 12 winners and eight honorable mentions in the 2026 Kenneth L. Proulx Memorial Essay Contest for Ongoing College Students. Currently enrolled college students (up to age 24) wrote on the topic of "Why President Trump is wrong that 'you just can't have a great country if you don't have religion.'" This contest is named for KennethL. Proulx, one of FFRF's most generous benefactors, who died in 2019. The cupola at Freethought Hall, FFRF's office in Madison, Wis., is called the "Above Us Only Sky Kenneth L. Proulx Cupola" or "Ken's Cupola" for short.
The $1,000 prize for sixth place in the ongoing college competition is generously endowed by actor and FFRF Lifetime Member Mr. Madison Arnold. Madison, who is 90, has given a $30,000 endowment as a living bequest, which he calls a "pre-quest."
Essay contest winners, their ages, the colleges or universities they are attending and the award amounts are listed below.
FIRST PLACE
Artem Khaiet, 21, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, $3,500.
SECOND PLACE
Astrid Jepson, 21, UCLA, $3,000.
THIRD PLACE
Alexander Safranak, 19, Bradley University, $2,500.
FOURTH PLACE
Hendrick Ventura Andeliz, 24, American Military University, $2,000.
FIFTH PLACE
Natalie Sowers, 19, Allegheny College, $1,500.
SIXTH PLACE (tie)
(MR. MADISON ARNOLD AWARD)
Whitney Brown, 19, Hutchinson Community College, $1,000.
Aaron Love, 19, University of Kentucky, $1,000.
SEVENTH PLACE
Sean-Patrick Dulcio, 20, Florida A&M University, $750.
EIGHTH PLACE
Ava Jackson, 19, Howard University, $500.
NINTH PLACE (tie)
Amelia Keefe, 20, University of Central Florida, $400.
Anh Nguyen, 20, Georgia Tech, $400.
TENTH PLACE
Kevin Xiong, 21, Baylor University, $300.
HONORABLE MENTIONS ($200 each)
Alfred Conway, 19, George Mason University.
Katherine Chow, 19, New York University.
Mason Gutierrez, 19, Northern Arizona University.
Rowen Hamilton, 21, University of Texas.
Jeremiah Jefferson, 20, College of Wooster.
Olayide Ogunse, 20, Minnesota State University, Mankato
Sapien Saldivar, 20, University of Texas.
Aimee Vega, 20, Purdue University.
FFRF thanks Lisa Treu for managing the details of this and FFRF's other student essay competitions. It also would like to thank our volunteer and staff judges, including: Dan Barker, Anne Bendixen, Craig Crispin, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Susan Gould, Robert Holley, Sammi Lawrence, David Malcolm, Andrea Osburne, Rose Mary Sheldon, PJ Slinger, Jennifer Vines and Matthew Woodruff.
FFRF has offered essay competitions to college students since 1979, high school students since 1994, grad students since 2010, one explicitly for students of color/first in the family since 2016 and a fifth contest for law students since 2019.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 40,000 members across the country, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-disburses-18450-to-2026-college-student-essay-contest-winners/
[Category: Religion]