Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Local Data Center Moratoria are Costly for the Whole Country
LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker:
* * *
Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country
The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
-
The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computing ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker: * * * Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right. - The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computingpower, both to create frontier AI models and to enable their widespread use, has transformed the storage and processing of data from activities with a physical presence so negligible as to be called the "cloud" to the basis of a construction boom in communities across the country.
The data center debate poses unique challenges due to a combination of issues and incentives that are intensely local on one hand, but have national and society-wide concerns on the other. Local authorities must weigh highly technical, case-specific data when determining what, if any, data center projects are right for their area. But the hundreds of meetings held by local governments and public utilities for this purpose have also become venues for a burgeoning mass anti-AI movement, making the job communities face when deliberating over data centers much more difficult.
A recent report finds that local opposition has blocked $18 billion in proposed data center projects and slowed the approval of over twice that amount. The momentum and publicity of these "wins" against data centers have now shifted the goal of some opposed to the AI from rejecting specific projects to preemptive moratoria-bans on considering new data center projects for one or more years, ostensibly so officials can gather more information or draft new regulations. Dozens of communities have enacted such moratoria in just the past few months.
Faced with constituencies understandably concerned about the changes brought about by AI, but often misinformed about the basic attributes of data centers, officials in towns and cities see the political appeal in backing these measures. As blocked developments and moratoria increase in number and momentum, however, their costs go beyond lost local economic development and begin to be felt nationwide. Data centers are essential infrastructure for modern society, with virtually all of us using them every day for countless computing tasks. The national movement to convince communities that data centers are a bad deal across the board is slowing down and complicating the important process of AI adoption for everyone.
Local matters
Like any other major commercial development, data centers undergo extensive review processes with local, state, and regional authorities before construction begins. While the details vary considerably by jurisdiction, developers are likely to encounter zoning boards, environmental review of multiple kinds, and public utility commissions. These review processes mean that developers can expect due diligence with communities to take over a year--and often multiple years--to complete. Local deliberation of this kind is essential because whether or not a data center is a good deal for a given community depends on many technical and case-specific facts on the ground.
Data centers bring communities economic benefits that are underappreciated in the current debate. Across the country, they have been a consistent source of tax revenue for local governments, accounting for as much as a third of all incoming revenue in some of the Virginia counties home to large facilities. They have also fueled a construction boom, with medium-sized "co-location" facilities and large "hyperscalers" supporting hundreds and thousands of jobs, respectively. These construction jobs are too often written off as "temporary" in debates about the economic value of data centers. Construction workers and union members often feature prominently in testimony supporting data center projects and opposing moratoria, noting that they keep many workers closer to home instead of on far-flung temporary job sites.
The permanent employment supported by data centers is also underappreciated by many, especially when viewed in proper perspective. While the numbers vary widely, co-location facilities typically support a few dozen high-paying, highly-skilled permanent jobs. This number may be smaller than that of other types of large commercial development, such as a big-box retailer or factory. However, co-location facilities provide these jobs without impacting small businesses or increasing traffic, to name just two factors that communities often worry about when considering more traditional commercial development. Hyperscale data centers, which have become the primary lightning rod in recent debates, support hundreds of permanent, highly skilled jobs, and recent research shows their potential to serve as anchors for additional tech-focused employment and small businesses in the communities where they are built.
Concerns about the local impact of data centers mostly focus on their electricity and water consumption. Data centers require considerably more electricity than traditional types of commercial development, such as retail or factories. Developers prefer to locate them in areas with spare grid capacity, but with skyrocketing demand for computing power, this has become something of a bottleneck in certain parts of the country. Protecting local consumers from electricity price hikes--not to mention protecting power grids from excess demand--must be taken seriously. Recent public outrage often overlooks the fact that local officials and developers are indeed carefully considering these matters. Many states are introducing a special electric rate class for data centers with extra requirements that they fund their own capacity upgrades, while tech companies and developers are investing heavily in innovative approaches to both bring in their own power and flexibly allocate electricity demand across different sites.
Concerns over data centers' use of water follow a similar pattern, depending greatly on local factors rather than a common set of issues nationwide. The consequences of water consumption by a data center depend not only on the area's overall water resources but on how much of that water is treated or processed for different uses, the capacity of those systems, and the type of cooling system the data center proposes to use. Once again, rapid innovation is rapidly changing the nature of these questions, with an increasing number of data centers using systems that operate in a closed loop or require no water processed for household or commercial uses at all.
Because so many of these questions depend critically on local conditions and infrastructure, they are best answered by residents and governments in the areas where data centers are being built. But the backlash against AI and data centers, national in scope and motivation, has begun distorting many of the basic facts on the ground in ways that make it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
National backlash
The ability of citizens to protest or resist unwanted commercial development in their communities is an important part of the American political system. At its best, this tradition has enabled communities to fight back against industrial polluters and neighborhood-flattening highways, creating David-versus-Goliath stories seared into Americans' political consciousness. At its worst, this tradition has yielded NIMBY (not in my backyard) movements that have held back housing construction across the country, leading to shortages and high prices at the center of a current affordability crisis. Opposing local development through protests on the ground and especially by showing up at town hall meetings is a type of activism Americans understand.
In the past few years, Americans have often heard overheated rhetoric about the massive changes AI will soon bring to their lives, not to mention overblown fears fueled by media hype. In this environment, the anti-data center movement seemingly presents a familiar way for people to make their voices heard. This has caused a disproportionate amount of public concern about AI to be superimposed onto local data center debates, leading to misunderstanding and misinformation that gains momentum.
Combined with such intense public engagement, the highly technical and case-specific nature of the issues makes misinformation very difficult to combat. National data on both electricity and water is easily manipulated to yield eye-popping numbers that are irrelevant or misleading when applied to the concrete impacts of a specific data center in a specific location. In early June, for example, Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted a statistic that households living near data centers saw their electricity bills increase by "as much as 267 percent in the last five years." That figure, from a 2025 Bloomberg article, referred to wholesale electricity rates rather than the retail rates paid by consumers, and did not separate the impact of data centers from other causes of rising rates, such as aging infrastructure, wildfires, and other climate impacts. When controlling for these factors, researchers find that new data centers built during the period resulted in slightly lower retail rates by encouraging new investments in grid capacity and infrastructure. The authors do, however, caution that future development in areas with strained grid capacity could result in rate increases, underscoring the need for a detailed local-level review of projects.
Once people believe that data centers are bound to cause electricity rate hikes, it becomes difficult to explain the complexities of local grid capacity, the impacts of numerous other factors on prices, or the recent innovations that enable data centers to bring their own power or consume power flexibly across multiple locations. Once people believe that data centers "use up" water supplies, it becomes difficult to explain the many different cooling systems they employ and the differences between water processed for different uses in different areas. This mismatch between national and local questions can generate highly problematic incentives for local government officials.
The trouble with moratoria
Moratoria pose a particular challenge in the current environment. Instead of deliberating over the specifics of how a proposed project will interact with energy and water infrastructure in a particular community, these temporary bans force officials to consider data centers in the abstract, where those opposed to AI can most easily distort the facts. This is a difficult environment for good governance to take hold. The political incentives that local leaders face to support moratoria, given the ongoing national backlash, are undeniable.
The most important benefits of data centers are not the jobs and tax revenue they bring to local communities, significant though those may be. They are essential infrastructure for virtually every computing task each of us now performs on a daily basis. Preemptively crossing hundreds of communities off the list for potential development, often without any local justification, will make the development and use of AI, not to mention other types of computing, more expensive.
A telling moment occurred in April when Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a statewide moratorium bill, saying that while she believed it was "warranted" in theory, it failed to make an exception for a specific $550 million project in the state slated to begin construction. Mills was able to cite the economic benefits and safeguards in place for that project, and why it would clearly benefit the community where it was being built. This wider view of the issue in statehouses is likely why of the 14 state moratorium bills brought this year, none have become law, and only two (Maine and New York) have passed their legislatures.
Supporters of data centers must continue to fight the intense backlash, primarily through education and debate, despite the current difficulties. The authority and ability of local governments and citizens to make the right choices for their own communities must be respected. The best way to do so is through rigorous deliberation of the facts on the ground for specific projects, not preemptive bans.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/local-data-center-moratoria-are-costly-for-the-whole-country/
* * *
Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country
The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
-
The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computing ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker: * * * Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right. - The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computingpower, both to create frontier AI models and to enable their widespread use, has transformed the storage and processing of data from activities with a physical presence so negligible as to be called the "cloud" to the basis of a construction boom in communities across the country.
The data center debate poses unique challenges due to a combination of issues and incentives that are intensely local on one hand, but have national and society-wide concerns on the other. Local authorities must weigh highly technical, case-specific data when determining what, if any, data center projects are right for their area. But the hundreds of meetings held by local governments and public utilities for this purpose have also become venues for a burgeoning mass anti-AI movement, making the job communities face when deliberating over data centers much more difficult.
A recent report finds that local opposition has blocked $18 billion in proposed data center projects and slowed the approval of over twice that amount. The momentum and publicity of these "wins" against data centers have now shifted the goal of some opposed to the AI from rejecting specific projects to preemptive moratoria-bans on considering new data center projects for one or more years, ostensibly so officials can gather more information or draft new regulations. Dozens of communities have enacted such moratoria in just the past few months.
Faced with constituencies understandably concerned about the changes brought about by AI, but often misinformed about the basic attributes of data centers, officials in towns and cities see the political appeal in backing these measures. As blocked developments and moratoria increase in number and momentum, however, their costs go beyond lost local economic development and begin to be felt nationwide. Data centers are essential infrastructure for modern society, with virtually all of us using them every day for countless computing tasks. The national movement to convince communities that data centers are a bad deal across the board is slowing down and complicating the important process of AI adoption for everyone.
Local matters
Like any other major commercial development, data centers undergo extensive review processes with local, state, and regional authorities before construction begins. While the details vary considerably by jurisdiction, developers are likely to encounter zoning boards, environmental review of multiple kinds, and public utility commissions. These review processes mean that developers can expect due diligence with communities to take over a year--and often multiple years--to complete. Local deliberation of this kind is essential because whether or not a data center is a good deal for a given community depends on many technical and case-specific facts on the ground.
Data centers bring communities economic benefits that are underappreciated in the current debate. Across the country, they have been a consistent source of tax revenue for local governments, accounting for as much as a third of all incoming revenue in some of the Virginia counties home to large facilities. They have also fueled a construction boom, with medium-sized "co-location" facilities and large "hyperscalers" supporting hundreds and thousands of jobs, respectively. These construction jobs are too often written off as "temporary" in debates about the economic value of data centers. Construction workers and union members often feature prominently in testimony supporting data center projects and opposing moratoria, noting that they keep many workers closer to home instead of on far-flung temporary job sites.
The permanent employment supported by data centers is also underappreciated by many, especially when viewed in proper perspective. While the numbers vary widely, co-location facilities typically support a few dozen high-paying, highly-skilled permanent jobs. This number may be smaller than that of other types of large commercial development, such as a big-box retailer or factory. However, co-location facilities provide these jobs without impacting small businesses or increasing traffic, to name just two factors that communities often worry about when considering more traditional commercial development. Hyperscale data centers, which have become the primary lightning rod in recent debates, support hundreds of permanent, highly skilled jobs, and recent research shows their potential to serve as anchors for additional tech-focused employment and small businesses in the communities where they are built.
Concerns about the local impact of data centers mostly focus on their electricity and water consumption. Data centers require considerably more electricity than traditional types of commercial development, such as retail or factories. Developers prefer to locate them in areas with spare grid capacity, but with skyrocketing demand for computing power, this has become something of a bottleneck in certain parts of the country. Protecting local consumers from electricity price hikes--not to mention protecting power grids from excess demand--must be taken seriously. Recent public outrage often overlooks the fact that local officials and developers are indeed carefully considering these matters. Many states are introducing a special electric rate class for data centers with extra requirements that they fund their own capacity upgrades, while tech companies and developers are investing heavily in innovative approaches to both bring in their own power and flexibly allocate electricity demand across different sites.
Concerns over data centers' use of water follow a similar pattern, depending greatly on local factors rather than a common set of issues nationwide. The consequences of water consumption by a data center depend not only on the area's overall water resources but on how much of that water is treated or processed for different uses, the capacity of those systems, and the type of cooling system the data center proposes to use. Once again, rapid innovation is rapidly changing the nature of these questions, with an increasing number of data centers using systems that operate in a closed loop or require no water processed for household or commercial uses at all.
Because so many of these questions depend critically on local conditions and infrastructure, they are best answered by residents and governments in the areas where data centers are being built. But the backlash against AI and data centers, national in scope and motivation, has begun distorting many of the basic facts on the ground in ways that make it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
National backlash
The ability of citizens to protest or resist unwanted commercial development in their communities is an important part of the American political system. At its best, this tradition has enabled communities to fight back against industrial polluters and neighborhood-flattening highways, creating David-versus-Goliath stories seared into Americans' political consciousness. At its worst, this tradition has yielded NIMBY (not in my backyard) movements that have held back housing construction across the country, leading to shortages and high prices at the center of a current affordability crisis. Opposing local development through protests on the ground and especially by showing up at town hall meetings is a type of activism Americans understand.
In the past few years, Americans have often heard overheated rhetoric about the massive changes AI will soon bring to their lives, not to mention overblown fears fueled by media hype. In this environment, the anti-data center movement seemingly presents a familiar way for people to make their voices heard. This has caused a disproportionate amount of public concern about AI to be superimposed onto local data center debates, leading to misunderstanding and misinformation that gains momentum.
Combined with such intense public engagement, the highly technical and case-specific nature of the issues makes misinformation very difficult to combat. National data on both electricity and water is easily manipulated to yield eye-popping numbers that are irrelevant or misleading when applied to the concrete impacts of a specific data center in a specific location. In early June, for example, Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted a statistic that households living near data centers saw their electricity bills increase by "as much as 267 percent in the last five years." That figure, from a 2025 Bloomberg article, referred to wholesale electricity rates rather than the retail rates paid by consumers, and did not separate the impact of data centers from other causes of rising rates, such as aging infrastructure, wildfires, and other climate impacts. When controlling for these factors, researchers find that new data centers built during the period resulted in slightly lower retail rates by encouraging new investments in grid capacity and infrastructure. The authors do, however, caution that future development in areas with strained grid capacity could result in rate increases, underscoring the need for a detailed local-level review of projects.
Once people believe that data centers are bound to cause electricity rate hikes, it becomes difficult to explain the complexities of local grid capacity, the impacts of numerous other factors on prices, or the recent innovations that enable data centers to bring their own power or consume power flexibly across multiple locations. Once people believe that data centers "use up" water supplies, it becomes difficult to explain the many different cooling systems they employ and the differences between water processed for different uses in different areas. This mismatch between national and local questions can generate highly problematic incentives for local government officials.
The trouble with moratoria
Moratoria pose a particular challenge in the current environment. Instead of deliberating over the specifics of how a proposed project will interact with energy and water infrastructure in a particular community, these temporary bans force officials to consider data centers in the abstract, where those opposed to AI can most easily distort the facts. This is a difficult environment for good governance to take hold. The political incentives that local leaders face to support moratoria, given the ongoing national backlash, are undeniable.
The most important benefits of data centers are not the jobs and tax revenue they bring to local communities, significant though those may be. They are essential infrastructure for virtually every computing task each of us now performs on a daily basis. Preemptively crossing hundreds of communities off the list for potential development, often without any local justification, will make the development and use of AI, not to mention other types of computing, more expensive.
A telling moment occurred in April when Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a statewide moratorium bill, saying that while she believed it was "warranted" in theory, it failed to make an exception for a specific $550 million project in the state slated to begin construction. Mills was able to cite the economic benefits and safeguards in place for that project, and why it would clearly benefit the community where it was being built. This wider view of the issue in statehouses is likely why of the 14 state moratorium bills brought this year, none have become law, and only two (Maine and New York) have passed their legislatures.
Supporters of data centers must continue to fight the intense backlash, primarily through education and debate, despite the current difficulties. The authority and ability of local governments and citizens to make the right choices for their own communities must be respected. The best way to do so is through rigorous deliberation of the facts on the ground for specific projects, not preemptive bans.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/local-data-center-moratoria-are-costly-for-the-whole-country/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Illinois - Don't Let Social Security Safe Harbor Compliance Become a Blank Check for Tier 2 Benefit Expansion
LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior fellow Rod Crane:
* * *
Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion
Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations.
Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011 ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior fellow Rod Crane: * * * Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations. Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011for workers hired after that year. The latest vehicle is Senate Bill 1937, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act (FRAA), which proposes a rollback of many of the benefit reductions made in 2011 in response to rising pension costs. The bill advanced in committee in late 2025 but remains stalled amid ongoing negotiations. Gov. JB Pritzker has publicly stated the package needs "a lot more work."
Proponents repeatedly cite a narrow federal compliance concern--that the Tier 2 benefit formula does not meet minimum benefit requirements for non-Social Security participants--as the urgent reason to act. But the FRRA and similar proposals use these minimum benefit compliance concerns as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul.
What is the Social Security "minimum benefit" issue?
Federal law (Treas. Reg. Sec. 31.3121(b)(7)-2 and Rev. Proc. 91-40) allows state and local governments to exempt employees from FICA (Social Security/Medicare) taxes and coverage only if the public pension qualifies as an eligible "replacement plan." If the Social Security replacement plan is a defined benefit pension plan, it must provide an annuity (starting no later than Social Security's full retirement age) at least equal to the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) the worker would have received under Social Security.
Compliance is tested via three tiers: a basic formula (1.5% multiplier x final-average compensation x service years, using Social Security wage base and 3-year averaging), a modified formula (adjusting baselines for plan differences, like longer averaging periods), or an equivalent formula (individual-by-individual comparison).
Illinois Tier 2 pension benefits typically feature a 2.2% pension accrual formula for non-Social Security employees, final average salary based on the highest eight of the last 10 years, a pensionable salary cap that grows by the lesser of 3% or one-half of Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners (CPI-U), normal retirement at age 67 (with reductions earlier), and a non-compounded cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of the lesser of 3% or one-half of CPI-U.
The clearest safe harbor compliance issue is that Tier 2's pensionable salary cap (currently $129,192 in 2026) lags behind the $184,500 wage base of Social Security.
Under the safe-harbor test, this divergence, combined with Tier 2's longer eight-year final-average-salary period and early-retirement reduction, drops the effective accrual rate below the required 1.75% threshold for the general formulas in the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), State Employees' Retirement System (SERS), and State Universities Retirement System (SURS). The result is a technical plan-level failure that could, in theory, jeopardize the FICA exemption for affected higher-earning participants.
The Trojan Horse response
Even granting that the salary-cap issue creates a genuine compliance risk, Rev. Proc. 91-40's mechanical tests require only that the initial annual annuity meet a baseline comparable to Social Security's Primary Insurance Amount. Nothing in the minimum benefit framework mandates shorter averaging periods, earlier unreduced retirement, richer COLAs, or any of the rollbacks of the 2011 pension reforms now on the table. Those are discretionary policy choices. Treating federal minimum benefit compliance as a blank check for undoing prior reforms misuses a narrow regulatory concern to bypass the hard trade-offs that should govern public pension design.
Importantly, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has never issued a ruling, audit finding, or enforcement action confirming this interpretation for Illinois Tier 2. Prudent policymaking, therefore, calls for seeking formal IRS clarification or a private-letter ruling before treating the issue as settled law.
That said, even if we accept the compliance risk as valid and worth addressing, the narrow fix required is modest and targeted: simply align the Tier 2 pensionable salary cap with the full Social Security wage base each year, indexing it identically going forward. As reported by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) in 2025, this single change would restore modified safe-harbor compliance at a projected cost of roughly $5.6 to $6.2 billion in additional contributions through 2045, concentrated among the small share of higher earners who actually hit the cap.
Instead, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act of 2026 (SB 1937) and similar proposals use the safe-harbor concern as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul. These bills bundle the necessary cap alignment with multiple enhancements that have nothing to do with federal compliance:
* Shortening the final-average-salary period from the highest eight of the last 10 years to six of the last 10.
* Lowering retirement eligibility ages and service requirements for unreduced benefits (e.g., age 62 if they have reached the 75% of covered salary cap, age 65 with 20 years of service, or age 67 with 10 years of service).
* Improving the automatic annual COLA increase to a more generous 3% simple (non-compounded) structure.
* In some variants, additional tweaks to survivor benefits, reciprocal service, or delaying funding targets to 90% funded by 2045.
Actuarial costs for these add-ons are significantly higher, with one projecting about $46 billion in additional costs through 2049 above the minimum benefit fix alone.
Leveraging compliance issues to improperly bolster benefits
Any reforms beyond the minimum cap alignment must therefore be evaluated strictly on independent benefit-policy and funding-policy grounds: retirement-income adequacy, benefit equity across cohorts, taxpayer affordability, and effective recruitment and retention. On these criteria, the broader proposals fall short without rigorous justification and pre-funding.
The adequacy of the current level of pension benefits should not be viewed as a crisis. A full-career Tier 2 non-Social Security worker with 30 years of service still replaces roughly 66% of final average salary--often competitive with private-sector 401(k) outcomes when paired with personal savings. It is important to note that the entire issue arises from the Tier 2 salary cap mechanism, so the only participants who could have a safe harbor compliance problem are high-earning employees earning more than the salary cap ($129,192 in 2026). Most Tier 2 plan participants are not affected by this situation; for example, only about 6% of SERS employees earn above the salary cap.
The minimum benefit compliance debate has become a convenient rhetorical shield. Invoking "the feds are coming" sounds more urgent than admitting a desire for richer pensions. Illinois cannot afford that sleight of hand. If the minimum compliance fix is needed, enact the narrow salary-cap alignment after seeking IRS confirmation. Any additional enhancements must stand or fall on their independent merits under the tests of adequacy, equity, affordability, and workforce needs--not on an unconfirmed regulatory theory. Sound public policy, not selective regulatory leverage, must decide the future of Tier 2.
* * *
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/illinois-social-security-safe-harbor-compliance-blank-check-tier-2-benefit-expansion/
* * *
Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion
Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations.
Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011 ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior fellow Rod Crane: * * * Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations. Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011for workers hired after that year. The latest vehicle is Senate Bill 1937, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act (FRAA), which proposes a rollback of many of the benefit reductions made in 2011 in response to rising pension costs. The bill advanced in committee in late 2025 but remains stalled amid ongoing negotiations. Gov. JB Pritzker has publicly stated the package needs "a lot more work."
Proponents repeatedly cite a narrow federal compliance concern--that the Tier 2 benefit formula does not meet minimum benefit requirements for non-Social Security participants--as the urgent reason to act. But the FRRA and similar proposals use these minimum benefit compliance concerns as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul.
What is the Social Security "minimum benefit" issue?
Federal law (Treas. Reg. Sec. 31.3121(b)(7)-2 and Rev. Proc. 91-40) allows state and local governments to exempt employees from FICA (Social Security/Medicare) taxes and coverage only if the public pension qualifies as an eligible "replacement plan." If the Social Security replacement plan is a defined benefit pension plan, it must provide an annuity (starting no later than Social Security's full retirement age) at least equal to the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) the worker would have received under Social Security.
Compliance is tested via three tiers: a basic formula (1.5% multiplier x final-average compensation x service years, using Social Security wage base and 3-year averaging), a modified formula (adjusting baselines for plan differences, like longer averaging periods), or an equivalent formula (individual-by-individual comparison).
Illinois Tier 2 pension benefits typically feature a 2.2% pension accrual formula for non-Social Security employees, final average salary based on the highest eight of the last 10 years, a pensionable salary cap that grows by the lesser of 3% or one-half of Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners (CPI-U), normal retirement at age 67 (with reductions earlier), and a non-compounded cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of the lesser of 3% or one-half of CPI-U.
The clearest safe harbor compliance issue is that Tier 2's pensionable salary cap (currently $129,192 in 2026) lags behind the $184,500 wage base of Social Security.
Under the safe-harbor test, this divergence, combined with Tier 2's longer eight-year final-average-salary period and early-retirement reduction, drops the effective accrual rate below the required 1.75% threshold for the general formulas in the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), State Employees' Retirement System (SERS), and State Universities Retirement System (SURS). The result is a technical plan-level failure that could, in theory, jeopardize the FICA exemption for affected higher-earning participants.
The Trojan Horse response
Even granting that the salary-cap issue creates a genuine compliance risk, Rev. Proc. 91-40's mechanical tests require only that the initial annual annuity meet a baseline comparable to Social Security's Primary Insurance Amount. Nothing in the minimum benefit framework mandates shorter averaging periods, earlier unreduced retirement, richer COLAs, or any of the rollbacks of the 2011 pension reforms now on the table. Those are discretionary policy choices. Treating federal minimum benefit compliance as a blank check for undoing prior reforms misuses a narrow regulatory concern to bypass the hard trade-offs that should govern public pension design.
Importantly, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has never issued a ruling, audit finding, or enforcement action confirming this interpretation for Illinois Tier 2. Prudent policymaking, therefore, calls for seeking formal IRS clarification or a private-letter ruling before treating the issue as settled law.
That said, even if we accept the compliance risk as valid and worth addressing, the narrow fix required is modest and targeted: simply align the Tier 2 pensionable salary cap with the full Social Security wage base each year, indexing it identically going forward. As reported by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) in 2025, this single change would restore modified safe-harbor compliance at a projected cost of roughly $5.6 to $6.2 billion in additional contributions through 2045, concentrated among the small share of higher earners who actually hit the cap.
Instead, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act of 2026 (SB 1937) and similar proposals use the safe-harbor concern as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul. These bills bundle the necessary cap alignment with multiple enhancements that have nothing to do with federal compliance:
* Shortening the final-average-salary period from the highest eight of the last 10 years to six of the last 10.
* Lowering retirement eligibility ages and service requirements for unreduced benefits (e.g., age 62 if they have reached the 75% of covered salary cap, age 65 with 20 years of service, or age 67 with 10 years of service).
* Improving the automatic annual COLA increase to a more generous 3% simple (non-compounded) structure.
* In some variants, additional tweaks to survivor benefits, reciprocal service, or delaying funding targets to 90% funded by 2045.
Actuarial costs for these add-ons are significantly higher, with one projecting about $46 billion in additional costs through 2049 above the minimum benefit fix alone.
Leveraging compliance issues to improperly bolster benefits
Any reforms beyond the minimum cap alignment must therefore be evaluated strictly on independent benefit-policy and funding-policy grounds: retirement-income adequacy, benefit equity across cohorts, taxpayer affordability, and effective recruitment and retention. On these criteria, the broader proposals fall short without rigorous justification and pre-funding.
The adequacy of the current level of pension benefits should not be viewed as a crisis. A full-career Tier 2 non-Social Security worker with 30 years of service still replaces roughly 66% of final average salary--often competitive with private-sector 401(k) outcomes when paired with personal savings. It is important to note that the entire issue arises from the Tier 2 salary cap mechanism, so the only participants who could have a safe harbor compliance problem are high-earning employees earning more than the salary cap ($129,192 in 2026). Most Tier 2 plan participants are not affected by this situation; for example, only about 6% of SERS employees earn above the salary cap.
The minimum benefit compliance debate has become a convenient rhetorical shield. Invoking "the feds are coming" sounds more urgent than admitting a desire for richer pensions. Illinois cannot afford that sleight of hand. If the minimum compliance fix is needed, enact the narrow salary-cap alignment after seeking IRS confirmation. Any additional enhancements must stand or fall on their independent merits under the tests of adequacy, equity, affordability, and workforce needs--not on an unconfirmed regulatory theory. Sound public policy, not selective regulatory leverage, must decide the future of Tier 2.
* * *
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/illinois-social-security-safe-harbor-compliance-blank-check-tier-2-benefit-expansion/
TPPF Applauds SBOE's Adoption of New Social Studies and Literature Standards
AUSTIN, Texas, June 26 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Applauds SBOE's Adoption of New Social Studies and Literature Standards
*
AUSTIN -The Texas Public Policy Foundation praised the Texas State Board of Education's vote to adopt improved Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards for social studies and the state's first required literary works list. Together, these proposed curriculum changes will strengthen students' literacy and knowledge of history.
"Students learn best when they are free to understand history as it happened ... Show Full Article AUSTIN, Texas, June 26 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release: * * * TPPF Applauds SBOE's Adoption of New Social Studies and Literature Standards * AUSTIN -The Texas Public Policy Foundation praised the Texas State Board of Education's vote to adopt improved Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards for social studies and the state's first required literary works list. Together, these proposed curriculum changes will strengthen students' literacy and knowledge of history. "Students learn best when they are free to understand history as it happenedand when they engage with great works of literature that expand their understanding of the world," said TPPF CEO Greg Sindelar. "These standards will help Texas students build a stronger academic foundation, free from any political agenda."
"This is a major win for Texas parents who value literacy, critical thinking, and the unbiased presentation of historical facts," added TPPF Senior Fellow Mandy Drogin. "Students will benefit from learning about America's founding principles through chronological, factual lessons."
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-applauds-sboes-adoption-of-new-social-studies-and-literature-standards
* * *
TPPF Applauds SBOE's Adoption of New Social Studies and Literature Standards
*
AUSTIN -The Texas Public Policy Foundation praised the Texas State Board of Education's vote to adopt improved Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards for social studies and the state's first required literary works list. Together, these proposed curriculum changes will strengthen students' literacy and knowledge of history.
"Students learn best when they are free to understand history as it happened ... Show Full Article AUSTIN, Texas, June 26 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release: * * * TPPF Applauds SBOE's Adoption of New Social Studies and Literature Standards * AUSTIN -The Texas Public Policy Foundation praised the Texas State Board of Education's vote to adopt improved Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards for social studies and the state's first required literary works list. Together, these proposed curriculum changes will strengthen students' literacy and knowledge of history. "Students learn best when they are free to understand history as it happenedand when they engage with great works of literature that expand their understanding of the world," said TPPF CEO Greg Sindelar. "These standards will help Texas students build a stronger academic foundation, free from any political agenda."
"This is a major win for Texas parents who value literacy, critical thinking, and the unbiased presentation of historical facts," added TPPF Senior Fellow Mandy Drogin. "Students will benefit from learning about America's founding principles through chronological, factual lessons."
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-applauds-sboes-adoption-of-new-social-studies-and-literature-standards
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Report - Fine Revenue Exceeds 50% of General Revenue in 42 Cities Across the Country
LOS ANGELES, California, June 26 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi:
* * *
Report: Fine revenue exceeds 50% of general revenue in 42 cities across the country
Eleven cities collected more revenue from fines than from taxes and other general revenue sources, and seven of the 10 most reliant cities are in Louisiana.
Local governments across the country have come to depend on fines and forfeitures to fund their operations, according to a new Reason Foundation report that reviewed audited financial statements from ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 26 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi: * * * Report: Fine revenue exceeds 50% of general revenue in 42 cities across the country Eleven cities collected more revenue from fines than from taxes and other general revenue sources, and seven of the 10 most reliant cities are in Louisiana. Local governments across the country have come to depend on fines and forfeitures to fund their operations, according to a new Reason Foundation report that reviewed audited financial statements from10,532 cities and counties. Across the 7,441 cities and counties for which fines and forfeitures revenue was identified, local governments reported a combined total of $5.5 billion in fines and forfeitures in fiscal year 2023. This figure reflects only those governments for which relevant line items were identified in audited financial statements and should not be interpreted as a national total.
The report measures fiscal reliance as the ratio of fines and forfeitures to general revenue. This measure reflects how much enforcement revenue a government collects from fines relative to its conventional tax-derived and unrestricted revenue. Because fines and forfeitures are not counted as general revenue under government accounting standards, this ratio can exceed 100% when a government collects more from fines than all of its general revenue combined. By this measure, reliance is concentrated in a relatively small number of jurisdictions, overwhelmingly in the South and South-Central United States, with the densest cluster in Louisiana.
Why measure reliance against general revenue rather than a city's total budget? General revenue captures the money a government raises to fund its core operations at its own discretion, mainly taxes and unrestricted transfers. It leaves out money tied to self-sustaining operations like water and sewer utilities, which pay for their own services and don't underwrite general government. Measuring fines against total revenue would let a city hide heavy reliance on enforcement behind a large utility fund. General revenue isolates the discretionary base that cities rely on for general operations.
Across the dataset, 275 local governments in 25 states reported fines and forfeitures exceeding 10% of general revenue (that is,10 cents in fines for every $1 of general revenue). Of those, 42 cities exceeded 50%, and 13 cities reported ratios at or above 100%, meaning fine revenue surpassed their entire general revenue base.
* * *
Table: The 42 cities that collect over 50 cents in fines and fees for every $1 of revenue
* * *
Two Louisiana cities top the list. McNary (291%) and Port Vincent (275%) each generate nearly three times as much in fines and forfeitures than they can collect in general revenue.
Eleven more cities take in more in fines and forfeitures than general revenue: Kilbourne, Louisiana (195%); Gadsden, Tennessee (192%); Turkey Creek, Louisiana (188%); Dodson, Louisiana (172%); Henderson, Louisiana (133%); Poulan, Georgia (131%); Woodworth, Louisiana (115%); Webb, Alabama (113%); Orient, Illinois (110%); Seat Pleasant, Maryland (109%); and Urania, Louisiana (101%).
High reliance is concentrated in a handful of states. Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Oklahoma together account for nearly three-quarters of the cities exceeding the 10% threshold.
Per-capita figures normalize collections across governments of different sizes and offer another way to compare jurisdictions, though they do not by themselves indicate budget reliance. By this measure, 41 cities collected more than $500 per resident in fines and forfeitures, and 15 collected more than $1,000 per resident.
* * *
Table: The 41 cities that collect over $500 per capita in fines and fees
* * *
Linndale, Ohio, is the national per-resident leader and the most extreme outlier, at $8,885 per resident--nearly three times the next-highest figure. Linndale reports fines alongside permitting fees, contributing to its outlier status. Robeline, Louisiana ($2,987), Ocean Beach, New York ($2,970), and Georgetown, Louisiana ($2,933) are the only other cities above $2,900 per resident. Louisiana cities account for four of the top 10 by per-resident collections.
No state relies on fines and forfeitures as heavily as Louisiana. Seven of the 10 most reliant cities in the country are in Louisiana, including the two that top the national list. The state alone accounts for 57 of the 238 cities that collect more than 10% of general revenue from fines and forfeitures.
Part of the explanation lies in how Louisiana structures its local courts. In many of the state's small towns, the mayor personally serves as judge of the municipal court under the state's mayor's court system, placing the authority to preside over the town's court in the hands of the same official responsible for its budget. Henderson, Louisiana, illustrates the result and is profiled as a case study in the report. In fiscal year 2023, the town collected $1.5 million in fines and forfeitures, equal to 133% of its general revenue and roughly $847 for every resident, while bringing in just $9 per resident in property taxes. The Louisiana Judicial College recommends that mayors appoint a separate magistrate once court revenue exceeds 10% of a town's revenue, but many towns, including Henderson, have declined to do so.
High reliance is far less common among counties than cities. Across the dataset, 8 counties collected more than 20% of general revenue from fines and forfeitures, and 5 exceeded 30%. The most reliant counties are concentrated in Illinois, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina.
In per-capita terms, county collections are highest in Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina. Taliaferro County, Georgia, leads all counties at $762 per resident, followed by Turner County, Georgia ($515), and Lee County, South Carolina ($484). Note that Lee County, South Carolina, reports revenue from Licenses, Permits, Fines, and Fees jointly. Georgia accounts for five of the top 10 counties by per-resident collections. Turner County is profiled as a case study in the report.
* * *
Table: The 50 counties that collect the most fines and fees per capita
* * *
The full report, Taxation by Citation: A 50-State Data and Policy Report on Local Government Fines and Forfeitures, is available here (https://finesfees.reason.org/).
* * *
Vittorio Nastasi is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/fine-revenue-exceeds-50-percent-general-revenue-42-cities/
* * *
Report: Fine revenue exceeds 50% of general revenue in 42 cities across the country
Eleven cities collected more revenue from fines than from taxes and other general revenue sources, and seven of the 10 most reliant cities are in Louisiana.
Local governments across the country have come to depend on fines and forfeitures to fund their operations, according to a new Reason Foundation report that reviewed audited financial statements from ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 26 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi: * * * Report: Fine revenue exceeds 50% of general revenue in 42 cities across the country Eleven cities collected more revenue from fines than from taxes and other general revenue sources, and seven of the 10 most reliant cities are in Louisiana. Local governments across the country have come to depend on fines and forfeitures to fund their operations, according to a new Reason Foundation report that reviewed audited financial statements from10,532 cities and counties. Across the 7,441 cities and counties for which fines and forfeitures revenue was identified, local governments reported a combined total of $5.5 billion in fines and forfeitures in fiscal year 2023. This figure reflects only those governments for which relevant line items were identified in audited financial statements and should not be interpreted as a national total.
The report measures fiscal reliance as the ratio of fines and forfeitures to general revenue. This measure reflects how much enforcement revenue a government collects from fines relative to its conventional tax-derived and unrestricted revenue. Because fines and forfeitures are not counted as general revenue under government accounting standards, this ratio can exceed 100% when a government collects more from fines than all of its general revenue combined. By this measure, reliance is concentrated in a relatively small number of jurisdictions, overwhelmingly in the South and South-Central United States, with the densest cluster in Louisiana.
Why measure reliance against general revenue rather than a city's total budget? General revenue captures the money a government raises to fund its core operations at its own discretion, mainly taxes and unrestricted transfers. It leaves out money tied to self-sustaining operations like water and sewer utilities, which pay for their own services and don't underwrite general government. Measuring fines against total revenue would let a city hide heavy reliance on enforcement behind a large utility fund. General revenue isolates the discretionary base that cities rely on for general operations.
Across the dataset, 275 local governments in 25 states reported fines and forfeitures exceeding 10% of general revenue (that is,10 cents in fines for every $1 of general revenue). Of those, 42 cities exceeded 50%, and 13 cities reported ratios at or above 100%, meaning fine revenue surpassed their entire general revenue base.
* * *
Table: The 42 cities that collect over 50 cents in fines and fees for every $1 of revenue
* * *
Two Louisiana cities top the list. McNary (291%) and Port Vincent (275%) each generate nearly three times as much in fines and forfeitures than they can collect in general revenue.
Eleven more cities take in more in fines and forfeitures than general revenue: Kilbourne, Louisiana (195%); Gadsden, Tennessee (192%); Turkey Creek, Louisiana (188%); Dodson, Louisiana (172%); Henderson, Louisiana (133%); Poulan, Georgia (131%); Woodworth, Louisiana (115%); Webb, Alabama (113%); Orient, Illinois (110%); Seat Pleasant, Maryland (109%); and Urania, Louisiana (101%).
High reliance is concentrated in a handful of states. Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Oklahoma together account for nearly three-quarters of the cities exceeding the 10% threshold.
Per-capita figures normalize collections across governments of different sizes and offer another way to compare jurisdictions, though they do not by themselves indicate budget reliance. By this measure, 41 cities collected more than $500 per resident in fines and forfeitures, and 15 collected more than $1,000 per resident.
* * *
Table: The 41 cities that collect over $500 per capita in fines and fees
* * *
Linndale, Ohio, is the national per-resident leader and the most extreme outlier, at $8,885 per resident--nearly three times the next-highest figure. Linndale reports fines alongside permitting fees, contributing to its outlier status. Robeline, Louisiana ($2,987), Ocean Beach, New York ($2,970), and Georgetown, Louisiana ($2,933) are the only other cities above $2,900 per resident. Louisiana cities account for four of the top 10 by per-resident collections.
No state relies on fines and forfeitures as heavily as Louisiana. Seven of the 10 most reliant cities in the country are in Louisiana, including the two that top the national list. The state alone accounts for 57 of the 238 cities that collect more than 10% of general revenue from fines and forfeitures.
Part of the explanation lies in how Louisiana structures its local courts. In many of the state's small towns, the mayor personally serves as judge of the municipal court under the state's mayor's court system, placing the authority to preside over the town's court in the hands of the same official responsible for its budget. Henderson, Louisiana, illustrates the result and is profiled as a case study in the report. In fiscal year 2023, the town collected $1.5 million in fines and forfeitures, equal to 133% of its general revenue and roughly $847 for every resident, while bringing in just $9 per resident in property taxes. The Louisiana Judicial College recommends that mayors appoint a separate magistrate once court revenue exceeds 10% of a town's revenue, but many towns, including Henderson, have declined to do so.
High reliance is far less common among counties than cities. Across the dataset, 8 counties collected more than 20% of general revenue from fines and forfeitures, and 5 exceeded 30%. The most reliant counties are concentrated in Illinois, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina.
In per-capita terms, county collections are highest in Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina. Taliaferro County, Georgia, leads all counties at $762 per resident, followed by Turner County, Georgia ($515), and Lee County, South Carolina ($484). Note that Lee County, South Carolina, reports revenue from Licenses, Permits, Fines, and Fees jointly. Georgia accounts for five of the top 10 counties by per-resident collections. Turner County is profiled as a case study in the report.
* * *
Table: The 50 counties that collect the most fines and fees per capita
* * *
The full report, Taxation by Citation: A 50-State Data and Policy Report on Local Government Fines and Forfeitures, is available here (https://finesfees.reason.org/).
* * *
Vittorio Nastasi is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/fine-revenue-exceeds-50-percent-general-revenue-42-cities/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Alan Greenspan and the Monetary Monopoly
DETROIT, Michigan, June 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by FEE Studios senior writer Sergio Martinez:
* * *
Alan Greenspan and the Monetary Monopoly
Reflecting on Alan Greenspan's legacy.
-
A central bank wields a peculiar kind of power. It holds a monopoly over money, and money runs through nearly every transaction we make. Because of that reach, a monetary mistake travels through credit markets, housing, banks, pension funds, and the budgets of millions of people who never had a say in the policy.
That is the right place to begin a reflection ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, June 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by FEE Studios senior writer Sergio Martinez: * * * Alan Greenspan and the Monetary Monopoly Reflecting on Alan Greenspan's legacy. - A central bank wields a peculiar kind of power. It holds a monopoly over money, and money runs through nearly every transaction we make. Because of that reach, a monetary mistake travels through credit markets, housing, banks, pension funds, and the budgets of millions of people who never had a say in the policy. That is the right place to begin a reflectionon Alan Greenspan, who died on June 22, 2026, at the age of 100. His was a mixed legacy. Here was a man who understood the power of markets, and who nonetheless turned on those markets when they soured, blaming private excess for a crisis his own institution had helped make possible.
Greenspan chaired the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, through the 1987 crash, the long boom of the 1990s, the dot-com bust, 9/11, and the early housing boom. He earned real praise. Inflation stayed far below 1970s levels. Growth was strong, productivity picked up, recessions stayed shallow.
But the "Maestro" label Greenspan had earned fell into serious doubt after the 2008 global financial crisis. Critics argued that his Fed drenched the economy in liquidity after the 2001 recession and kept rates too low for too long. Cheap credit pulled Americans into mortgages, fed speculation, drove up prices, and let banks pile on leverage. When it came apart, his earlier moves looked less like stabilization than like the source of the distortion. The 2008 financial crisis was an institutional failure rooted in discretionary control over money and credit.
Free-market economists split over exactly this point. Economists David Henderson and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel mounted the strongest defense from inside the libertarian camp, warning against a tempting shortcut: treating low interest rates as proof of loose money. Rates are prices, shaped by saving, investment, and capital flows; a central bank nudges short-term rates but does not dictate every rate in a world credit market. Look at the monetary aggregates, they said, and his record turns out far tighter than the "Easy Al" caricature: slower M2 growth, heavy foreign demand for dollars, reserves that barely budged. In their view, low rates can also reflect heavy saving, weak investment, and a global hunger for safe dollar assets, and the boom appeared in countries with very different policies.
But economist George Selgin turned that defense on its head. He argued that what matters is money relative to the demand for it, and by that yardstick, Greenspan's Fed was plainly loose. Far from clearing Greenspan, Selgin concluded, the record left his Fed deserving not a small share of blame for the bubble but the lion's share: the deeper lesson being that even the ablest central banker, armed with full discretion, must eventually pilot the economy into trouble.
The "Greenspan put" makes the dynamic concrete. A put option protects its holder against downside losses; the Greenspan put, never written down, was an expectation learned through repetition. The Fed poured in liquidity after the 1987 crash, cut rates during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998, and eased again after the dot-com bust. Markets are good students. Gains on the way up stayed private; losses past a certain point, investors came to assume, the Fed would soften.
That is moral hazard, plainly. Firms expecting a cushion hold less cash, borrow shorter, lend longer, and treat liquidity risk as someone else's worry. Economist Raghuram Rajan traced the mechanism in Fault Lines. The Fed's readiness to supply liquidity in a downturn told banks, in effect, "Don't bother storing cash or marketable assets for a rainy day." The upshot, Rajan wrote, was that "leverage built up throughout the system."
There is also Greenspan's fondness for gold. Greenspan spoke warmly of the gold standard as a source of discipline, suggesting that a fiat central bank ought to reproduce what gold would have delivered. But inflation averaged about 3.3% during Greenspan's chairmanship--as economist Lawrence H. White notes in The Clash of Economic Ideas--well above the 1.75% that Minneapolis Fed economists Arthur Rolnick and Warren Weber found under commodity-standard conditions.
None of this means that Greenspan caused 2008 by himself. But he helped build an environment in which risk-taking paid, rescue expectations spread, and market discipline eroded. He defended private decision-making while running the institution that set the terms of those decisions, and the Fed's reflex to rescue convinced the largest players that their worst losses would be cushioned.
Greenspan's reputation fed a dangerous idea: that monetary policy can be safely handed to a gifted individual with enough data, experience, and instinct. Sound money asks for something sturdier: rules that bind officials before the crisis, losses that fall on the firms that earned them, arrangements that do not rise or fall with the temperament of one chairman.
* * *
Sergio Martinez is FEE Studios Senior Writer at the Foundation for Economic Education, with a background in the public sector and experience speaking at numerous forums and seminars on economic education.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/alan-greenspan-and-the-monetary-monopoly/
* * *
Alan Greenspan and the Monetary Monopoly
Reflecting on Alan Greenspan's legacy.
-
A central bank wields a peculiar kind of power. It holds a monopoly over money, and money runs through nearly every transaction we make. Because of that reach, a monetary mistake travels through credit markets, housing, banks, pension funds, and the budgets of millions of people who never had a say in the policy.
That is the right place to begin a reflection ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, June 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by FEE Studios senior writer Sergio Martinez: * * * Alan Greenspan and the Monetary Monopoly Reflecting on Alan Greenspan's legacy. - A central bank wields a peculiar kind of power. It holds a monopoly over money, and money runs through nearly every transaction we make. Because of that reach, a monetary mistake travels through credit markets, housing, banks, pension funds, and the budgets of millions of people who never had a say in the policy. That is the right place to begin a reflectionon Alan Greenspan, who died on June 22, 2026, at the age of 100. His was a mixed legacy. Here was a man who understood the power of markets, and who nonetheless turned on those markets when they soured, blaming private excess for a crisis his own institution had helped make possible.
Greenspan chaired the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, through the 1987 crash, the long boom of the 1990s, the dot-com bust, 9/11, and the early housing boom. He earned real praise. Inflation stayed far below 1970s levels. Growth was strong, productivity picked up, recessions stayed shallow.
But the "Maestro" label Greenspan had earned fell into serious doubt after the 2008 global financial crisis. Critics argued that his Fed drenched the economy in liquidity after the 2001 recession and kept rates too low for too long. Cheap credit pulled Americans into mortgages, fed speculation, drove up prices, and let banks pile on leverage. When it came apart, his earlier moves looked less like stabilization than like the source of the distortion. The 2008 financial crisis was an institutional failure rooted in discretionary control over money and credit.
Free-market economists split over exactly this point. Economists David Henderson and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel mounted the strongest defense from inside the libertarian camp, warning against a tempting shortcut: treating low interest rates as proof of loose money. Rates are prices, shaped by saving, investment, and capital flows; a central bank nudges short-term rates but does not dictate every rate in a world credit market. Look at the monetary aggregates, they said, and his record turns out far tighter than the "Easy Al" caricature: slower M2 growth, heavy foreign demand for dollars, reserves that barely budged. In their view, low rates can also reflect heavy saving, weak investment, and a global hunger for safe dollar assets, and the boom appeared in countries with very different policies.
But economist George Selgin turned that defense on its head. He argued that what matters is money relative to the demand for it, and by that yardstick, Greenspan's Fed was plainly loose. Far from clearing Greenspan, Selgin concluded, the record left his Fed deserving not a small share of blame for the bubble but the lion's share: the deeper lesson being that even the ablest central banker, armed with full discretion, must eventually pilot the economy into trouble.
The "Greenspan put" makes the dynamic concrete. A put option protects its holder against downside losses; the Greenspan put, never written down, was an expectation learned through repetition. The Fed poured in liquidity after the 1987 crash, cut rates during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998, and eased again after the dot-com bust. Markets are good students. Gains on the way up stayed private; losses past a certain point, investors came to assume, the Fed would soften.
That is moral hazard, plainly. Firms expecting a cushion hold less cash, borrow shorter, lend longer, and treat liquidity risk as someone else's worry. Economist Raghuram Rajan traced the mechanism in Fault Lines. The Fed's readiness to supply liquidity in a downturn told banks, in effect, "Don't bother storing cash or marketable assets for a rainy day." The upshot, Rajan wrote, was that "leverage built up throughout the system."
There is also Greenspan's fondness for gold. Greenspan spoke warmly of the gold standard as a source of discipline, suggesting that a fiat central bank ought to reproduce what gold would have delivered. But inflation averaged about 3.3% during Greenspan's chairmanship--as economist Lawrence H. White notes in The Clash of Economic Ideas--well above the 1.75% that Minneapolis Fed economists Arthur Rolnick and Warren Weber found under commodity-standard conditions.
None of this means that Greenspan caused 2008 by himself. But he helped build an environment in which risk-taking paid, rescue expectations spread, and market discipline eroded. He defended private decision-making while running the institution that set the terms of those decisions, and the Fed's reflex to rescue convinced the largest players that their worst losses would be cushioned.
Greenspan's reputation fed a dangerous idea: that monetary policy can be safely handed to a gifted individual with enough data, experience, and instinct. Sound money asks for something sturdier: rules that bind officials before the crisis, losses that fall on the firms that earned them, arrangements that do not rise or fall with the temperament of one chairman.
* * *
Sergio Martinez is FEE Studios Senior Writer at the Foundation for Economic Education, with a background in the public sector and experience speaking at numerous forums and seminars on economic education.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/alan-greenspan-and-the-monetary-monopoly/
Foundation for California Community Colleges: Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans
SACRAMENTO, California, June 26 -- The Foundation for California Community Colleges issued the following news:
* * *
Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans
Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells.
Led ... Show Full Article SACRAMENTO, California, June 26 -- The Foundation for California Community Colleges issued the following news: * * * Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells. Ledby the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Opens in a new window) and supported by the Foundation for California Community Colleges (FoundationCCC), the theme of this year's summit, held from June 15-17, 2026, was Desert Muster: Refresh, Realign, Reimagine.
"Often, the brave men and women who served our country are the ones left behind in higher education. The Veterans Summit brings together program experts to ensure veterans can access college, receive support navigating their military benefits, and find pathways to successful civilian careers with sustainable wages. Many of the professionals who lead Veterans Resource Centers on community college campuses are veterans themselves and understand the unique journey of student veterans. Sometimes it can be difficult for those who have experienced deployment and military service to ask for help in the classroom. That is why we are here, to ensure they have the support and resources they need to succeed," said Manuel Baca, Board Member, FoundationCCC, and Co-Founder, Veterans Summit.
Baca understands the student veteran experience firsthand. A former U.S. Marine and graduate and professor emeritus of political science at Rio Hondo College (Opens in a new window), he has dedicated his career to building stronger support networks for veterans pursuing higher education. As a member of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and Co-Chair of the Veterans Committee, Baca ensured funding and direction to increase CCC veterans resource centers from approximately eight in 2009 to more than 90 statewide.
Throughout the three-day symposium, attendees from the California Community Colleges, California State University, and University of California systems participated in engaging workshops, keynote presentations from industry experts, and networking opportunities designed to foster collaboration among military service practitioners and advocates. Speakers included education liaison representatives from the United States Department of Veteran Affairs as well as Veterans Specialist Heather McClenahen, and Vice Chancellor Gina Browne from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College. Sessions focused on sharing best practices, strengthening partnerships, and identifying actionable solutions that support veterans through enrollment, academic achievement, graduation, and workforce transition.
Bender delivered the summit's closing keynote titled, The Warrior Adaptation, and a workshop, Designing the Next Mission: A Model for Veteran Purpose and Future Vision.
"With nearly a million veterans pursuing postsecondary education nationwide, higher education represents one of the greatest opportunities to improve veteran transition outcomes. Colleges are not simply preparing veterans for careers; they are helping them build new identities, relationships, and futures. The work being done across California demonstrates what is possible when veterans are provided intentional support and meaningful connection. The impact extends far beyond graduation." -- Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College
FoundationCCC works closely with the Chancellor's Office and partners across the state to provide direct support for military members, veterans, and their families, including emergency financial assistance for first-generation student veterans. With an estimated 1.8 million veterans living in California, many turn to the state's community colleges for affordable, debt-free education and workforce training as they transition to civilian life. Each year, approximately 55,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and military dependents are enrolled in California Community Colleges.
Learn more about Veterans Services (https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Services-and-Support/Student-Service/What-we-do/Veterans-Education-and-Transition-Services)
* * *
Original text here: https://foundationccc.org/building-stronger-pathways-for-californias-student-veterans/
* * *
Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans
Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells.
Led ... Show Full Article SACRAMENTO, California, June 26 -- The Foundation for California Community Colleges issued the following news: * * * Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells. Ledby the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Opens in a new window) and supported by the Foundation for California Community Colleges (FoundationCCC), the theme of this year's summit, held from June 15-17, 2026, was Desert Muster: Refresh, Realign, Reimagine.
"Often, the brave men and women who served our country are the ones left behind in higher education. The Veterans Summit brings together program experts to ensure veterans can access college, receive support navigating their military benefits, and find pathways to successful civilian careers with sustainable wages. Many of the professionals who lead Veterans Resource Centers on community college campuses are veterans themselves and understand the unique journey of student veterans. Sometimes it can be difficult for those who have experienced deployment and military service to ask for help in the classroom. That is why we are here, to ensure they have the support and resources they need to succeed," said Manuel Baca, Board Member, FoundationCCC, and Co-Founder, Veterans Summit.
Baca understands the student veteran experience firsthand. A former U.S. Marine and graduate and professor emeritus of political science at Rio Hondo College (Opens in a new window), he has dedicated his career to building stronger support networks for veterans pursuing higher education. As a member of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and Co-Chair of the Veterans Committee, Baca ensured funding and direction to increase CCC veterans resource centers from approximately eight in 2009 to more than 90 statewide.
Throughout the three-day symposium, attendees from the California Community Colleges, California State University, and University of California systems participated in engaging workshops, keynote presentations from industry experts, and networking opportunities designed to foster collaboration among military service practitioners and advocates. Speakers included education liaison representatives from the United States Department of Veteran Affairs as well as Veterans Specialist Heather McClenahen, and Vice Chancellor Gina Browne from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College. Sessions focused on sharing best practices, strengthening partnerships, and identifying actionable solutions that support veterans through enrollment, academic achievement, graduation, and workforce transition.
Bender delivered the summit's closing keynote titled, The Warrior Adaptation, and a workshop, Designing the Next Mission: A Model for Veteran Purpose and Future Vision.
"With nearly a million veterans pursuing postsecondary education nationwide, higher education represents one of the greatest opportunities to improve veteran transition outcomes. Colleges are not simply preparing veterans for careers; they are helping them build new identities, relationships, and futures. The work being done across California demonstrates what is possible when veterans are provided intentional support and meaningful connection. The impact extends far beyond graduation." -- Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College
FoundationCCC works closely with the Chancellor's Office and partners across the state to provide direct support for military members, veterans, and their families, including emergency financial assistance for first-generation student veterans. With an estimated 1.8 million veterans living in California, many turn to the state's community colleges for affordable, debt-free education and workforce training as they transition to civilian life. Each year, approximately 55,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and military dependents are enrolled in California Community Colleges.
Learn more about Veterans Services (https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Services-and-Support/Student-Service/What-we-do/Veterans-Education-and-Transition-Services)
* * *
Original text here: https://foundationccc.org/building-stronger-pathways-for-californias-student-veterans/
Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard
BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 26 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard
*
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock
June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 26 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard * Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthenedin 2024. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) joined a coalition of environmental groups that intervened to defend tighter standards as necessary to protect public health.
Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 set baseline national air quality standards to reduce the harms of this deadly air pollutant for communities across the country. Last year, in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration's EPA gave up defending the strengthened standard against challenges from industry and aligned states and asked the court to strike it down on narrow legal grounds, without ever disputing the science underlying the standard. Health, environmental, and community groups, along with a coalition of states led by California, continued to defend the standard.
"The court did the right thing today by standing up for our health and safety," said Rachel Briggs, CLF staff attorney. "We should never put the polluting status-quo over people, especially when it fuels chronic respiratory and cardiac illnesses. We'll never compromise when it comes to the safety of our neighbors, communities, and the low-income and Black and Brown families that continue to shoulder the worst of these toxins."
"Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court," said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. "The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin's EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now."
"Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA's about-face on the need for a stronger standard," said Shaun Goho, senior director, Legal Advocacy at Clean Air Task Force. "The science is clear that soot has many serious health impacts, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with asthma. By EPA's own estimate, implementing the 2024 soot standard will prevent 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits, and 4,500 premature deaths in 2032. Today marks an important step in the right direction, but EPA must now implement the 2024 standard without delay."
"The federal court's decision to uphold the 2024 strengthened particle pollution standard is a win for public health," said Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN, executive director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. "Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution. From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution. The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution. We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized."
"Today's federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot," said Noha Haggag, senior attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. "Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths. The court's rejection of the Trump administration's attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country."
"While the Trump EPA has dragged its heels, millions of Americans have kept breathing unhealthy air," said Vijay Limaye, climate and health scientist at NRDC. Every day of delay means more premature deaths, more asthma attacks, and more hospitalizations. This decision removes any remaining doubt: the science has long been clear, and now the law is too. The Trump EPA must stop stalling and deliver the healthier air the science and the law demand."
Background
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. It threatens our health and environment - posing especially heightened risks for children, seniors and people with chronic illnesses. Among the health harms it is linked to are death, cardiovascular harms, new and exacerbated asthma cases, lung cancer, and serious neurological harms, like Alzheimer's disease.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has for decades set baseline national air quality standards for six harmful pollutants, including soot. In 2024 the agency strengthened the soot standard from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter,
According to the EPA, the strengthened soot standard will result in significant public health net benefits that could be as high as $46 billion by 2032. The EPA's estimate of costs is an order of magnitude less. Polluters' exaggerated claims about costs have been repeatedly debunked.
After the agency strengthened the soot standard, corporations and attorneys general in allied states sued. Earthjustice, its clients and partners intervened to defend the strengthened soot standard. Earthjustice clients are Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Northeast Ohio Community Resilience Centre (formerly the Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition), Rio Grande International Study Center, and Sierra Club. Clean Air Task Force represents Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future and Conservation Law Foundation.
A recent white paper found that 75 million people live in counties whose air quality violates the standard. The Clean Air Act mandated that the EPA formally identify the areas that violate the standard by Feb. 6, 2026. When EPA failed to meet that deadline, a group of health, environmental, and community groups, and a state coalition, sued to require it to obey the law. That key step will require pollution reductions in those areas, to bring them into compliance with the 2024 NAAQS.
Experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/court-upholds-life-saving-national-soot-air-quality-standard/
* * *
Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard
*
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock
June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 26 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard * Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthenedin 2024. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) joined a coalition of environmental groups that intervened to defend tighter standards as necessary to protect public health.
Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 set baseline national air quality standards to reduce the harms of this deadly air pollutant for communities across the country. Last year, in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration's EPA gave up defending the strengthened standard against challenges from industry and aligned states and asked the court to strike it down on narrow legal grounds, without ever disputing the science underlying the standard. Health, environmental, and community groups, along with a coalition of states led by California, continued to defend the standard.
"The court did the right thing today by standing up for our health and safety," said Rachel Briggs, CLF staff attorney. "We should never put the polluting status-quo over people, especially when it fuels chronic respiratory and cardiac illnesses. We'll never compromise when it comes to the safety of our neighbors, communities, and the low-income and Black and Brown families that continue to shoulder the worst of these toxins."
"Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court," said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. "The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin's EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now."
"Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA's about-face on the need for a stronger standard," said Shaun Goho, senior director, Legal Advocacy at Clean Air Task Force. "The science is clear that soot has many serious health impacts, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with asthma. By EPA's own estimate, implementing the 2024 soot standard will prevent 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits, and 4,500 premature deaths in 2032. Today marks an important step in the right direction, but EPA must now implement the 2024 standard without delay."
"The federal court's decision to uphold the 2024 strengthened particle pollution standard is a win for public health," said Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN, executive director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. "Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution. From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution. The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution. We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized."
"Today's federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot," said Noha Haggag, senior attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. "Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths. The court's rejection of the Trump administration's attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country."
"While the Trump EPA has dragged its heels, millions of Americans have kept breathing unhealthy air," said Vijay Limaye, climate and health scientist at NRDC. Every day of delay means more premature deaths, more asthma attacks, and more hospitalizations. This decision removes any remaining doubt: the science has long been clear, and now the law is too. The Trump EPA must stop stalling and deliver the healthier air the science and the law demand."
Background
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. It threatens our health and environment - posing especially heightened risks for children, seniors and people with chronic illnesses. Among the health harms it is linked to are death, cardiovascular harms, new and exacerbated asthma cases, lung cancer, and serious neurological harms, like Alzheimer's disease.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has for decades set baseline national air quality standards for six harmful pollutants, including soot. In 2024 the agency strengthened the soot standard from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter,
According to the EPA, the strengthened soot standard will result in significant public health net benefits that could be as high as $46 billion by 2032. The EPA's estimate of costs is an order of magnitude less. Polluters' exaggerated claims about costs have been repeatedly debunked.
After the agency strengthened the soot standard, corporations and attorneys general in allied states sued. Earthjustice, its clients and partners intervened to defend the strengthened soot standard. Earthjustice clients are Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Northeast Ohio Community Resilience Centre (formerly the Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition), Rio Grande International Study Center, and Sierra Club. Clean Air Task Force represents Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future and Conservation Law Foundation.
A recent white paper found that 75 million people live in counties whose air quality violates the standard. The Clean Air Act mandated that the EPA formally identify the areas that violate the standard by Feb. 6, 2026. When EPA failed to meet that deadline, a group of health, environmental, and community groups, and a state coalition, sued to require it to obey the law. That key step will require pollution reductions in those areas, to bring them into compliance with the 2024 NAAQS.
Experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/court-upholds-life-saving-national-soot-air-quality-standard/