Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
New Hope for Lung Cancer Patients With a HER2 Genetic Mutation
LONDON, England, Oct. 18 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
New hope for lung cancer patients with a HER2 genetic mutation
A trial testing the use of the targeted drug zongertinib as a first line treatment for lung cancer patients with a HER2 genetic mutation has shown significant findings, according to data presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025.
Professor Sanjay Popat, Consultant Medical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Professor of Thoracic Oncology at
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Oct. 18 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
New hope for lung cancer patients with a HER2 genetic mutation
A trial testing the use of the targeted drug zongertinib as a first line treatment for lung cancer patients with a HER2 genetic mutation has shown significant findings, according to data presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025.
Professor Sanjay Popat, Consultant Medical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Professor of Thoracic Oncology atThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported on the multi- centre Beamion LUNG-1 study exploring the new use of the drug today (17 October).
Patients without any prior treatment for their advanced lung cancer took zongertinib once daily, as a pill, for as long as it benefitted the patient. Results showed that 77 per cent of patients saw their tumours shrink, 8 per cent saw them completely disappear, and 69 per cent saw partial shrinkage of their tumours. 96 per cent of patients saw their disease controlled as a result of taking zongertinib as their first line of treatment.
"A new opportunity to improve patient outcomes"
"The results of this study are highly significant and mean new hope for lung cancer patients with the HER2 genetic mutation," said Professor Popat.
"Previously there has been no targeted therapy for these patients and they're often put on intense treatment plans with chemotherapy with a lot of side effects. These initial findings show that by directly switching off the abnormal HER2 mutant lung cancer with zongertinib, we have a new opportunity to improve patient outcomes and also enable them to have a better quality of life."
Side effects were also recorded from the study. 91 per cent of patients had some side effects such as diarrhea or rash, but most were mild to moderate.
The study was run over 85 sites internationally and included 74 patients aged between 35 and 88 years with an even split between men and women. All patients had the HER2 genetic mutation which signals cells to grow and divide uncontrollably, leading to the development and growth of cancers. This mutation is seen in both lung cancer patients who have never smoked and those that have quit or still smoke.
Earlier studies have only explored the use of zongertinib on patients who have had previous treatments such as chemotherapy. This is the first study into the drug as primary treatment.
This study will now go on to a Phase III trial, where the targeted drug will be tested against other forms of treatment such as chemotherapy.
"I've been on the drug for two years and my tumour has shrunk"
The Beamion LUNG-1 trial is funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity's Research Grants provide funding for the West Wing Clinical Research Centre which supports many trials, including the Beamion-LUNG 1 study.
Royal Marsden patient Susan Gasson, 74, from London was diagnosed with early stage lung cancer in 2020, after she initially went to her GP with a persistent cough and joined the Beamion LUNG-1 study two years ago when her cancer metastasised, which tested zongertinib as a first line treatment.
She said: "I have been under the care of The Royal Marsden for the past 40 years, due to previously being diagnosed and treated for breast, cervical and thyroid cancer.
"My initial treatment for my lung cancer consisted of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy which left me with a lot of side effects. However, despite the treatment, my cancer returned. I didn't want to undergo that same treatment again so, when it was suggested that I join the trial, I was delighted.
"I have been on the trial drug for over two years, my cancer has shrunk, and the side effects have been minimal, allowing me to have a much better quality of life. Thanks to this trial I have seen my first granddaughter go off to university in September and I hope to see her graduate in three years' time."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/new-hope-lung-cancer-patients-her2-genetic-mutation
Annual Funded Grants - CRISPR and Prime Editing Technologies
COLUMBIA, Maryland, Oct. 18 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
Annual Funded Grants - CRISPR and Prime Editing Technologies
Funded grants for CRISPR and prime editing approaches.
*
The Foundation Fighting Blindness is proud to announce funding for several projects based on CRISPR and prime editing technologies.
* Stephen Tsang - $200,000
Columbia University
"ARMS2/HTRA1 in non-cell-autonomous oxidative and anti-inflammatory therapeutic targeting"
Drs. Tsang and Olah will use CRISPR to identify the causative allele of AMD pathologies and
... Show Full Article
COLUMBIA, Maryland, Oct. 18 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
Annual Funded Grants - CRISPR and Prime Editing Technologies
Funded grants for CRISPR and prime editing approaches.
*
The Foundation Fighting Blindness is proud to announce funding for several projects based on CRISPR and prime editing technologies.
* Stephen Tsang - $200,000
Columbia University
"ARMS2/HTRA1 in non-cell-autonomous oxidative and anti-inflammatory therapeutic targeting"
Drs. Tsang and Olah will use CRISPR to identify the causative allele of AMD pathologies andinvestigate the stress signals of microglia (resident immune cells of the eye,) in AMD that might be treatable as part of a therapeutic strategy to reduce AMD-related cell death. They will also explore whether the presence of at least one low-risk ARMS2/HTRA1 allele maintains oxidative, anti-inflammatory, and overall cellular health in microglia.
* Qin Liu - $100,000
Mass Eye and Ear
"Development of precise correction of c.2299delG mutation in the USH2A gene."
Dr. Liu and her team will investigate the potential for using prime editing to correct the c.2299delG mutation in the USH2A. Traditional gene therapy is difficult due to the large size of the USH2A gene and the cargo capacity of delivery systems (viruses). Prime editing offers a precise method to correct single gene mutations. This research effort will focus on the feasibility of delivering prime editing components via an adeno-associated virus (AAV) to repair this mutation in a humanized mouse model of USH2A disease.
* Peter M.J. Quinn - $100,000
University of Pennsylvania
"Prime editing for Peripherin-2 (PRPH2) inherited retinal dystrophies"
Dr. Quinn is testing a prime editing technique for multiple mutations in PRPH2 using patient-derived retinal organoids. Prime editing is a gene editing technique that splices directly at the site of the mutations and switches out a mutated copy of the gene with a healthy copy. Successful completion of this project will establish a preclinical pathway for proof-of-concept for PRPH2 prime editing therapeutics and lay the foundation for the same strategy to be applied to other IRDs.
* Krzysztof Palczewski - $159,868
The Regents of the University of California, Irvine
"Precision genome editing in humanized mice expressing mutant peripherin-2"
Dr. Palczeski aims to create a mouse carrying the human PRPH2 gene in place of the mouse gene, which will allow researchers to test genome editing therapies for PRPH2-associated retinal diseases.
* Krzysztof Palczewski - $300,000
The Regents of the University of California, Irvine
"Correcting previously untreatable retinal degenerative diseases using twin prime editing"
Dr. Palczewski seeks to advance a novel gene editing technology called twin prime editing for treating a model of Stargardt disease and develop a twin prime editing framework to address other inherited retinal degenerative diseases.
Visit the funded projects page on our website to learn about the full list of funded grants for fiscal year 2025.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fightingblindness.org/news/annual-funded-grants-crispr-and-prime-editing-technologies-3049
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Grant En Banc Rehearing in Constitutional Challenge to FDIC's Structure
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Grant En Banc Rehearing in Constitutional Challenge to FDIC's Structure
"The panel's decision allows agencies to evade constitutional scrutiny and shields structural flaws from timely Article III review."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to revisit a panel's flawed ruling that federal courts lack jurisdiction
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Grant En Banc Rehearing in Constitutional Challenge to FDIC's Structure
"The panel's decision allows agencies to evade constitutional scrutiny and shields structural flaws from timely Article III review."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to revisit a panel's flawed ruling that federal courts lack jurisdictionto enjoin FDIC enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1818(i)(1). WLF contends that the panel's broad interpretation of the statute's exhaustion scheme improperly delays challenges to agencies' constitutional violations, such as improper removal protections and denial of jury trials.
The case stems from an FDIC enforcement proceeding against former bank executive Cornelius Burgess, alleging fiduciary breaches and seeking fines and industry bans. An FDIC administrative law judge adjudicated the enforcement action without a jury. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction, citing Seventh Amendment and separation-of-powers violations, but the Fifth Circuit vacated that ruling on the theory that district courts lack jurisdiction pending final agency action.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that the appeals court's decision contravenes the canon of constitutional avoidance by raising grave doubts about Sec. 1818(i)(1)'s validity, as it insulates agencies from pre-enforcement review of constitutional flaws. Not only does this erode Article III oversight but it circumvents accountability. WLF urges en banc review to adopt a narrow statutory reading that allows citizens federal-court access and ensures timely judicial checks on agency overreach.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2025/10/16/communicating/wlf-asks-fifth-circuit-to-grant-en-banc-rehearing-in-constitutional-challenge-to-fdics-structure/
[Category: Law/Legal]
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Best Practices to Prevent Misuse of Opioid Settlement Funds
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Best practices to prevent misuse of opioid settlement funds
States should adopt clear guidelines to ensure settlement funds support evidence-based treatment and recovery.
By Layal Bou Harfouch, Drug Policy Analyst; and Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director
To address the damages caused by the growing opioid epidemic, state and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the crisis through misleading
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Best practices to prevent misuse of opioid settlement funds
States should adopt clear guidelines to ensure settlement funds support evidence-based treatment and recovery.
By Layal Bou Harfouch, Drug Policy Analyst; and Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director
To address the damages caused by the growing opioid epidemic, state and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the crisis through misleadingmarketing and inadequate oversight. In response, opioid manufacturers reached a $50 billion settlement with state and local governments, intended to help remediate damages caused. This money offered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery services. However, states have provided little transparency on how they are using these funds, and the limited disclosures available already reveal concerns.
Opioid settlement funds have already been used for concerts, law enforcement equipment, and budget backfilling, among other purposes. These uses fall short of the settlements' intent to remediate the crisis. With billions still to be spent over the next decade, it is crucial to establish better financial controls and reporting structures for the use of these funds to ensure they are deployed transparently, efficiently, and in compliance with their legal restrictions to advance evidence-based interventions proven to save lives.
The opioid epidemic has claimed more than 800,000 lives since 1999. As the crisis intensified, policymakers and the public sought to identify its causes. State and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the epidemic through misleading marketing and inadequate oversight. These lawsuits ultimately led to the national settlement agreements. More than a dozen companies that manufactured, distributed, or aided in the prescription of painkillers, including McKinsey, Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, reached settlements totaling approximately $50 billion, to be distributed to various state and local governments over nearly two decades.
The settlements stipulate that funds must be used to support opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. However, since receiving the funds, many jurisdictions have not provided the transparency, accountability, and prioritization of evidence-based strategies that genuinely address the needs of those most impacted by the crisis. Each state receives a designated portion of the national settlement based on factors such as opioid-related deaths, the volume of opioids shipped, and population size, with funds then subdivided between state agencies and local jurisdictions according to negotiated formulas.
To guide spending, the National Opioid Settlement Agreement includes Exhibit E, which stipulates a non-exhaustive list of approved uses centered on prevention, treatment, and recovery from opioid addiction, and harm reduction programs. States must allocate at least 70% of settlement funds toward these opioid remediation efforts, and some have gone further by committing to use 100% of their funds accordingly. The remaining 30% is allocated as follows: up to 15% for administrative costs and up to 15% for any other purpose.
Core priorities for the use of these funds include developing prevention efforts through supporting different evidence-based education programs; expanding training and increasing access to naloxone, a life-saving opioid overdose reversal medication; increasing education around and the availability of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) such as methadone and buprenorphine or other opioid-related treatment; supporting syringe service programs that reduce the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases through clean syringe distribution; and investing in wraparound services that offer coordinated, comprehensive care for individuals in recovery. Other allowable uses involve peer recovery support, workforce development, care for pregnant and postpartum individuals, and programs addressing the needs of those in the criminal justice system. The strategies listed are evidence-informed and designed to respond to the drivers and consequences of the crisis directly.
While the settlement agreement outlines preferred uses with an emphasis on remediation, the guidelines leave significant room for interpretation--creating wiggle room for states and localities to circumvent evidence-based treatment entirely.
This is what has happened in New Jersey, where state investigators uncovered how the Township of Irvington exploited the flexibility of the guidelines to fund events that had little connection to harm reduction, addiction treatment, or public health.
A report from the New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller revealed that over $632,000 was spent on two "Opioid Awareness" concerts in 2023 and 2024. As reported, thousands were spent on "generators, an ice maker, popcorn machine, cotton candy machine, four flavors of shaved ice, a hot food display stand, and catered food." These events included celebrity performers and DJ sets. One township employee, Antoine Richardson, received $368,500 in unaccounted payments and steered nearly $470,000 in contracts to businesses linked to himself and his wife. The report concluded that Irvington's actions violated the intent of the settlement and referred the matter to several state agencies for further review.
There have been issues elsewhere in how the funds have been spent. Scott County, Indiana, used over $250,000 to pay salaries for health and emergency services staff, effectively freeing up their local budget to buy a new ambulance and build a financial cushion for the health department. This is achieved through supplantation, where new dollars are used to fund existing programs, thereby making more general fund revenues available for governments to spend as they wish. This practice is not explicitly prohibited in Exhibit E of the settlement fund agreements. Still, it serves as a workaround that can undermine the intended goal of building service capacity through these funds. A similar example occurred in New York, where advocates noted that the state shifted millions from its addiction agency's base budget and replaced it with opioid settlement dollars--substituting existing funding rather than using the settlement funds to enhance care. Blair County, Pennsylvania, directed $320,000 toward a long-standing drug court, using the funds in part to cover salary shortfalls for probation officers and aides due to limited state grants and probation fee revenue, rather than investing in new or expanded services.
Other states have directed the money toward law enforcement. Southington, Connecticut, used $18,000 to buy cellphone-unlocking technology for police. Ohio County, Ohio, spent nearly $43,000 on new K-9 and EMT equipment. Michigan counties, including Kalamazoo and St. Clair, purchased jail body scanners, infrastructure that experts argue should be funded through general law enforcement budgets. In West Virginia, $364 million, which is more than half of the state's total opioid settlement spending for the year, went to police vehicles, jail bills, and salaries, while just 6% supported treatment and recovery. Jackson County took this further by using 90% of its $566,000 allocation to expand a first responder training center, including building a shooting range.
Although the opioid settlements stipulate that funds should be used for specific opioid remediation purposes, they contain no binding requirements, enforcement mechanisms, or clawback provisions if jurisdictions misuse the money. Oversight is left entirely to state and local discretion. Each state executed its own Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defining how funds are distributed and what reporting, if any, is required.
As much of these funds currently remain unspent, it is incumbent on state and local governments to enact better financial controls and reporting mechanisms to ensure money is used consistently with its designated purpose--remediating the effects of the opioid epidemic.
Uncommitted settlement funds across states
According to the Johns Hopkins Opioid Settlement Expenditures Tracker, based on currently available disclosures, at least one-third of total settlement funds, estimated at roughly $15 to $17 billion of the $50 billion in national opioid settlements, have not yet been committed for use.
The share of total funds committed varies significantly by state. The tracker estimates that many states have yet to move beyond minimal commitments, with large portions of settlement dollars--sometimes more than 75%--still awaiting direction. By contrast, a handful of states, such as Colorado, Washington, and Delaware, have committed most or all of their funds.
The true share of uncommitted funds is difficult to pin down. Most settlement agreements do not require states or localities to publicly disclose how they spend the funds awarded to them. Twelve states had initially pledged to be "100% transparent," meaning they will report on every dollar of settlement funds and how it is used. Only a few have followed through.
Among the handful of states that provide accessible and detailed descriptions of their uses of the funds is the state of Minnesota, which has a dashboard allowing anyone to track what will be done with the $117 million awarded. The dashboard breaks spending down by county, outlining who received the money, for what purpose, whether the grantee is using an evidence-based program, and the outcome of this spending.
Other dashboards include those maintained by the states of Michigan, New York, and North Carolina. New Jersey and Indiana, instead, publish annual reports outlining county-level spending.
Lessons from the tobacco settlement
The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) is the closest precedent to today's opioid settlements, serving as an important cautionary tale. The MSA was a deal between four major tobacco companies and 46 states (plus D.C. and American territories). In exchange for releasing the companies from future Medicaid lawsuits related to smoking-related illnesses, the firms agreed to modify their marketing practices and make annual payments to the states in perpetuity, tied to cigarette sales.
Although the MSA was intended to offset public health costs and fund smoking prevention, it placed no restrictions on how states used the money. Most legislatures diverted payments into general budgets, infrastructure, or debt service rather than public health.
According to a United States Government Accountability Office Report, from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005, the 46 states party to the MSA received $52.6 billion in tobacco settlement payments. However, only 30% of the funds were allocated to health care, and another 3.5% to tobacco prevention. The rest was split between covering budget shortfalls (22%), debt service on securitized funds (5.4%), infrastructure (6%), education (5.5%), tax reductions (1%), and others.
States are still receiving these settlements. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, states received $6.8 billion from the MSA in 2024.
Several states securitized the future tobacco settlement cash streams, which means selling the right to receive years of cash flows for a smaller upfront amount, while also passing to bondholders the risk that the companies settled with may not honor the agreed-upon future payment streams, or that tobacco sales would be lower than expected.
This practice is already under discussion for opioid settlements. Some municipalities, such as the Wisconsin Counties Association, have considered securitizing their opioid settlement funds, which would enable them to capture upfront the payment stream that extends through 2038 at a discount.
Securitization is problematic because it trades decades of future remediation dollars for a one-time cash infusion at a steep discount. Governments forfeit long-term funding streams that could sustain treatment and prevention infrastructure. The tobacco experience showed that securitization left many states with little or no settlement revenue in later years, even as smoking-related harms persisted.
Local officials may also be tempted to invest opioid bond proceeds, anticipating that market returns will surpass debt service costs--an approach akin to pension obligation bonds, which carries significant risks.
The outcomes of the tobacco settlement provide clear lessons for the use of opioid settlement funds: Absent binding guardrails and rigorous transparency, both state and local governments face strong incentives to divert or front-load funds in ways that undermine their intended purpose.
Policy recommendations for strengthening opioid settlement spending
When governments are entrusted with funds to address the opioid crisis, they take on a moral obligation to act accordingly. That means investing in what works: expanded access to medication-assisted treatment, naloxone distribution and education, syringe service programs, recovery housing models, and other approaches rooted in evidence and outlined in Exhibit E, including the development of potentially novel treatments.
Misallocating these dollars undercuts both public health outcomes and fiscal responsibility. When rehabilitation-eligible interventions are underfunded, communities miss out on life-saving programs like MAT and harm reduction. Instead, overdose deaths rise, and criminal justice systems bear the cost of repeated recidivism. By contrast, well-targeted settlement spending has the potential to save lives, strengthen communities, and ease the burden on public systems.
Below are recommendations to ensure that the awarded funds are used effectively.
1. Discourage supplantation through clear spending principles
Supplantation, or using settlement funds to replace existing public health dollars, weakens the impact of these resources. State budget officials and attorneys general should issue clear guidance encouraging local governments to deploy settlement funds as a supplemental expansion of care rather than an alternate method of financing existing services.
2. Prioritize external providers for efficiency
Governments should prioritize contracting with external providers rather than providing harm reduction services themselves. Building new publicly operated service programs tends to be costly and slow, while specialized providers are likely to deliver evidence-based care more efficiently and at lower cost.
Partnering with external providers also reduces the risk of budget supplantation, ensuring settlement dollars fund new services rather than displace existing expenditures. Service providers who receive these funds should be held accountable for their use and required to provide an independent auditor's report detailing the use of these funds if they exceed a minimum threshold. For instance, recipients of federal grants in excess of $750,000 in any year must complete a federal single audit to account for the use of those funds.
3. Prohibit securitization
States should consider adopting explicit bans on securitizing opioid settlement revenues--that is, selling the right to future payments in exchange for upfront cash.
While securitization may appear to offer immediate budget relief, the tobacco settlement experience has shown that it strips away long-term remediation funding, often resulting in communities losing access to dollars even as their needs persist. Prohibiting securitization ensures that settlement payments remain available over time to sustain treatment, prevention, and recovery infrastructure, rather than being consumed in a single budget cycle.
4. Support voluntary frameworks for evidence-based spending
State governments can offer spending guidelines that prioritize effective, research-based strategies such as medication-assisted treatment, naloxone access, syringe service programs, and recovery housing. These frameworks should be developed with input from people with lived experience and members of the affected community to ensure they reflect real needs and can be adapted to local contexts. Highlighting these approaches helps localities focus on interventions that directly reduce harm and improve recovery outcomes.
5. Increase spending transparency
Local governments should regularly publish clear and accessible data showing how settlement funds are spent and what goals they aim to achieve. This can be achieved through either interactive dashboards, such as those used by the state of Minnesota, or yearly reports, as seen in the states of New Jersey and Indiana.
6. Allocate a portion of funds to innovative and emerging treatments
To drive long-term progress in addiction care, state and local governments should dedicate a portion of opioid settlement funds to support the research, development, and piloting of innovative treatment modalities. This includes exploring the therapeutic potential of ibogaine, a psychedelic alkaloid showing promise in interrupting opioid dependence, and GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially developed for diabetes and weight loss, which are being studied for their ability to reduce drug cravings and compulsive use. While more clinical trials are needed, strategic investment in these areas can help expand the future treatment toolkit beyond traditional approaches. Prioritizing innovation ensures that settlements can remediate current harms and foster breakthroughs that reshape addiction care for the next generation.
7. Invite independent spending reviews
Localities can partner with independent institutions to review how funds are allocated and whether spending aligns with the original purpose of the settlements. These reviews help identify areas for improvement and add an extra layer of accountability without requiring new laws or regulations.
8. Include community voices in spending decisions
People affected by addiction should have a role in shaping how funds are used. Community input ensures that spending decisions reflect local needs and improve outcomes for those most directly impacted.
The opioid settlements present a real opportunity to reshape how states support addiction care. Real impact comes from honest reporting, directing funds toward new and innovative treatment options, and strengthening what already exists on the ground. Many harm reduction and recovery programs already serve their communities, sometimes without formal recognition or support. These funds can help legitimize and expand their reach while empowering new groups to fill gaps where services do not yet exist. When used this way, the money can build sustainable systems that save lives and restore trust. The choices made now will determine whether these funds drive lasting progress or fade into missed potential.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/best-practices-to-prevent-misuse-of-opioid-settlement-funds/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Beyond the Welfare State
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 17 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Beyond the Welfare State
How civil society can succeed where welfare has failed.
By Nathan Mayo
Since the launch of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, the rate of those living in poverty, as defined by the US government, has stubbornly persisted. Yet before that, the American poverty rate was dropping fast. It was around 32% in 1950, but postwar prosperity and a booming job market lifted thousands out of destitution, bringing it to 12.8% by the time the War's programs took
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 17 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Beyond the Welfare State
How civil society can succeed where welfare has failed.
By Nathan Mayo
Since the launch of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, the rate of those living in poverty, as defined by the US government, has stubbornly persisted. Yet before that, the American poverty rate was dropping fast. It was around 32% in 1950, but postwar prosperity and a booming job market lifted thousands out of destitution, bringing it to 12.8% by the time the War's programs tookeffect in 1968. Yet in the intervening half-century, it has never dropped below 10%. This is not for lack of effort. Per capita government spending on the poor has gone from $2,701 at the outset to $29,214 today (adjusted for inflation).
Some point out that standards of living among the poor have risen, if you consider welfare benefits, which the official poverty measure excludes. While they are correct--material well-being has improved--there is ample reason to understand that poverty persists as a real problem, rather than a data artifact.
Case in point: About 34% of children born in poverty will remain there throughout their lives. For no substantial portion of their lives will they produce enough economic value to provide for themselves without subsidy. Furthermore, many of the maladies associated with chronic poverty are worsening:
* Social connectedness is much lower for people with lower incomes.
* Poor children are significantly less likely to benefit from the "two-parent privilege."
* 65% of working-age people in poverty did not work for a single week in 2023; only 10% worked full-time, all year long.
* So called "deaths of despair" from suicide and substance abuse are at record highs.
These facts suggest an alienated socio-economic class mired in hardship despite the upward mobility of the middle class. This is bad for our republic, as well as for the individuals entrapped. And yet, massive spending on everything from direct cash transfers to college grants has failed to budge the numbers.
To charity practitioners who know many of these people, there is no mystery. They know if you're currently taking full advantage of economic opportunities in America, chances are someone invested in you--not necessarily with money, but by forming your character, influencing your sense of purpose, and bridging connections that served you well.
These intangible assets like grit, integrity, faith, and reliable friends are critical not only to escape poverty, but also to live a flourishing life in ways that can't be measured in dollars.
Federal programs ignore most of these deficits. Their theory of change is that if enough financial benefits are transferred to the poor, recipients will figure everything else out on their own. Not only has that approach proven ineffective; it often provides perverse incentives like marriage penalties and benefits cliffs.
Enter civil society. With its personal relationships and motivating purpose of care, civil society is best adapted to help people grow, thrive, and get back up when they fall.
To understand the forgotten magic of civil society (voluntary associations like churches, charities, and families), we must understand its role alongside the parallel spheres of the government and the market.
The government, with its monopoly on violence, is good at providing for the common defense and protecting people from fraud and abuse. No country has made a dent in poverty without law and order to secure private property and enforce contracts.
When the rule of law is established, the market uses the profit motive to generate wealth. Individuals leverage economic multipliers like voluntary exchange, division of labor, the price mechanism, and technological innovation to grow the pie for everyone.
And yet, even where opportunity abounds, people can remain mired in addiction, hopelessness, or idleness. Dysfunction often passes intergenerationally in a toxic brew of low aspirations, minimal connections, and underdeveloped talent.
To put it another way: government constrains humans at their worst, markets transform self-interest into common good, and civil society calls forth the best elements of humanity.
In the context of poverty alleviation, this takes the form of charity: the voluntary rendering of aid to people in need. For systemic reasons, families, friends, clubs, churches, and charities can render better service to people in poverty than government agents could.
People closer to home have inside knowledge about the individual--and the autonomy to act on it. That allows them to discern whether someone needs a pat on the back, a gift of cash, or some tough love. Conversely, federal programs are uniform by statute, so eligibility tests and asset limits often result in "one-size-fits-none."
In addition, stories of effective service to the most vulnerable and sympathetic generate the greatest donor contributions. This provides a helpful incentive to charities to allocate the resources to those least able to control their circumstances and most invested in their own solutions. Contrast that with the government's incentives to fund programs with electoral results in mind (which often includes third parties, like the soda industry).
Charities' competition for donor funds also drives innovation, something sorely lacking in federal programs whose particulars were originally hammered out on manual typewriters.
Civil society wields a scalpel sharp enough to cut to the heart of the matter. A friend, pastor, or case manager can speak to issues of meaning and purpose, model virtue, make useful introductions, and coach people as they blaze their own path out of poverty. They can leverage reciprocity and engage people's capacity and talents. Effective charity isn't business; it's personal.
Can voluntary charity really replace the federal welfare state? Not if you simply tally up all the federal expenditures and assume donors must replace them dollar for dollar. But similar to how SpaceX can launch a rocket at less than 4% of NASA's cost, civil society is primed to perform poverty alleviation functions at a dramatically lower cost.
The biggest impact would come when many of the 13 million non-working beneficiaries (only considering people between 18-64 years old) lose perverse incentives and decide to enter the labor force.
As well, other low impact programs captured by special interests would never be funded by private donors. Government cheese would end up on the chopping block.
That's not all. Others would be helped without dollars changing hands. Family ties would strengthen as a safety net. Where that's not an option, we'd no doubt see a renewed interest in informal social insurance through mutual aid societies, civic clubs, and faith communities--all of which were more common in the period of our history when poverty fell rapidly.
The good news is that we don't have to wait for a major shift in public policy to start making an impact. As an ordinary American, I can't point to a single government policy that I have changed, but I know many individuals I have impacted with my voluntary assistance.
That's why we shouldn't believe that our efforts to help people in need pale in comparison to the impact of the state. The lion's share of solutions for the poor has always come from individuals who care enough to get to know them--and then provide real help of lasting value. The facts speak for themselves.
And it's time to listen.
* * *
Nathan Mayo
Nathan Mayo is the VP of Programs for True Charity, which exists to champion a resurgence of civil society in the fight against poverty.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/beyond-the-welfare-state/
City of Everett Employee Appeals to Washington State PERC in Case Challenging Unconstitutional Money Seizures by AFSCME Officials
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Oct. 17 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
City of Everett Employee Appeals to Washington State PERC in Case Challenging Unconstitutional Money Seizures by AFSCME Officials
Appeal: Employer botched handling employee request to cut off dues deductions, AFSCME union officials refuse to return ill-gotten money
*
Olympia, WA (October 17, 2025) - City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is asking the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to reverse a ruling letting union bosses and city
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Oct. 17 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
City of Everett Employee Appeals to Washington State PERC in Case Challenging Unconstitutional Money Seizures by AFSCME Officials
Appeal: Employer botched handling employee request to cut off dues deductions, AFSCME union officials refuse to return ill-gotten money
*
Olympia, WA (October 17, 2025) - City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is asking the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to reverse a ruling letting union bosses and cityofficials off the hook for taking union dues from her paycheck after she requested a stop to further deductions. Davidsen is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Davidsen's case charges American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials and City of Everett officials with seizing union dues from her paycheck after she invoked her First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay dues to an unwanted union in their workplace. Janus also held that union officials can only deduct union dues and fees from a public sector worker who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Davidsen's latest filing in her case, which is an appeal from a PERC Hearing Examiner's ruling, maintains that after revoking her dues-deduction authorization, "on 14 separate pay periods...dues were nevertheless deducted from her paycheck." According to the appeal, Davidsen requested that dues deductions end in June 2024, at which point union officials informed the City of Everett that it should cease remitting money from her paychecks into the union's accounts.
However, the appeal says, "the [City of Everett] failed to follow these instructions because it failed to monitor the email address that it had designated for the Union to communicate dues revocations." Even worse, AFSCME union officials twelve times accepted dues money that City officials wrongfully took from Davidsen's paycheck.
"On none of those...instances did the Union stop to question why it was accepting dues that it knew were unauthorized to it," Davidsen's brief says, yet the PERC Hearing Examiner did not find any violation of Washington labor law on the union's part. Davidsen also contests the Hearing Examiner's logic freeing the City of Everett from any fault regarding its improper handling of the notification to stop dues deductions: "Under the Hearing Officer's reasoning...[the City of Everett] could indefinitely deduct dues that it has constructive notice it must put a stop to."
Davidsen's appeal argues that the PERC Hearing Officer incorrectly ruled Davidsen's complaint as being filed too late under the six-month statute of limitations. Instead of treating each dues deduction from Davidsen's paycheck as a separate violation of the law, Davidsen's attorneys argue, the Hearing Examiner arbitrarily treated City of Everett officials' ignoring her instruction to stop dues deductions as the only event at issue, putting the date of her original complaint outside the statute of limitations.
"AFSCME union officials believe they should be able to hold onto the hard-earned money of dissenting employees like Ms. Davidsen simply because they and City of Everett officials refuse to correct their own misdeeds," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "While this certainly shows the contempt that AFSCME officials have for public employees' First Amendment Janus rights, it's even more worrying that PERC officials are doing legal gymnastics to let union bosses get away with it.
"Under Janus, union bosses must now convince public sector workers to voluntarily support their agenda, and are not entitled to take - or keep - any money they know was seized without that voluntarism," Mix added.
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Oct 17, 2025 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/davidsen-appeal-10172025/
AmfAR Awards $2.4M in New HIV Cure-Focused Research Grants
NEW YORK, Oct. 17 -- AmfAR-the Foundation for AIDS Research issued the following news release:
* * *
amfAR Awards $2.4 Million in New HIV Cure-Focused Research Grants
Research teams in North America, Africa, and Australia will receive support to test a range of bold and innovative cure strategies
*
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, announced a new round of grants Thursday to research teams across three continents targeting novel HIV cure strategies. It marks the first time amfAR has funded five grants in a single round, reaffirming the organization's commitment to funding bold, innovative
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 17 -- AmfAR-the Foundation for AIDS Research issued the following news release:
* * *
amfAR Awards $2.4 Million in New HIV Cure-Focused Research Grants
Research teams in North America, Africa, and Australia will receive support to test a range of bold and innovative cure strategies
*
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, announced a new round of grants Thursday to research teams across three continents targeting novel HIV cure strategies. It marks the first time amfAR has funded five grants in a single round, reaffirming the organization's commitment to funding bold, innovativeresearch as access to funding has become increasingly limited for researchers.
"amfAR is proud to meet the moment and step up its support for research and the HIV community with this unprecedented suite of five new grants worth a total of $2.4 million," amfAR Vice President and Director of Research Dr. Andrea Gramatica said. "Each of these projects show enormous potential and the brilliant researchers bring out-of-the-box solutions to the decades-old problem of a cure for HIV."
Each grant is worth $480,000 over two years.
A study by Francesco Simonetti, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University hinges on a "self-destruct" mechanism present in cells infected by HIV. Dr. Simonetti, alongside co-investigators Priya Pal, MD, PhD, and Linos Vandekerckhove, MD, PhD, has found an existing HIV drug, efavirenz, can induce cell death (pyroptosis) in these HIV-infected cells and reduce the size of the HIV reservoir. The researchers plan to test how effective the process is and whether new compounds can amplify this effect.
Rachel Rutishauser, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Brad Jones, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, will refine CAR T cell therapy using a new type of engineered T cell called TRAC-HIT. While conventional CAR T cell therapy involves collecting cells from a person's body, genetically modifying them to recognize and target disease, and reinfusing them into the body, Drs. Rutishauser and Jones will reprogram cells inside a person's body. This method should create long-lasting, HIV-resistant immune cells with an approach that could be scaled up to meet global needs.
Mirko Paiardini, PhD, of Emory University is testing the cancer drug tazemetostat's ability to prevent latent HIV from hiding from the body's immune system. This approach has already shown promise in mouse models and will be tested on simian immunodeficiency virus, a close cousin of human HIV infection.
Also targeting the HIV reservoir, Nadia Roan, PhD, of the Gladstone Institutes and Possu Huang, PhD, of Stanford University will unleash an engineered protein they've developed called TRACeR that can map cells harboring HIV that continue producing small amounts of virus despite treatment. TRACeRs can then be converted to molecules that instruct the body's naturally occurring killer T cells to specifically eliminate these cells.
Finally, Sharon Lewin, PhD, of the Peter Doherty Institute and Thumbi Ndung'u, PhD, of the Africa Health Research Institute, will build on previous amfAR-funded research that demonstrated promising results using lipid nanoparticles to reactivate dormant HIV. Once awoken, these cells can be targeted for destruction by the immune system. Drs. Lewin and Ndung'u will now test this approach on HIV subtypes that are more prevalent throughout Asia and Africa, where most people living with HIV reside.
More than 40 million people are living with HIV around the world. While most remain healthy thanks to medications developed through decades of prior HIV research, nearly 10 million people still lack access to them. To be effective, an HIV cure must be scalable, affordable, and accessible to everyone across all subtypes of HIV.
About amfAR
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, is one of the world's leading nonprofit organizations dedicated to the support of AIDS research, HIV prevention, treatment education, and advocacy. Since 1985, amfAR has raised nearly $950 million in support of its programs and has awarded more than 3,800 grants to research teams worldwide. Learn more at www.amfAR.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.amfar.org/press-releases/amfar-awards-2-4-million-in-new-hiv-cure-focused-research-grants/
