Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: Modern Skies Act Won't Modernize U.S. Aviation
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The Modern Skies Act won't modernize U.S. aviation
The $30 billion Modern Skies Act directs just 40% of its funding toward air traffic control modernization while raising serious questions about spending and accountability.
John Kefaliotis
November 3, 2026
On September 28, 2026, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy hosted a Modern Skies press conference with, among others, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Brian Bedford and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO). The press conference debuted Sen. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * The Modern Skies Act won't modernize U.S. aviation The $30 billion Modern Skies Act directs just 40% of its funding toward air traffic control modernization while raising serious questions about spending and accountability. John Kefaliotis November 3, 2026 On September 28, 2026, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy hosted a Modern Skies press conference with, among others, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Brian Bedford and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO). The press conference debuted Sen.Schmitt's Modern Skies Act, which Secretary Duffy touted in a statement as providing "the funding we need to modernize the digital architecture powering air traffic control, replace crumbling aviation infrastructure, and build world-class airports across the country."
The Modern Skies Act would provide $30 billion in funding across three major areas, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announcement:
* "$10 billion to build world-class airports" by way of a new pilot program aimed at certain medium hub airports;
* "$10 billion to complete reliable digital architecture" for air traffic control; and
* "$10 billion to overhaul outdated airport infrastructure," including air traffic control towers.
These are ambitious and worthy goals. But does the Modern Skies Act deliver on those promises? A reading of the bill suggests the answer is "no." To see why, we can examine the bill's three core sections.
Section 3: Pilot Program for Modernization, Replacement, or Full Reconstruction of Aging Flagship Terminals at Transitional Hub Airports
This section of the bill provides $10 billion for a new pilot program to fund, at up to a 90% federal share, terminal projects at certain medium-hub airports. Eligibility is limited to "not more than 3 transitional hub airports for the rehabilitation and modernization of such airports." To qualify, an airport needs to:
* Be a transitional hub (i.e., it is growing);
* Possess a primary terminal building constructed before January 1, 1990, that still serves passengers;
* Have not completed a comprehensive redevelopment or replacement of its principal commercial passenger terminal on or after January 1, 1990; and
* Have a planned rehabilitation project that is mature.
The federal government subsidizes airports to the tune of approximately $4 billion per year under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant program administered by the FAA. The principal objective of this program is to help develop a nationwide system of public-use airports that meets the current needs and the projected growth of civil aviation. Under the AIP program, the highest priority goes to safety and security projects, with other major objectives including preserving existing airport infrastructure, meeting FAA standards, increasing or maintaining capacity, and mitigating noise and environmental impacts.
There are restrictions on what Airport Improvement Program grants can be spent on. Generally, funds are to be spent on items that fall in the categories of airport planning, airport development, and noise compatibility planning and projects. The funds are not to be spent on a variety of things associated with the terminal and other airport elements, especially those that can generate commercial revenue (e.g., concessions, parking). Airport terminal items that funds can be spent on generally are public-use spaces that passengers may need to occupy as part of their air travel.
Viewed in this context, the terminal pilot program portion of the bill proposes to spend more than twice the normal annual AIP allotment, without the AIP restrictions on what the money can be spent for, and directs it specifically to airports that have failed to maintain their terminal infrastructure. The program would be administered by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, rather than the FAA, which historically has been more inclined to politicize project selection. While the program would allow up to three airports to participate, it is not clear if any airports other than St. Louis Lambert International, in the home state of Sen. Schmitt, would actually qualify.
Section 4: Air Traffic Control Improvements
This section of the bill provides a combined $10.1 billion for air traffic control modernization. Of that total, it allocates $300 million to air traffic control facility consolidation, $600 million to implement strategic air traffic flow management technologies, $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure, and $7.2 billion for a common automation platform and common controller workstation, which are intended to replace the FAA's aging terminal and en route air traffic control automation systems.
Each of these allocations deserves scrutiny. The $300 million for air traffic control facility consolidation can't be argued with, given that some consolidation of facilities should occur. The question is, what is the basis of this $300 million estimate? Have the facilities to be consolidated been identified? Probably not. Under its current political constraints, where politicians demand the FAA maintain aging and inefficient facilities in their districts, can the FAA pull this off? Also, probably not.
Turning to the $600 million for strategic air traffic flow management technologies, or SMART, recent controversy over the Trump administration's purported interest in an equity stake in the current SMART vendor Air Space Intelligence (ASI) has overshadowed the problems with the FAA's ongoing procurement. FAA had just awarded a contract to ASI for $875 million to implement Flow Management Data and Services (FMDS)/SMART as a combined program. As part of that program, the SMART component appears to have no firm requirements. The FAA does not have the appropriations to support this contract value, so this $600 million appears to be there to fill this gap. A back-of-the-envelope analysis of this program indicates the $875 million awarded for this contract is wildly high. The FAA should not be bailed out of this award error, but instead should be required to deal with it through normal budgeting and appropriations processes.
With respect to the $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure, this is simply egregious. Current FAA planning puts the Common Automation Platform (CAP) program in the cloud (CAP is discussed in more detail later). This money apparently supports that goal, yet such a goal is highly dubious. The FAA has 21 Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) and approximately 145 Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities scattered throughout the United States. Each of these facilities has a co-located automation system. This geographical distribution of processing provides system resiliency. Pieces of the network can fail without the entire network failing. Centralizing processing in the cloud subjects the system to widespread outages from cloud system failure. Cloud environments are reliable, but failures happen, and when they do, results are dramatic.
Notably, an operational air traffic control automation platform serving a significant air traffic facility has not been put in the cloud anywhere on Earth. There is one small instance--a tower system at Memmingen Airport in Germany--and there are hybrid instances, such as running certain training features in the cloud, but not an entire large operational platform. In Europe, the independent safety regulator, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), has been struggling with the problem of certifying such a system for more than six years. Problems with certification revolve around the definition of the system boundary and the tight definition of the services that surround the system boundary, which need to be controlled to support the system (including operating systems, virtual machine monitors, load balancers, etc.). Accordingly, planning cloud implementation of CAP significantly increases program risk. And given the $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure, it also significantly increases program cost.
Finally, let's examine the largest funding allocation: $7.2 billion for the Common Automation Platform (CAP) and common controller workstation. Certainly, replacing the current, obsolete FAA air traffic control automation system is appropriate. Existing FAA systems are 1990s technology. Commercial platforms deployed worldwide provide features that reduce controller cognitive burden and improve aviation safety. That this replacement program is a major, costly undertaking is also unquestionable. The CAP program will replace automation systems in the 20 ARTCCs and 145 TRACON facilities. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that $7.2 billion is high, but not out of the ballpark.
The problem is the lack of accounting and budgeting transparency. First, all of the FAA's major programs require an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) to guide funding action and to provide a basis against which the performance of the program can be measured. It does not appear that CAP has one, which calls into question the cost estimate, as well as the wildly optimistic schedule that calls for initial real-world deployment in December 2028.
Second, given that this program must replace equipment in 20 ARTCCs and 145 TRACONs, the CAP program has a long duration, but it is hard to see how the FAA could finish this program in under 10 years. Consistent with normal federal budgeting rules, this would seemingly require defining program segments and funding each of these segments in the years that funds are required for a given segment. Putting the full $7.2 billion up front eliminates any potential for an orderly budget process that considers agency priorities and tradeoffs when segments come up for funding.
Section 6: Terminal Air Traffic Control and Airport Improvements
This section provides an additional $10 billion in funding, the smallest share being $2 billion for air traffic control tower modernization. The remainder is allocated to airports, with $3 billion providing supplemental appropriations to the existing AIP grant program and the creation of a new $5 billion grant program for airport terminal modernization. The bill states that both pots of funding are purely discretionary. Recall that the bulk of grants from the traditional Airport Improvement Program is allocated by formula, which is intended to provide airports with predictability for multiyear planning for costly capital projects.
Conclusion
Despite the public emphasis by Transportation Secretary Duffy on air traffic control modernization, the Modern Skies Act as introduced dedicates just 40% of its $30 billion in new funding to air traffic control. The surprising winners are airports, which are facing the expiration of subsidy programs originally authorized under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. But the creation of a new slush fund that will inevitably be politicized should be reconsidered.
While the funding for air traffic control modernization does support one necessary effort--the Common Automation Platform--taking this program outside of normal budgeting processes is not appropriate. The $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure can be characterized as an unnecessary science project, and FAA has not shown itself up to the task of consolidating core systems into the cloud while other more technologically and institutionally advanced air traffic service providers around the world are not yet sold on the basic concept.
If Congress and the White House support modernizing air traffic control efficiently, they should be disappointed by the Modern Skies Act. While a lack of consistent funding is a major problem plaguing air traffic control modernization, accountability is in even shorter supply.
* * *
John Kefaliotis is an aviation professional with more than 50 years of experience in air traffic control.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-modern-skies-act-wont-modernize-u-s-aviation/
* * *
The Modern Skies Act won't modernize U.S. aviation
The $30 billion Modern Skies Act directs just 40% of its funding toward air traffic control modernization while raising serious questions about spending and accountability.
John Kefaliotis
November 3, 2026
On September 28, 2026, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy hosted a Modern Skies press conference with, among others, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Brian Bedford and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO). The press conference debuted Sen. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * The Modern Skies Act won't modernize U.S. aviation The $30 billion Modern Skies Act directs just 40% of its funding toward air traffic control modernization while raising serious questions about spending and accountability. John Kefaliotis November 3, 2026 On September 28, 2026, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy hosted a Modern Skies press conference with, among others, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Brian Bedford and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO). The press conference debuted Sen.Schmitt's Modern Skies Act, which Secretary Duffy touted in a statement as providing "the funding we need to modernize the digital architecture powering air traffic control, replace crumbling aviation infrastructure, and build world-class airports across the country."
The Modern Skies Act would provide $30 billion in funding across three major areas, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announcement:
* "$10 billion to build world-class airports" by way of a new pilot program aimed at certain medium hub airports;
* "$10 billion to complete reliable digital architecture" for air traffic control; and
* "$10 billion to overhaul outdated airport infrastructure," including air traffic control towers.
These are ambitious and worthy goals. But does the Modern Skies Act deliver on those promises? A reading of the bill suggests the answer is "no." To see why, we can examine the bill's three core sections.
Section 3: Pilot Program for Modernization, Replacement, or Full Reconstruction of Aging Flagship Terminals at Transitional Hub Airports
This section of the bill provides $10 billion for a new pilot program to fund, at up to a 90% federal share, terminal projects at certain medium-hub airports. Eligibility is limited to "not more than 3 transitional hub airports for the rehabilitation and modernization of such airports." To qualify, an airport needs to:
* Be a transitional hub (i.e., it is growing);
* Possess a primary terminal building constructed before January 1, 1990, that still serves passengers;
* Have not completed a comprehensive redevelopment or replacement of its principal commercial passenger terminal on or after January 1, 1990; and
* Have a planned rehabilitation project that is mature.
The federal government subsidizes airports to the tune of approximately $4 billion per year under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant program administered by the FAA. The principal objective of this program is to help develop a nationwide system of public-use airports that meets the current needs and the projected growth of civil aviation. Under the AIP program, the highest priority goes to safety and security projects, with other major objectives including preserving existing airport infrastructure, meeting FAA standards, increasing or maintaining capacity, and mitigating noise and environmental impacts.
There are restrictions on what Airport Improvement Program grants can be spent on. Generally, funds are to be spent on items that fall in the categories of airport planning, airport development, and noise compatibility planning and projects. The funds are not to be spent on a variety of things associated with the terminal and other airport elements, especially those that can generate commercial revenue (e.g., concessions, parking). Airport terminal items that funds can be spent on generally are public-use spaces that passengers may need to occupy as part of their air travel.
Viewed in this context, the terminal pilot program portion of the bill proposes to spend more than twice the normal annual AIP allotment, without the AIP restrictions on what the money can be spent for, and directs it specifically to airports that have failed to maintain their terminal infrastructure. The program would be administered by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, rather than the FAA, which historically has been more inclined to politicize project selection. While the program would allow up to three airports to participate, it is not clear if any airports other than St. Louis Lambert International, in the home state of Sen. Schmitt, would actually qualify.
Section 4: Air Traffic Control Improvements
This section of the bill provides a combined $10.1 billion for air traffic control modernization. Of that total, it allocates $300 million to air traffic control facility consolidation, $600 million to implement strategic air traffic flow management technologies, $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure, and $7.2 billion for a common automation platform and common controller workstation, which are intended to replace the FAA's aging terminal and en route air traffic control automation systems.
Each of these allocations deserves scrutiny. The $300 million for air traffic control facility consolidation can't be argued with, given that some consolidation of facilities should occur. The question is, what is the basis of this $300 million estimate? Have the facilities to be consolidated been identified? Probably not. Under its current political constraints, where politicians demand the FAA maintain aging and inefficient facilities in their districts, can the FAA pull this off? Also, probably not.
Turning to the $600 million for strategic air traffic flow management technologies, or SMART, recent controversy over the Trump administration's purported interest in an equity stake in the current SMART vendor Air Space Intelligence (ASI) has overshadowed the problems with the FAA's ongoing procurement. FAA had just awarded a contract to ASI for $875 million to implement Flow Management Data and Services (FMDS)/SMART as a combined program. As part of that program, the SMART component appears to have no firm requirements. The FAA does not have the appropriations to support this contract value, so this $600 million appears to be there to fill this gap. A back-of-the-envelope analysis of this program indicates the $875 million awarded for this contract is wildly high. The FAA should not be bailed out of this award error, but instead should be required to deal with it through normal budgeting and appropriations processes.
With respect to the $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure, this is simply egregious. Current FAA planning puts the Common Automation Platform (CAP) program in the cloud (CAP is discussed in more detail later). This money apparently supports that goal, yet such a goal is highly dubious. The FAA has 21 Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) and approximately 145 Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities scattered throughout the United States. Each of these facilities has a co-located automation system. This geographical distribution of processing provides system resiliency. Pieces of the network can fail without the entire network failing. Centralizing processing in the cloud subjects the system to widespread outages from cloud system failure. Cloud environments are reliable, but failures happen, and when they do, results are dramatic.
Notably, an operational air traffic control automation platform serving a significant air traffic facility has not been put in the cloud anywhere on Earth. There is one small instance--a tower system at Memmingen Airport in Germany--and there are hybrid instances, such as running certain training features in the cloud, but not an entire large operational platform. In Europe, the independent safety regulator, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), has been struggling with the problem of certifying such a system for more than six years. Problems with certification revolve around the definition of the system boundary and the tight definition of the services that surround the system boundary, which need to be controlled to support the system (including operating systems, virtual machine monitors, load balancers, etc.). Accordingly, planning cloud implementation of CAP significantly increases program risk. And given the $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure, it also significantly increases program cost.
Finally, let's examine the largest funding allocation: $7.2 billion for the Common Automation Platform (CAP) and common controller workstation. Certainly, replacing the current, obsolete FAA air traffic control automation system is appropriate. Existing FAA systems are 1990s technology. Commercial platforms deployed worldwide provide features that reduce controller cognitive burden and improve aviation safety. That this replacement program is a major, costly undertaking is also unquestionable. The CAP program will replace automation systems in the 20 ARTCCs and 145 TRACON facilities. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that $7.2 billion is high, but not out of the ballpark.
The problem is the lack of accounting and budgeting transparency. First, all of the FAA's major programs require an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) to guide funding action and to provide a basis against which the performance of the program can be measured. It does not appear that CAP has one, which calls into question the cost estimate, as well as the wildly optimistic schedule that calls for initial real-world deployment in December 2028.
Second, given that this program must replace equipment in 20 ARTCCs and 145 TRACONs, the CAP program has a long duration, but it is hard to see how the FAA could finish this program in under 10 years. Consistent with normal federal budgeting rules, this would seemingly require defining program segments and funding each of these segments in the years that funds are required for a given segment. Putting the full $7.2 billion up front eliminates any potential for an orderly budget process that considers agency priorities and tradeoffs when segments come up for funding.
Section 6: Terminal Air Traffic Control and Airport Improvements
This section provides an additional $10 billion in funding, the smallest share being $2 billion for air traffic control tower modernization. The remainder is allocated to airports, with $3 billion providing supplemental appropriations to the existing AIP grant program and the creation of a new $5 billion grant program for airport terminal modernization. The bill states that both pots of funding are purely discretionary. Recall that the bulk of grants from the traditional Airport Improvement Program is allocated by formula, which is intended to provide airports with predictability for multiyear planning for costly capital projects.
Conclusion
Despite the public emphasis by Transportation Secretary Duffy on air traffic control modernization, the Modern Skies Act as introduced dedicates just 40% of its $30 billion in new funding to air traffic control. The surprising winners are airports, which are facing the expiration of subsidy programs originally authorized under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. But the creation of a new slush fund that will inevitably be politicized should be reconsidered.
While the funding for air traffic control modernization does support one necessary effort--the Common Automation Platform--taking this program outside of normal budgeting processes is not appropriate. The $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure can be characterized as an unnecessary science project, and FAA has not shown itself up to the task of consolidating core systems into the cloud while other more technologically and institutionally advanced air traffic service providers around the world are not yet sold on the basic concept.
If Congress and the White House support modernizing air traffic control efficiently, they should be disappointed by the Modern Skies Act. While a lack of consistent funding is a major problem plaguing air traffic control modernization, accountability is in even shorter supply.
* * *
John Kefaliotis is an aviation professional with more than 50 years of experience in air traffic control.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-modern-skies-act-wont-modernize-u-s-aviation/
Highland Pupils Celebrated in Special RSE Literary Event
EDINBURGH, Scotland, Nov. 4 -- The Royal Society of Edinburgh issued the following news:
* * *
3 November 2026
Highland pupils celebrated in special RSE literary event
Pupils from Lochaber High School, Tain Royal Academy and Dornoch Academy were celebrated for their writing at the RSE's Young People's Signature Event.
-
Lochaber High School welcomed the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the annual Young People's Signature Event, a showcase of the creativity and achievements of pupils at secondary schools across the Highlands.
This year, the event had a special literary focus, with invited Scottish ... Show Full Article EDINBURGH, Scotland, Nov. 4 -- The Royal Society of Edinburgh issued the following news: * * * 3 November 2026 Highland pupils celebrated in special RSE literary event Pupils from Lochaber High School, Tain Royal Academy and Dornoch Academy were celebrated for their writing at the RSE's Young People's Signature Event. - Lochaber High School welcomed the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the annual Young People's Signature Event, a showcase of the creativity and achievements of pupils at secondary schools across the Highlands. This year, the event had a special literary focus, with invited Scottishpoets Len Pennie and Professor Peter Mackay taking to the stage to share their experiences of what it's like being a writer today and what inspires them to write in Scots and Gaelic.
The event followed six creative writing workshops called Living Writing, created by RSE Fellow Professor Kirsty Gunn and delivered by author and literary researcher Dr Conner McAleese. Through these sessions, pupils developed their confidence in writing creatively by engaging with Scotland's rich literary heritage. Drawing inspiration from The Grey Coast by Highland writer Neil Gunn, they looked at the ongoing relevance of Gunn's work today and how his style of writing could influence their own stories.
The Young People's Signature Event was led by Dr Conner McAleese, who chaired a pupil Q&A with Len Pennie and Peter Mackay. Pupils went on to read aloud their creative writings and were awarded certificates from Len and Peter to mark the culmination of their hard work.
Professor Kirsty Gunn FRSE said: "It's been a delight to put this programme of creative workshops and events together - working with local secondary schools in the East Sutherland and Lochaber areas to develop skills and confidence in young people at a vital time in their life.
"The level of engagement and response has been amazing and I'm very much hoping Living Writing will be the beginning of many more such activities in the Highlands - with the RSE having a real presence in some of our more remote communities and responding as they have so fully and enthusiastically to the needs for creative provision in the development of literacy and intellectual and imaginative development.
"Working with Neil Gunn's texts has been a gift to young people, setting an example of a writing style honed by life in a rural context and showing that creative lives and careers happen all over Scotland - and not just in our larger towns and cities."
Stephen Carruthers, Deputy Head Teacher at Lochaber High, said: "As someone whose passion is teaching creative writing, it has been such a pleasure to see our students involved in the RSE workshops this year.
"The sessions were great fun, and produced pieces of writing that spoke, both of the ability of the pupils and the teaching that helped inspire it. Lochaber High was delighted to welcome poet Len Pennie, Scottish Makar Peter MacKay and author Dr Conner McAleese to the school for the RSE event this year.
"It is a rare opportunity for our students to get to listen to real literary figures in person, but an even rarer chance for some of those students both to work with and share a stage with such luminaries. Huge thanks to the RSE for the opportunity."
With the help and support of North House Press and the Dr David Summers Charitable Trust, the pupils' literary works have since been published into an anthology entitled Living Writing - marking a significant achievement for them as newly published authors on Scotland's creative writing scene.
* * *
About the Young People's Programme
The RSE broadens access to opportunities for young people across Scotland by helping to build their confidence, curiosity and critical thinking. The RSE and its Fellowship work with young people to deliver engaging, relevant learning experiences that align with the Curriculum for Excellence. The Young People's Programme offers a range of year-round activities and events designed to support classroom learning and help young people develop the skills they need for the future. The Fellowship and Schools Team work alongside young people so they can contribute their ideas to help shape the format of the Young People's Signature Event, which is unique in its delivery and format each year.
* * *
Original text here: https://rse.org.uk/highland-pupils-celebrated-in-special-rse-literary-event/
* * *
3 November 2026
Highland pupils celebrated in special RSE literary event
Pupils from Lochaber High School, Tain Royal Academy and Dornoch Academy were celebrated for their writing at the RSE's Young People's Signature Event.
-
Lochaber High School welcomed the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the annual Young People's Signature Event, a showcase of the creativity and achievements of pupils at secondary schools across the Highlands.
This year, the event had a special literary focus, with invited Scottish ... Show Full Article EDINBURGH, Scotland, Nov. 4 -- The Royal Society of Edinburgh issued the following news: * * * 3 November 2026 Highland pupils celebrated in special RSE literary event Pupils from Lochaber High School, Tain Royal Academy and Dornoch Academy were celebrated for their writing at the RSE's Young People's Signature Event. - Lochaber High School welcomed the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the annual Young People's Signature Event, a showcase of the creativity and achievements of pupils at secondary schools across the Highlands. This year, the event had a special literary focus, with invited Scottishpoets Len Pennie and Professor Peter Mackay taking to the stage to share their experiences of what it's like being a writer today and what inspires them to write in Scots and Gaelic.
The event followed six creative writing workshops called Living Writing, created by RSE Fellow Professor Kirsty Gunn and delivered by author and literary researcher Dr Conner McAleese. Through these sessions, pupils developed their confidence in writing creatively by engaging with Scotland's rich literary heritage. Drawing inspiration from The Grey Coast by Highland writer Neil Gunn, they looked at the ongoing relevance of Gunn's work today and how his style of writing could influence their own stories.
The Young People's Signature Event was led by Dr Conner McAleese, who chaired a pupil Q&A with Len Pennie and Peter Mackay. Pupils went on to read aloud their creative writings and were awarded certificates from Len and Peter to mark the culmination of their hard work.
Professor Kirsty Gunn FRSE said: "It's been a delight to put this programme of creative workshops and events together - working with local secondary schools in the East Sutherland and Lochaber areas to develop skills and confidence in young people at a vital time in their life.
"The level of engagement and response has been amazing and I'm very much hoping Living Writing will be the beginning of many more such activities in the Highlands - with the RSE having a real presence in some of our more remote communities and responding as they have so fully and enthusiastically to the needs for creative provision in the development of literacy and intellectual and imaginative development.
"Working with Neil Gunn's texts has been a gift to young people, setting an example of a writing style honed by life in a rural context and showing that creative lives and careers happen all over Scotland - and not just in our larger towns and cities."
Stephen Carruthers, Deputy Head Teacher at Lochaber High, said: "As someone whose passion is teaching creative writing, it has been such a pleasure to see our students involved in the RSE workshops this year.
"The sessions were great fun, and produced pieces of writing that spoke, both of the ability of the pupils and the teaching that helped inspire it. Lochaber High was delighted to welcome poet Len Pennie, Scottish Makar Peter MacKay and author Dr Conner McAleese to the school for the RSE event this year.
"It is a rare opportunity for our students to get to listen to real literary figures in person, but an even rarer chance for some of those students both to work with and share a stage with such luminaries. Huge thanks to the RSE for the opportunity."
With the help and support of North House Press and the Dr David Summers Charitable Trust, the pupils' literary works have since been published into an anthology entitled Living Writing - marking a significant achievement for them as newly published authors on Scotland's creative writing scene.
* * *
About the Young People's Programme
The RSE broadens access to opportunities for young people across Scotland by helping to build their confidence, curiosity and critical thinking. The RSE and its Fellowship work with young people to deliver engaging, relevant learning experiences that align with the Curriculum for Excellence. The Young People's Programme offers a range of year-round activities and events designed to support classroom learning and help young people develop the skills they need for the future. The Fellowship and Schools Team work alongside young people so they can contribute their ideas to help shape the format of the Young People's Signature Event, which is unique in its delivery and format each year.
* * *
Original text here: https://rse.org.uk/highland-pupils-celebrated-in-special-rse-literary-event/
Reason Foundation: Personalized Pricing Benefits Consumers When Markets Function Well
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare.
Max Gulker
Managing Director
November 2, 2026
Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers are ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare. Max Gulker Managing Director November 2, 2026 Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers arequoted different prices based on their own individual data. Public concern about this still-developing technology has grown, causing federal agencies and state legislatures to take notice.
Many worry that firms will be able to determine the maximum amount each customer is willing to pay for an item and set personalized prices accordingly. In a particularly troubling version of this scenario, a firm might identify a consumer's urgent or desperate need and exploit it by jacking up prices.
But while these strategies are becoming technically feasible in some settings, they remain strikingly absent in the real world. Instead, the most widespread and established current use of personalized pricing is the opposite of the targeted price-gouging many imagine. Through installed apps, membership agreements, and subscriptions, large retailers use repeat-customer data to offer extra discounts on products they are likely to demand.
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing can either enhance competition and consumer welfare, or, at least in theory, harm consumers through deception and higher prices. Pro-consumer outcomes arise in healthy markets where sellers compete vigorously, and consumers are well informed about how their data is used. This distinction should caution policymakers eager to ban or tightly control personalized pricing, but does not mean the potential for exploitation should be ignored. The rapid, uncertain development of artificial intelligence (AI) suggests focusing more attention on settings where competition or transparency is lacking.
Competition leads to personalized discounting
The only personalized pricing strategy that observers generally agree to be in current widespread use is personalized discounting. Retailers such as CVS, Kroger, and Amazon use consumers' shopping histories to select discounts and other offers consumers are likely to find compelling. Firms access these shopping histories through relationships with consumers developed over time, and disclose the strategies through membership agreements, app downloads, and subscriptions.
These uses of personalized pricing are popular with consumers, as evidenced by the 90 million and 200 million members that CVS and Amazon respectively report in their loyalty programs. These firms emphasize that they only use personal customer data to discount prices, not to raise prices above a baseline level. This distinction between discounting and raising prices is a useful rule of thumb for desirable uses of the technology, but it is important to understand why these firms choose to discount the products repeat customers most want rather than raise their prices.
The most important factor determining whether personalized pricing benefits consumers is the presence of robust competition. While the large retailers discussed above have some market power, it is difficult to imagine any firm other than a pure and protected monopoly sustaining a strategy in which prices are set at or near the highest amount individual consumers are willing to pay. If any firm outside a protected monopoly charged prices far above the level needed to earn an ordinary profit, competitors would have opportunities to offer prices low enough to gain substantial market share but still high enough to profit.
Many of the troubling hypothetical scenarios proposed by opponents of personalized pricing focus on what is or may soon become technically feasible, but neglect the disciplining forces of competition. In an August 2026 proposed policy statement, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) listed several potential exploitative applications, including, "a hotel charging a higher price to a consumer on the basis of data personal to that consumer leading the hotel to believe that the consumer is traveling for a funeral or some other can't-miss personal business." But consider the opportunity such a strategy would create for other hotels to profitably undercut their competitor. They could easily win this customer's business by offering a lower rate, increasing their own profit. Consumers' ability to comparison shop for hotels across multiple platforms would make opportunities to undercut exorbitant prices even more immediately lucrative, and if the offending hotel tried to sustain the strategy, it might even create opportunities for competitors to advertise discounts.
Personalized pricing strategies that raise prices to the estimated maximum each consumer will pay become even less feasible if a retailer attempted to scale this strategy across products and customers; in a 2024 letter to Kroger, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and then-Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) expressed concerns that the supermarket chain would use existing technology to do just that. At issue were in-store electronic shelf labels (ESLs), created in a partnership with Microsoft, that the company used to collect data and enable market-wide dynamic pricing (where the uniform price charged to consumers can be changed without physically relabeling goods on shelves).
While the senators did not allege Kroger used the technology for personalized pricing, they expressed concerns that the installed ESLs "may enable Kroger to gather data on customers to determine how much price hiking they can tolerate and then present each customer with personalized price tags at the grocery shelf."
Like the FTC, the senators focused on strategies made possible by technology, but that would realistically be foreclosed by market competition. If a major grocery chain tried to employ and sustain this strategy at any meaningful scale, it would create highly profitable opportunities for competitors (both brick-and-mortar and online) to undercut prices and advertise heavily. If such a grocery store were in a remote area, these high prices could attract new competitors. The only way a retailer could charge so many consumers high personalized prices is if it were a heavily protected monopoly facing near-zero competition and extremely high barriers to entry for other firms. Such a pure monopolist would likely already charge exorbitant prices to all consumers and quickly attract scrutiny from antitrust authorities.
These realities suggest that new laws banning or highly restricting personalized pricing aren't necessary. As in other cases where firms exploit market power, targeted antitrust enforcement is likely to protect consumers against such possibilities, however remote.
The importance of well-informed consumers
Well-informed consumers are another important component of functioning markets. Harmful outcomes can emerge when consumers have less or incorrect information than the firms with whom they transact. The free flow of information about how personal data turns into prices allows consumers to make more informed decisions about where to shop. Consider again the case of a grocery store attempting to charge customers their maximum willingness to pay for items. High prices alone would likely push consumers to other stores, but knowing why those prices were so high would more quickly show consumers that competitors offer better deals.
Informative disclosures about personalized pricing are therefore important for positive market outcomes. The grocery and drugstore apps discussed above make this information clear. CVS offers members of its ExtraCare program "customized" offers and discounts through emails, text messages, and its shopping app. In its privacy policy, the firm lists the data it may collect, including demographics, shopping history, and browser cookies. The result is personalized discounts, both storewide and on specific products a consumer is likely to purchase. Kroger discloses that it uses similar customer data to provide "ways to save on items you buy most often or that you might like based on your past interests."
The FTC notes in a recent policy statement that it lacks Congressional authority to make sweeping prohibitions on personalized pricing, but that it "intends to enforce the law aggressively against any deceptive or unfair personalized pricing practices that violate Section 5 of the FTC Act or any other law enforced by the Commission." Nonetheless, providing consumers with clear ways to know how their data is used is an important step in building public trust and pushing back against overly prescriptive new laws or regulations.
Legitimate concerns may also arise when firms purchase data from brokers hiding in grey or black markets. Online retailers eager to purchase such data might be able to employ strategies more hidden from consumers than highly visible big-box retailers.
An earlier FTC statement, released at the end of the Biden presidency, highlights these possibilities but provides no specific examples. The FTC conducted research on data brokers, but due to a combination of incomplete information and legal restrictions, was forced to aggregate and anonymize its results. All of the brief report's "conclusions" about personalized pricing are couched in hypothetical terms, making it difficult to determine if authorities found any concrete examples of real-world personalized pricing strategies arising from these questionable data trading practices. Authorities must spend more time studying these issues to separate fact from speculation, set standards to create public trust, and enforce any real violations of antitrust or privacy law.
Opportunities for exploitation and price-gouging have existed as long as markets themselves. Competition and informed consumers provide effective safeguards in most cases, and where they do not, modern economies have long provided rules and means to enforce them. Personalized pricing is no different. No evidence suggests that the exploitation or price-gouging many imagine has yet come to pass. If future problems arise, they will likely occur when a firm is shielded from competition or when consumer information is limited.
Personalized pricing will warrant continued attention from policymakers as AI technology continues to develop and consumers' online data footprints continue to grow. But the same market forces that have always disciplined price-setting by firms will keep most problematic uses of the strategy in the realm of the hypothetical.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/personalized-pricing-benefits-consumers-when-markets-function-well/
* * *
Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare.
Max Gulker
Managing Director
November 2, 2026
Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers are ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare. Max Gulker Managing Director November 2, 2026 Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers arequoted different prices based on their own individual data. Public concern about this still-developing technology has grown, causing federal agencies and state legislatures to take notice.
Many worry that firms will be able to determine the maximum amount each customer is willing to pay for an item and set personalized prices accordingly. In a particularly troubling version of this scenario, a firm might identify a consumer's urgent or desperate need and exploit it by jacking up prices.
But while these strategies are becoming technically feasible in some settings, they remain strikingly absent in the real world. Instead, the most widespread and established current use of personalized pricing is the opposite of the targeted price-gouging many imagine. Through installed apps, membership agreements, and subscriptions, large retailers use repeat-customer data to offer extra discounts on products they are likely to demand.
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing can either enhance competition and consumer welfare, or, at least in theory, harm consumers through deception and higher prices. Pro-consumer outcomes arise in healthy markets where sellers compete vigorously, and consumers are well informed about how their data is used. This distinction should caution policymakers eager to ban or tightly control personalized pricing, but does not mean the potential for exploitation should be ignored. The rapid, uncertain development of artificial intelligence (AI) suggests focusing more attention on settings where competition or transparency is lacking.
Competition leads to personalized discounting
The only personalized pricing strategy that observers generally agree to be in current widespread use is personalized discounting. Retailers such as CVS, Kroger, and Amazon use consumers' shopping histories to select discounts and other offers consumers are likely to find compelling. Firms access these shopping histories through relationships with consumers developed over time, and disclose the strategies through membership agreements, app downloads, and subscriptions.
These uses of personalized pricing are popular with consumers, as evidenced by the 90 million and 200 million members that CVS and Amazon respectively report in their loyalty programs. These firms emphasize that they only use personal customer data to discount prices, not to raise prices above a baseline level. This distinction between discounting and raising prices is a useful rule of thumb for desirable uses of the technology, but it is important to understand why these firms choose to discount the products repeat customers most want rather than raise their prices.
The most important factor determining whether personalized pricing benefits consumers is the presence of robust competition. While the large retailers discussed above have some market power, it is difficult to imagine any firm other than a pure and protected monopoly sustaining a strategy in which prices are set at or near the highest amount individual consumers are willing to pay. If any firm outside a protected monopoly charged prices far above the level needed to earn an ordinary profit, competitors would have opportunities to offer prices low enough to gain substantial market share but still high enough to profit.
Many of the troubling hypothetical scenarios proposed by opponents of personalized pricing focus on what is or may soon become technically feasible, but neglect the disciplining forces of competition. In an August 2026 proposed policy statement, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) listed several potential exploitative applications, including, "a hotel charging a higher price to a consumer on the basis of data personal to that consumer leading the hotel to believe that the consumer is traveling for a funeral or some other can't-miss personal business." But consider the opportunity such a strategy would create for other hotels to profitably undercut their competitor. They could easily win this customer's business by offering a lower rate, increasing their own profit. Consumers' ability to comparison shop for hotels across multiple platforms would make opportunities to undercut exorbitant prices even more immediately lucrative, and if the offending hotel tried to sustain the strategy, it might even create opportunities for competitors to advertise discounts.
Personalized pricing strategies that raise prices to the estimated maximum each consumer will pay become even less feasible if a retailer attempted to scale this strategy across products and customers; in a 2024 letter to Kroger, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and then-Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) expressed concerns that the supermarket chain would use existing technology to do just that. At issue were in-store electronic shelf labels (ESLs), created in a partnership with Microsoft, that the company used to collect data and enable market-wide dynamic pricing (where the uniform price charged to consumers can be changed without physically relabeling goods on shelves).
While the senators did not allege Kroger used the technology for personalized pricing, they expressed concerns that the installed ESLs "may enable Kroger to gather data on customers to determine how much price hiking they can tolerate and then present each customer with personalized price tags at the grocery shelf."
Like the FTC, the senators focused on strategies made possible by technology, but that would realistically be foreclosed by market competition. If a major grocery chain tried to employ and sustain this strategy at any meaningful scale, it would create highly profitable opportunities for competitors (both brick-and-mortar and online) to undercut prices and advertise heavily. If such a grocery store were in a remote area, these high prices could attract new competitors. The only way a retailer could charge so many consumers high personalized prices is if it were a heavily protected monopoly facing near-zero competition and extremely high barriers to entry for other firms. Such a pure monopolist would likely already charge exorbitant prices to all consumers and quickly attract scrutiny from antitrust authorities.
These realities suggest that new laws banning or highly restricting personalized pricing aren't necessary. As in other cases where firms exploit market power, targeted antitrust enforcement is likely to protect consumers against such possibilities, however remote.
The importance of well-informed consumers
Well-informed consumers are another important component of functioning markets. Harmful outcomes can emerge when consumers have less or incorrect information than the firms with whom they transact. The free flow of information about how personal data turns into prices allows consumers to make more informed decisions about where to shop. Consider again the case of a grocery store attempting to charge customers their maximum willingness to pay for items. High prices alone would likely push consumers to other stores, but knowing why those prices were so high would more quickly show consumers that competitors offer better deals.
Informative disclosures about personalized pricing are therefore important for positive market outcomes. The grocery and drugstore apps discussed above make this information clear. CVS offers members of its ExtraCare program "customized" offers and discounts through emails, text messages, and its shopping app. In its privacy policy, the firm lists the data it may collect, including demographics, shopping history, and browser cookies. The result is personalized discounts, both storewide and on specific products a consumer is likely to purchase. Kroger discloses that it uses similar customer data to provide "ways to save on items you buy most often or that you might like based on your past interests."
The FTC notes in a recent policy statement that it lacks Congressional authority to make sweeping prohibitions on personalized pricing, but that it "intends to enforce the law aggressively against any deceptive or unfair personalized pricing practices that violate Section 5 of the FTC Act or any other law enforced by the Commission." Nonetheless, providing consumers with clear ways to know how their data is used is an important step in building public trust and pushing back against overly prescriptive new laws or regulations.
Legitimate concerns may also arise when firms purchase data from brokers hiding in grey or black markets. Online retailers eager to purchase such data might be able to employ strategies more hidden from consumers than highly visible big-box retailers.
An earlier FTC statement, released at the end of the Biden presidency, highlights these possibilities but provides no specific examples. The FTC conducted research on data brokers, but due to a combination of incomplete information and legal restrictions, was forced to aggregate and anonymize its results. All of the brief report's "conclusions" about personalized pricing are couched in hypothetical terms, making it difficult to determine if authorities found any concrete examples of real-world personalized pricing strategies arising from these questionable data trading practices. Authorities must spend more time studying these issues to separate fact from speculation, set standards to create public trust, and enforce any real violations of antitrust or privacy law.
Opportunities for exploitation and price-gouging have existed as long as markets themselves. Competition and informed consumers provide effective safeguards in most cases, and where they do not, modern economies have long provided rules and means to enforce them. Personalized pricing is no different. No evidence suggests that the exploitation or price-gouging many imagine has yet come to pass. If future problems arise, they will likely occur when a firm is shielded from competition or when consumer information is limited.
Personalized pricing will warrant continued attention from policymakers as AI technology continues to develop and consumers' online data footprints continue to grow. But the same market forces that have always disciplined price-setting by firms will keep most problematic uses of the strategy in the realm of the hypothetical.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/personalized-pricing-benefits-consumers-when-markets-function-well/
OMRF lab discovers protective molecule for the heart
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Nov. 3 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF lab discovers protective molecule for the heart
*
For more than a decade, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist Ken Humphries, Ph.D., has investigated why the heart becomes so vulnerable in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.
Now, Humphries' research team at OMRF has identified a likely culprit: a protein that regulates the heart's system for processing sugar. The discovery points the way toward a potential therapeutic target for diabetic heart disease, a condition ... Show Full Article OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Nov. 3 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news: * * * OMRF lab discovers protective molecule for the heart * For more than a decade, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist Ken Humphries, Ph.D., has investigated why the heart becomes so vulnerable in diabetes and other metabolic diseases. Now, Humphries' research team at OMRF has identified a likely culprit: a protein that regulates the heart's system for processing sugar. The discovery points the way toward a potential therapeutic target for diabetic heart disease, a conditionthat affects millions of Americans.
Working with experimental mice in Humphries' lab, graduate student Kylene Harold first found that when the rodents lacked a protein called PFKFB2, their hearts became enlarged, pumped blood less efficiently, and were at greater risk for dangerous arrhythmias. In new studies, Harold and Humphries have discovered that reversing certain metabolic changes protected the heart from these arrhythmias when PFKFB2 is lost.
"We learned from these studies that the protein acts like a gate to help the heart process sugar efficiently," Harold said. "When it becomes impaired, the gate becomes stuck, and sugar spills over into alternate pathways. Over time this leads to heart disease."
Importantly, this seems to occur only in conjunction with metabolic disease. "So, we can predict with some certainty that if you have uncontrolled diabetes, your heart cells probably have low levels of this protein," Humphries said.
Humphries said humans with diabetes have reduced levels of PFKFB2 in their hearts. So now the research focus becomes how to either increase PFKFB2 or develop a drug that keeps the remaining protein more active.
This discovery was published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, a journal of the American Heart Association.
The studies were supported by the following National Institutes of Health grants:
* R01HL160955 and F31HL176095 from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute
* R24GM137786 and P20GM103447 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences
* F31AG079620, P20GM139763 and P30AG050911 from the National Institute on Aging
* R01NS135830 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
The work was also supported by grant No. 20SRG35490443 from the American Heart Association and a grant from the Presbyterian Health Foundation.
This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/omrf-lab-discovers-protective-molecule-for-the-heart/
* * *
OMRF lab discovers protective molecule for the heart
*
For more than a decade, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist Ken Humphries, Ph.D., has investigated why the heart becomes so vulnerable in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.
Now, Humphries' research team at OMRF has identified a likely culprit: a protein that regulates the heart's system for processing sugar. The discovery points the way toward a potential therapeutic target for diabetic heart disease, a condition ... Show Full Article OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Nov. 3 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news: * * * OMRF lab discovers protective molecule for the heart * For more than a decade, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist Ken Humphries, Ph.D., has investigated why the heart becomes so vulnerable in diabetes and other metabolic diseases. Now, Humphries' research team at OMRF has identified a likely culprit: a protein that regulates the heart's system for processing sugar. The discovery points the way toward a potential therapeutic target for diabetic heart disease, a conditionthat affects millions of Americans.
Working with experimental mice in Humphries' lab, graduate student Kylene Harold first found that when the rodents lacked a protein called PFKFB2, their hearts became enlarged, pumped blood less efficiently, and were at greater risk for dangerous arrhythmias. In new studies, Harold and Humphries have discovered that reversing certain metabolic changes protected the heart from these arrhythmias when PFKFB2 is lost.
"We learned from these studies that the protein acts like a gate to help the heart process sugar efficiently," Harold said. "When it becomes impaired, the gate becomes stuck, and sugar spills over into alternate pathways. Over time this leads to heart disease."
Importantly, this seems to occur only in conjunction with metabolic disease. "So, we can predict with some certainty that if you have uncontrolled diabetes, your heart cells probably have low levels of this protein," Humphries said.
Humphries said humans with diabetes have reduced levels of PFKFB2 in their hearts. So now the research focus becomes how to either increase PFKFB2 or develop a drug that keeps the remaining protein more active.
This discovery was published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, a journal of the American Heart Association.
The studies were supported by the following National Institutes of Health grants:
* R01HL160955 and F31HL176095 from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute
* R24GM137786 and P20GM103447 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences
* F31AG079620, P20GM139763 and P30AG050911 from the National Institute on Aging
* R01NS135830 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
The work was also supported by grant No. 20SRG35490443 from the American Heart Association and a grant from the Presbyterian Health Foundation.
This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/omrf-lab-discovers-protective-molecule-for-the-heart/
From a March to a Movement, 'We the People' Means All People
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
From a March to a Movement, 'We the People' Means All People
*
The first three words of the United States Constitution--"We the People"--represent one of the most powerful promises in American democracy. It speaks to the belief that government derives its authority from the people it serves. Yet, throughout our nation's history, the full promise of those words has remained an unfinished journey.
When the Constitution was written, many people were excluded from the rights and protections we now ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * From a March to a Movement, 'We the People' Means All People * The first three words of the United States Constitution--"We the People"--represent one of the most powerful promises in American democracy. It speaks to the belief that government derives its authority from the people it serves. Yet, throughout our nation's history, the full promise of those words has remained an unfinished journey. When the Constitution was written, many people were excluded from the rights and protections we nowassociate with democracy. Through milestones in our country's history, like that of the civil rights movement, generations of courageous individuals have fought to expand those rights, demanding that America live up to its founding ideals.
Today, that struggle continues. And nowhere is the urgency of that struggle more evident than in the fight for accessible, affordable healthcare; health equity; and the fundamental right of every person to live with dignity.
The reality of these issues can't only be accessed by those with wealth, influence, or political power. Not just those who live in certain communities or have access to quality insurance. It must include people living with HIV/AIDS, working families struggling to afford prescription medications, seniors choosing between food and medical care, LGBTQ+ communities, communities of color, and every individual whose health and well-being depend on fair and equitable public policies.
With a foundational understanding that "We the People" must mean ALL the people, a reality that goes against the narrative being espoused by certain elected leaders, the We the People Coalition powered by AIDS Healthcare Foundation launched a modern-day movement to elevate the voice and power of the people.
The We the People Coalition recognizes that healthcare is not simply a political issue, but is a human right. The coalition recognizes that the fullness of a functioning democracy based on equity is at the basis of our struggle, and voting is one of the most powerful tools available to protect it.
As millions of individuals across this country engage in one of the most powerful tools we possess--voting--we cannot forget that every election, whether local, state, or national, has consequences for the health of our communities.
The individuals we elect make decisions about Medicaid expansion, prescription drug pricing, public health funding, access to HIV prevention and treatment, reproductive healthcare, and the resources available to community health centers and safety-net providers. These decisions have real consequences.
For someone living with HIV, access to affordable medications and consistent medical care can mean the difference between maintaining a healthy, productive life and facing preventable complications.
For a working parent, access to health insurance can determine whether a child receives timely medical attention.
For a senior living on a fixed income, the cost of prescription drugs can become an impossible financial burden.
And for communities already experiencing significant health disparities, public policy decisions can either help dismantle longstanding barriers or reinforce the very inequities that have denied generations the opportunity to thrive.
When we vote, we are not simply choosing candidates. We are helping to determine whose health matters, whose voices are heard, and whose lives are protected. That is why voters must look beyond political slogans and campaign promises. We must examine candidates' records, priorities, and positions on the issues that directly affect our families and communities.
Over the Fourth of July weekend this past summer, thousands of Floridians, engaged with the We the People Coalition, emerged on the streets of Fort Lauderdale, marching to have their voices be heard. The momentum continued as coalition members and partners prepared to gather on the eve of Election Day for the 2026 midterm to elevate the power of their voice and their vote.
Modern history has shown us that marches have been a central action connected to transformative movements. However, the power of a march can't be measured only by the number of people who gather. Its true impact is determined by what happens after the signs are lowered, the speeches conclude, and participants return to their communities.
To fully personify the impact and power of a march, it must become a movement. That means translating public awareness into community education, voter registration, sustained advocacy, and accountability for elected officials. It means helping people understand how decisions made in city halls, state legislatures, and Congress affect the affordability of their medications, the accessibility of their healthcare providers, and the future of their families. It means ensuring that people who have too often been left out of the democratic process understand that their participation matters.
As advocates and concerned citizens in communities across this nation move beyond Election Day, the We the People Coalition powered by AIDS Healthcare Foundation is a movement that provides an opportunity to connect these struggles and amplify a shared message: Democracy must work for everyone, and the health and well-being of our communities must remain central to that promise.
To learn more about the We the People Coalition and how you can get engaged, visit wtpmarch.org.
W. Imara Canady is Director of Communications and Community Engagement at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/from-a-march-to-a-movement-we-the-people-means-all-people/
* * *
From a March to a Movement, 'We the People' Means All People
*
The first three words of the United States Constitution--"We the People"--represent one of the most powerful promises in American democracy. It speaks to the belief that government derives its authority from the people it serves. Yet, throughout our nation's history, the full promise of those words has remained an unfinished journey.
When the Constitution was written, many people were excluded from the rights and protections we now ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * From a March to a Movement, 'We the People' Means All People * The first three words of the United States Constitution--"We the People"--represent one of the most powerful promises in American democracy. It speaks to the belief that government derives its authority from the people it serves. Yet, throughout our nation's history, the full promise of those words has remained an unfinished journey. When the Constitution was written, many people were excluded from the rights and protections we nowassociate with democracy. Through milestones in our country's history, like that of the civil rights movement, generations of courageous individuals have fought to expand those rights, demanding that America live up to its founding ideals.
Today, that struggle continues. And nowhere is the urgency of that struggle more evident than in the fight for accessible, affordable healthcare; health equity; and the fundamental right of every person to live with dignity.
The reality of these issues can't only be accessed by those with wealth, influence, or political power. Not just those who live in certain communities or have access to quality insurance. It must include people living with HIV/AIDS, working families struggling to afford prescription medications, seniors choosing between food and medical care, LGBTQ+ communities, communities of color, and every individual whose health and well-being depend on fair and equitable public policies.
With a foundational understanding that "We the People" must mean ALL the people, a reality that goes against the narrative being espoused by certain elected leaders, the We the People Coalition powered by AIDS Healthcare Foundation launched a modern-day movement to elevate the voice and power of the people.
The We the People Coalition recognizes that healthcare is not simply a political issue, but is a human right. The coalition recognizes that the fullness of a functioning democracy based on equity is at the basis of our struggle, and voting is one of the most powerful tools available to protect it.
As millions of individuals across this country engage in one of the most powerful tools we possess--voting--we cannot forget that every election, whether local, state, or national, has consequences for the health of our communities.
The individuals we elect make decisions about Medicaid expansion, prescription drug pricing, public health funding, access to HIV prevention and treatment, reproductive healthcare, and the resources available to community health centers and safety-net providers. These decisions have real consequences.
For someone living with HIV, access to affordable medications and consistent medical care can mean the difference between maintaining a healthy, productive life and facing preventable complications.
For a working parent, access to health insurance can determine whether a child receives timely medical attention.
For a senior living on a fixed income, the cost of prescription drugs can become an impossible financial burden.
And for communities already experiencing significant health disparities, public policy decisions can either help dismantle longstanding barriers or reinforce the very inequities that have denied generations the opportunity to thrive.
When we vote, we are not simply choosing candidates. We are helping to determine whose health matters, whose voices are heard, and whose lives are protected. That is why voters must look beyond political slogans and campaign promises. We must examine candidates' records, priorities, and positions on the issues that directly affect our families and communities.
Over the Fourth of July weekend this past summer, thousands of Floridians, engaged with the We the People Coalition, emerged on the streets of Fort Lauderdale, marching to have their voices be heard. The momentum continued as coalition members and partners prepared to gather on the eve of Election Day for the 2026 midterm to elevate the power of their voice and their vote.
Modern history has shown us that marches have been a central action connected to transformative movements. However, the power of a march can't be measured only by the number of people who gather. Its true impact is determined by what happens after the signs are lowered, the speeches conclude, and participants return to their communities.
To fully personify the impact and power of a march, it must become a movement. That means translating public awareness into community education, voter registration, sustained advocacy, and accountability for elected officials. It means helping people understand how decisions made in city halls, state legislatures, and Congress affect the affordability of their medications, the accessibility of their healthcare providers, and the future of their families. It means ensuring that people who have too often been left out of the democratic process understand that their participation matters.
As advocates and concerned citizens in communities across this nation move beyond Election Day, the We the People Coalition powered by AIDS Healthcare Foundation is a movement that provides an opportunity to connect these struggles and amplify a shared message: Democracy must work for everyone, and the health and well-being of our communities must remain central to that promise.
To learn more about the We the People Coalition and how you can get engaged, visit wtpmarch.org.
W. Imara Canady is Director of Communications and Community Engagement at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/from-a-march-to-a-movement-we-the-people-means-all-people/
FFRF Warns Supreme Court Against Ruling on Nonexistent Religious Liberty Dispute
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute
The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse.
The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent dispute ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse. The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent disputewith the aim of overriding constitutional rules governing who can sue in federal court.
The lawsuit involves a former resident of University Heights, Ohio, who in 2021 invited a dozen or so neighbors to participate in weekly Jewish prayer gatherings at his home. After the invitation was circulated more widely, allegedly without his knowledge, city officials sent the resident, Daniel Grand, a cease-and-desist letter alerting him that he would need a special use permit if he intended to use his property as a house of worship for large gatherings.
Grand applied for a permit, then later withdrew his application, stating that he never intended to operate a house of worship from his home. Both Grand and the city agreed that small, informal religious gatherings, including the one Grand intended to host, do not require a permit under the city's zoning ordinance. The city never enforced the ordinance against him, and the city has expressly acknowledged that residents may host regular, informal religious or nonreligious gatherings without government permission.
FFRF warns that allowing the case to proceed could undermine constitutional safeguards that require federal courts to resolve genuine legal disputes rather than issue sweeping rulings based on hypothetical injuries.
"The agreement by both parties that Grand would not need a permit to host the gatherings he intended to host is destructive to all of his arguments that the Court has jurisdiction," the brief argues. "It appears this case is now a 'smoke and mirrors' challenge meant to advance a policy agenda, but afford no actual relief to the petitioner. This court's jurisdictional requirements are in place in part to ensure that the court cannot be manipulated in this manner."
FFRF contends that, in accepting this case, in which oral arguments will be heard in December, the court seems eager to advance the agenda of conservative religious litigants -- even when the underlying disputes no longer exist.
"The highest court in the land should be upholding the rule of law, not encouraging religious litigants to disregard it," comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.
Grand sold his home and moved out of University Heights in July of this year. He no longer owns property there and has indicated no intention of returning. The city's zoning ordinance therefore cannot restrict his future activities. FFRF points out in its brief that Grand's counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, may have shirked its duty to inform the court of this change: "Grand himself may not have been aware that his move to a new town would create a jurisdictional problem for this court. His attorneys, however, should have known of the mootness issue and of their duty to notify the court of Grand's move as soon as it arose. They failed to do so."
"This case is a textbook example of why the Constitution limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies," adds FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover, counsel of record on the brief. "The dispute arose from a misunderstanding, and now that Grand has moved, the issue is very obviously moot. A Supreme Court ruling would provide no meaningful relief to Grand or anyone else."
FFRF argues that Article III of the Constitution restricts federal courts to resolving actual cases and controversies. A plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficiently concrete injury, and that controversy must remain alive throughout the litigation.
Grand's challenge fails on both counts, FFRF maintains. He cannot establish a credible threat of enforcement against activities the city acknowledges are permissible, and his departure from University Heights has rendered his requests for prospective relief moot.
FFRF warns that the case fits a troubling pattern of religious liberty litigation designed to secure sweeping constitutional precedents even when the underlying disputes are questionable or no longer live.
FFRF points to Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court's controversial 2022 school prayer decision, as another example of the dangers of overlooking whether a genuine legal controversy still exists. Former high school football coach Joe Kennedy moved nearly 3,000 miles from Washington state to Florida during litigation, establishing residency there. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, instead of ruling the case moot, ruled in his favor, dramatically weakening longstanding protections against school-sponsored religious activity. After winning his case, Kennedy returned to Bremerton to coach just one football game before resigning and heading back to Florida. That sweeping constitutional ruling occurred in a case in which the plaintiff appeared to no longer have a meaningful stake in the outcome.
"Standing and mootness aren't technicalities that courts can overlook whenever a politically charged case presents an attractive opportunity to make new law," adds Grover. "These constitutional safeguards protect everyone. Religious litigants should have exactly the same access to the courts as anyone else, but not preferential access."
FFRF regularly advocates for the constitutional rights of atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious Americans, who must also meet strict standing requirements when challenging government actions that violate the separation of state and church. Allowing religious plaintiffs to bypass those requirements would create an unacceptable double standard, FFRF warns.
FFRF is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted or, alternatively, affirm its dismissal or lack of jurisdiction.
FFRF legal fellow Charlotte Gude prepared the amicus brief, with editing support from FFRF attorneys Sam Grover and Sammi Lawrence.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-warns-supreme-court-against-ruling-on-nonexistent-religious-liberty-dispute/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute
The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse.
The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent dispute ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse. The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent disputewith the aim of overriding constitutional rules governing who can sue in federal court.
The lawsuit involves a former resident of University Heights, Ohio, who in 2021 invited a dozen or so neighbors to participate in weekly Jewish prayer gatherings at his home. After the invitation was circulated more widely, allegedly without his knowledge, city officials sent the resident, Daniel Grand, a cease-and-desist letter alerting him that he would need a special use permit if he intended to use his property as a house of worship for large gatherings.
Grand applied for a permit, then later withdrew his application, stating that he never intended to operate a house of worship from his home. Both Grand and the city agreed that small, informal religious gatherings, including the one Grand intended to host, do not require a permit under the city's zoning ordinance. The city never enforced the ordinance against him, and the city has expressly acknowledged that residents may host regular, informal religious or nonreligious gatherings without government permission.
FFRF warns that allowing the case to proceed could undermine constitutional safeguards that require federal courts to resolve genuine legal disputes rather than issue sweeping rulings based on hypothetical injuries.
"The agreement by both parties that Grand would not need a permit to host the gatherings he intended to host is destructive to all of his arguments that the Court has jurisdiction," the brief argues. "It appears this case is now a 'smoke and mirrors' challenge meant to advance a policy agenda, but afford no actual relief to the petitioner. This court's jurisdictional requirements are in place in part to ensure that the court cannot be manipulated in this manner."
FFRF contends that, in accepting this case, in which oral arguments will be heard in December, the court seems eager to advance the agenda of conservative religious litigants -- even when the underlying disputes no longer exist.
"The highest court in the land should be upholding the rule of law, not encouraging religious litigants to disregard it," comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.
Grand sold his home and moved out of University Heights in July of this year. He no longer owns property there and has indicated no intention of returning. The city's zoning ordinance therefore cannot restrict his future activities. FFRF points out in its brief that Grand's counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, may have shirked its duty to inform the court of this change: "Grand himself may not have been aware that his move to a new town would create a jurisdictional problem for this court. His attorneys, however, should have known of the mootness issue and of their duty to notify the court of Grand's move as soon as it arose. They failed to do so."
"This case is a textbook example of why the Constitution limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies," adds FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover, counsel of record on the brief. "The dispute arose from a misunderstanding, and now that Grand has moved, the issue is very obviously moot. A Supreme Court ruling would provide no meaningful relief to Grand or anyone else."
FFRF argues that Article III of the Constitution restricts federal courts to resolving actual cases and controversies. A plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficiently concrete injury, and that controversy must remain alive throughout the litigation.
Grand's challenge fails on both counts, FFRF maintains. He cannot establish a credible threat of enforcement against activities the city acknowledges are permissible, and his departure from University Heights has rendered his requests for prospective relief moot.
FFRF warns that the case fits a troubling pattern of religious liberty litigation designed to secure sweeping constitutional precedents even when the underlying disputes are questionable or no longer live.
FFRF points to Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court's controversial 2022 school prayer decision, as another example of the dangers of overlooking whether a genuine legal controversy still exists. Former high school football coach Joe Kennedy moved nearly 3,000 miles from Washington state to Florida during litigation, establishing residency there. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, instead of ruling the case moot, ruled in his favor, dramatically weakening longstanding protections against school-sponsored religious activity. After winning his case, Kennedy returned to Bremerton to coach just one football game before resigning and heading back to Florida. That sweeping constitutional ruling occurred in a case in which the plaintiff appeared to no longer have a meaningful stake in the outcome.
"Standing and mootness aren't technicalities that courts can overlook whenever a politically charged case presents an attractive opportunity to make new law," adds Grover. "These constitutional safeguards protect everyone. Religious litigants should have exactly the same access to the courts as anyone else, but not preferential access."
FFRF regularly advocates for the constitutional rights of atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious Americans, who must also meet strict standing requirements when challenging government actions that violate the separation of state and church. Allowing religious plaintiffs to bypass those requirements would create an unacceptable double standard, FFRF warns.
FFRF is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted or, alternatively, affirm its dismissal or lack of jurisdiction.
FFRF legal fellow Charlotte Gude prepared the amicus brief, with editing support from FFRF attorneys Sam Grover and Sammi Lawrence.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-warns-supreme-court-against-ruling-on-nonexistent-religious-liberty-dispute/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Rebukes Trump for Turning Presidential Messages Into Christian Sermons
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation.
In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, morality ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation. In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, moralityand national greatness. The messages, issued on Oct. 31 for Reformation Day and Nov. 1 for All Saints' Day, are the latest examples of the administration's troubling efforts to blur the constitutional separation between state and church.
"Donald Trump is president of the United States, not pastor-in-chief of a Christian congregation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "His constitutional responsibility is to represent all Americans, not to use the White House as a platform for Christian evangelism. Our government derives its authority from 'We the People,' not from Jesus Christ."
In his Reformation Day message, Trump declared: "From the earliest days of our republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness." He went further, explicitly connecting his administration's political agenda to Christian religious doctrine: "Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our republic for generations."
FFRF strongly objects to the president's suggestion that the United States was founded on Christianity or that his administration has a mandate to restore supposedly lost Christian foundations. The United States was founded on a secular Constitution, not the bible. The Constitution contains no reference to God or Jesus Christ, expressly prohibits religious tests for public office and guarantees that the government will neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise.
The nation's Founders deliberately rejected the European tradition of governments exercising religious authority. The First Amendment protects the religious liberty of all Americans precisely because the government has no business deciding which religious beliefs should guide the nation.
Trump's message also ignores the tens of millions of Americans who are not Christian, including the growing population of religiously unaffiliated Americans who now constitute roughly three in 10 adults.
The following day, Trump issued an equally sectarian All Saints' Day message, celebrating Catholic saints and emphasizing their influence on American culture.
The president cited cities, universities, hospitals and even the New Orleans Saints football team as examples of the enduring influence of Christianity on American life. He praised Catholic figures including Junipero Serra, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Katharine Drexel and Frances Xavier Cabrini.
However, the existence of religiously named cities, universities and football teams is hardly evidence that the United States is, or should be, a Christian nation. America's cultural history includes religious influences from many traditions, as well as the indispensable contributions of nonreligious Americans.
Trump's praise for Junipero Serra is particularly troubling when you take into account the history of California's Spanish missions, where Indigenous peoples experienced coercive conversion, forced labor and devastating cultural disruption. Romanticizing missionary expansion without acknowledging its victims presents a profoundly incomplete account of American history.
The All Saints' Day message concluded with an explicitly theological declaration about salvation through Jesus Christ: "Christians believe that through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the grave has been conquered and eternal life has been opened to all who believe in Him."
There is nothing inherently objectionable about a president acknowledging religious holidays or extending good wishes to Americans who celebrate them. But Trump's messages go well beyond recognition. They promote the idea that Christianity is the defining source of American morality, unity and national identity, and explicitly connect the administration's governing mission to Christian faith. While Christians are free to celebrate their religious holidays and profess these beliefs, the president should not use official government communications to elevate Christian theology above the beliefs of other Americans.
FFRF emphasizes that these messages are not isolated incidents. They reflect the Trump administration's broader pattern of elevating Christianity through federal government institutions, rhetoric and policies, including its establishment of a White House Faith Office and a task force purportedly dedicated to eradicating anti-Christian bias. The administration's repeated insistence that Christianity must be restored to the center of American public life is especially alarming at a time when Christian nationalist movements are actively seeking to impose religious doctrines through public schools, government institutions and public policy.
The White House should be defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, not advancing a sectarian vision of the nation. America's strength has never depended on religious conformity. It comes from the constitutional promise that every person is free to believe, or not believe, without government favoritism or interference.
FFRF urges the president to respect that promise and to stop using official presidential communications to promote Christian nationalism.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-rebukes-trump-for-turning-presidential-messages-into-christian-sermons/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation.
In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, morality ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation. In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, moralityand national greatness. The messages, issued on Oct. 31 for Reformation Day and Nov. 1 for All Saints' Day, are the latest examples of the administration's troubling efforts to blur the constitutional separation between state and church.
"Donald Trump is president of the United States, not pastor-in-chief of a Christian congregation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "His constitutional responsibility is to represent all Americans, not to use the White House as a platform for Christian evangelism. Our government derives its authority from 'We the People,' not from Jesus Christ."
In his Reformation Day message, Trump declared: "From the earliest days of our republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness." He went further, explicitly connecting his administration's political agenda to Christian religious doctrine: "Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our republic for generations."
FFRF strongly objects to the president's suggestion that the United States was founded on Christianity or that his administration has a mandate to restore supposedly lost Christian foundations. The United States was founded on a secular Constitution, not the bible. The Constitution contains no reference to God or Jesus Christ, expressly prohibits religious tests for public office and guarantees that the government will neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise.
The nation's Founders deliberately rejected the European tradition of governments exercising religious authority. The First Amendment protects the religious liberty of all Americans precisely because the government has no business deciding which religious beliefs should guide the nation.
Trump's message also ignores the tens of millions of Americans who are not Christian, including the growing population of religiously unaffiliated Americans who now constitute roughly three in 10 adults.
The following day, Trump issued an equally sectarian All Saints' Day message, celebrating Catholic saints and emphasizing their influence on American culture.
The president cited cities, universities, hospitals and even the New Orleans Saints football team as examples of the enduring influence of Christianity on American life. He praised Catholic figures including Junipero Serra, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Katharine Drexel and Frances Xavier Cabrini.
However, the existence of religiously named cities, universities and football teams is hardly evidence that the United States is, or should be, a Christian nation. America's cultural history includes religious influences from many traditions, as well as the indispensable contributions of nonreligious Americans.
Trump's praise for Junipero Serra is particularly troubling when you take into account the history of California's Spanish missions, where Indigenous peoples experienced coercive conversion, forced labor and devastating cultural disruption. Romanticizing missionary expansion without acknowledging its victims presents a profoundly incomplete account of American history.
The All Saints' Day message concluded with an explicitly theological declaration about salvation through Jesus Christ: "Christians believe that through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the grave has been conquered and eternal life has been opened to all who believe in Him."
There is nothing inherently objectionable about a president acknowledging religious holidays or extending good wishes to Americans who celebrate them. But Trump's messages go well beyond recognition. They promote the idea that Christianity is the defining source of American morality, unity and national identity, and explicitly connect the administration's governing mission to Christian faith. While Christians are free to celebrate their religious holidays and profess these beliefs, the president should not use official government communications to elevate Christian theology above the beliefs of other Americans.
FFRF emphasizes that these messages are not isolated incidents. They reflect the Trump administration's broader pattern of elevating Christianity through federal government institutions, rhetoric and policies, including its establishment of a White House Faith Office and a task force purportedly dedicated to eradicating anti-Christian bias. The administration's repeated insistence that Christianity must be restored to the center of American public life is especially alarming at a time when Christian nationalist movements are actively seeking to impose religious doctrines through public schools, government institutions and public policy.
The White House should be defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, not advancing a sectarian vision of the nation. America's strength has never depended on religious conformity. It comes from the constitutional promise that every person is free to believe, or not believe, without government favoritism or interference.
FFRF urges the president to respect that promise and to stop using official presidential communications to promote Christian nationalism.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-rebukes-trump-for-turning-presidential-messages-into-christian-sermons/
[Category: Religion]