Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Southeastern Legal Foundation Files Amicus Brief Defending Family Farm Against U.S. Department of Labor's Massive Overreach With Ruinous Fines
ROSWELL, Georgia, Aug. 4 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 3, 2026:
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation files amicus brief defending family farm against U.S. Department of Labor's massive overreach with ruinous fines
Today, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a national nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending constitutional rights, filed an amicus brief (https://slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260731-SLF-NCAE-Amicus-Brief.pdf) on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE) and over a dozen national ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Aug. 4 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 3, 2026: * * * Southeastern Legal Foundation files amicus brief defending family farm against U.S. Department of Labor's massive overreach with ruinous fines Today, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a national nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending constitutional rights, filed an amicus brief (https://slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260731-SLF-NCAE-Amicus-Brief.pdf) on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE) and over a dozen nationaland state agricultural associations to help combat a massive overreach by the U.S. Department of Labor against America's farms.
The Department of Labor accused one-such farm, Sun Valley Orchards, of wrongdoing and imposed $550,000 in ruinous fines, mostly for a single violation. When the farmers disagreed and sought a resolution, they were deprived of their day in court and forced to take their case to the Department's unilaterally created and self-run in-house court, where all presiding judges are employed by the Department itself. After a four day trial, judges ruled in favor of their employer.
In their amicus brief, SLF and NCAE argue that the Department of Labor's self-created in-house court system is a blatant violation of our Constitution. If a farmer disagrees with an agency imposed fine, the Constitution demands that he have the opportunity to go to an independent court and challenge the fine. Robbing farmers of that opportunity, the Department of Labor embarked on a massive power grab and unilaterally decided it was going to act as legislator, executioner, and judge - creating the fines, imposing the fines, and enforcing the fines when challenged.
The Department of Labor is abusing its power and imposing destructive fines on farmers, who are some of the hardest working people in America. SLF explains, "The Department's reading amounts to a broad, undefined, and unchecked delegation of legislative power -- violating basic principles of constitutional interpretation. The Court would be obliged to confront that enormous grant of power, not construe around it. And it would be unconstitutional."
SLF President Kim Hermann said, "Farming is the backbone of the American economy. These hard workers face some of the most grueling and challenging physical labor just to provide the groceries that we all purchase with ease. Why a government agency would choose to make life harder for these people and impose truly ruinous fines is completely beyond me. We cannot take their hard work for granted, and that's why we must fight to make sure the government isn't making their lives harder by enforcing random fines."
NCAE President & CEO John Hollay said: "American farmers have been subjected to a disciplinary system that has turned the Department of Labor into judge, jury and executioner in the H-2A program. Our amicus brief makes the case for why employers should not relinquish their constitutional rights just because they rely on the H-2A visa program to keep their farms in business. We remain confident the Justices will protect the rights of the American farmer."
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/southeastern-legal-foundation-files-amicus-brief-defending-family-farm-against-u-s-department-of-labors-massive-overreach-with-ruinous-fines/
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation files amicus brief defending family farm against U.S. Department of Labor's massive overreach with ruinous fines
Today, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a national nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending constitutional rights, filed an amicus brief (https://slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260731-SLF-NCAE-Amicus-Brief.pdf) on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE) and over a dozen national ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Aug. 4 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 3, 2026: * * * Southeastern Legal Foundation files amicus brief defending family farm against U.S. Department of Labor's massive overreach with ruinous fines Today, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a national nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending constitutional rights, filed an amicus brief (https://slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260731-SLF-NCAE-Amicus-Brief.pdf) on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE) and over a dozen nationaland state agricultural associations to help combat a massive overreach by the U.S. Department of Labor against America's farms.
The Department of Labor accused one-such farm, Sun Valley Orchards, of wrongdoing and imposed $550,000 in ruinous fines, mostly for a single violation. When the farmers disagreed and sought a resolution, they were deprived of their day in court and forced to take their case to the Department's unilaterally created and self-run in-house court, where all presiding judges are employed by the Department itself. After a four day trial, judges ruled in favor of their employer.
In their amicus brief, SLF and NCAE argue that the Department of Labor's self-created in-house court system is a blatant violation of our Constitution. If a farmer disagrees with an agency imposed fine, the Constitution demands that he have the opportunity to go to an independent court and challenge the fine. Robbing farmers of that opportunity, the Department of Labor embarked on a massive power grab and unilaterally decided it was going to act as legislator, executioner, and judge - creating the fines, imposing the fines, and enforcing the fines when challenged.
The Department of Labor is abusing its power and imposing destructive fines on farmers, who are some of the hardest working people in America. SLF explains, "The Department's reading amounts to a broad, undefined, and unchecked delegation of legislative power -- violating basic principles of constitutional interpretation. The Court would be obliged to confront that enormous grant of power, not construe around it. And it would be unconstitutional."
SLF President Kim Hermann said, "Farming is the backbone of the American economy. These hard workers face some of the most grueling and challenging physical labor just to provide the groceries that we all purchase with ease. Why a government agency would choose to make life harder for these people and impose truly ruinous fines is completely beyond me. We cannot take their hard work for granted, and that's why we must fight to make sure the government isn't making their lives harder by enforcing random fines."
NCAE President & CEO John Hollay said: "American farmers have been subjected to a disciplinary system that has turned the Department of Labor into judge, jury and executioner in the H-2A program. Our amicus brief makes the case for why employers should not relinquish their constitutional rights just because they rely on the H-2A visa program to keep their farms in business. We remain confident the Justices will protect the rights of the American farmer."
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/southeastern-legal-foundation-files-amicus-brief-defending-family-farm-against-u-s-department-of-labors-massive-overreach-with-ruinous-fines/
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Department of Labor's In-House Adjudications
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Department of Labor's In-House Adjudications
*
"Congress never authorized the Department to act as both prosecutor and judge in actions for civil penalties."
-Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
Click HERE to read WLF's brief.
Washington, DC-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower-court decision rejecting the Department of Labor's in-house adjudication of disputed monetary penalties arising ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Department of Labor's In-House Adjudications * "Congress never authorized the Department to act as both prosecutor and judge in actions for civil penalties." -Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click HERE to read WLF's brief. Washington, DC-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower-court decision rejecting the Department of Labor's in-house adjudication of disputed monetary penalties arisingunder the H-2A guest-worker program. In its amicus brief, WLF argues that Congress never authorized the Department to serve as both prosecutor and judge in enforcement actions for civil penalties.
The case stems from the Department's enforcement action against Sun Valley Orchards, a participant in the H-2A program, which allows agricultural employers to hire foreign workers for seasonal labor. The Department claimed that Sun Valley violated terms in its H-2A job orders and sought over $550,000 in civil penalties and back wages. But rather than pursue those remedies in federal court, the Department not only prosecuted-but also adjudicated-Sun Valley's liability through its own administrative process that ended in a final order requiring Sun Valley to pay.
In its brief, WLF argues that the governing statute does not authorize the Department's in-house adjudication scheme. It contends that federal law establishes a default rule that civil penalties must be adjudicated in Article III courts unless Congress clearly provides otherwise, and that Congress hasn't clearly done so here. WLF also argues that the Department's interpretation of the statute should be rejected because it raises serious constitutional concerns under Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the separation of powers.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/08/03/communicating/wlf-urges-supreme-court-to-reject-department-of-labors-in-house-adjudications/
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Department of Labor's In-House Adjudications
*
"Congress never authorized the Department to act as both prosecutor and judge in actions for civil penalties."
-Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
Click HERE to read WLF's brief.
Washington, DC-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower-court decision rejecting the Department of Labor's in-house adjudication of disputed monetary penalties arising ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Department of Labor's In-House Adjudications * "Congress never authorized the Department to act as both prosecutor and judge in actions for civil penalties." -Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click HERE to read WLF's brief. Washington, DC-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower-court decision rejecting the Department of Labor's in-house adjudication of disputed monetary penalties arisingunder the H-2A guest-worker program. In its amicus brief, WLF argues that Congress never authorized the Department to serve as both prosecutor and judge in enforcement actions for civil penalties.
The case stems from the Department's enforcement action against Sun Valley Orchards, a participant in the H-2A program, which allows agricultural employers to hire foreign workers for seasonal labor. The Department claimed that Sun Valley violated terms in its H-2A job orders and sought over $550,000 in civil penalties and back wages. But rather than pursue those remedies in federal court, the Department not only prosecuted-but also adjudicated-Sun Valley's liability through its own administrative process that ended in a final order requiring Sun Valley to pay.
In its brief, WLF argues that the governing statute does not authorize the Department's in-house adjudication scheme. It contends that federal law establishes a default rule that civil penalties must be adjudicated in Article III courts unless Congress clearly provides otherwise, and that Congress hasn't clearly done so here. WLF also argues that the Department's interpretation of the statute should be rejected because it raises serious constitutional concerns under Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the separation of powers.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/08/03/communicating/wlf-urges-supreme-court-to-reject-department-of-labors-in-house-adjudications/
Nemours Children's Health Appoints Patrice Harris, MD, MA as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer
JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Aug. 3 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Nemours Children's Health Appoints Patrice Harris, MD, MA as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer
*
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (August 3, 2026) - Nemours Children's Health announced today the appointment of Patrice Harris, MD, MA, as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer (CHIO).
As CHIO, Dr. Harris will ensure the integration of Whole Child Health across all facets of the organization by partnering with clinical, operational, financial, strategy, and advocacy teams to ... Show Full Article JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Aug. 3 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Nemours Children's Health Appoints Patrice Harris, MD, MA as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer * JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (August 3, 2026) - Nemours Children's Health announced today the appointment of Patrice Harris, MD, MA, as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer (CHIO). As CHIO, Dr. Harris will ensure the integration of Whole Child Health across all facets of the organization by partnering with clinical, operational, financial, strategy, and advocacy teams todrive improvements in child and community health outcomes.
"Dr. Harris has deep experience improving children's health from many angles -as a physician, the public health director for a county of one million residents, and a national advocate at the highest levels of medicine," said R. Lawrence Moss, MD, FACS, FAAP, President and CEO of Nemours Children's Health. "She understands that a child's health is shaped by high-quality medical care, but also by many elements in their home, school, and community. Whole Child Health brings all of these factors together, and we are privileged to have her championing this work at Nemours Children's."
Prior to joining Nemours, Dr. Harris co-founded eMed, a digital healthcare company, where she most recently served as CEO. A board-certified psychiatrist, she brings distinguished experience as a practicing physician, county public health director, and patient advocate. Dr. Harris served as the 174th President of the American Medical Association, the first African American woman to hold that position, and brings deep expertise in public policy on legislative and regulatory matters at all levels of government. She spent six years as District Health Director for Fulton County, Ga., where she advanced meaningful improvements in children's health at the population level with particular focus on integrated care, adverse childhood experiences, and barriers to accessing care. She serves as an adjunct professor at Emory University School of Medicine and an adjunct clinical professor at Morehouse School of Medicine.
Dr. Harris earned her medical degree and a Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology from West Virginia University, where she currently serves on the Board of Governors. She completed her psychiatry residency and fellowships in child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry at the Emory University School of Medicine.
"I am deeply inspired by Nemours commitment to Whole Child Health and the bold vision this organization holds for the future of pediatric care," said Dr. Harris. "I look forward to partnering across the enterprise to advance health equity, drive meaningful outcomes for children and families, and further establish Nemours as the national model for what children's health can and should be."
***
Original text here: https://nemours.mediaroom.com/patrice-harris-chief-health-impact-officer
* * *
Nemours Children's Health Appoints Patrice Harris, MD, MA as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer
*
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (August 3, 2026) - Nemours Children's Health announced today the appointment of Patrice Harris, MD, MA, as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer (CHIO).
As CHIO, Dr. Harris will ensure the integration of Whole Child Health across all facets of the organization by partnering with clinical, operational, financial, strategy, and advocacy teams to ... Show Full Article JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Aug. 3 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Nemours Children's Health Appoints Patrice Harris, MD, MA as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer * JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (August 3, 2026) - Nemours Children's Health announced today the appointment of Patrice Harris, MD, MA, as Executive Vice President and Chief Health Impact Officer (CHIO). As CHIO, Dr. Harris will ensure the integration of Whole Child Health across all facets of the organization by partnering with clinical, operational, financial, strategy, and advocacy teams todrive improvements in child and community health outcomes.
"Dr. Harris has deep experience improving children's health from many angles -as a physician, the public health director for a county of one million residents, and a national advocate at the highest levels of medicine," said R. Lawrence Moss, MD, FACS, FAAP, President and CEO of Nemours Children's Health. "She understands that a child's health is shaped by high-quality medical care, but also by many elements in their home, school, and community. Whole Child Health brings all of these factors together, and we are privileged to have her championing this work at Nemours Children's."
Prior to joining Nemours, Dr. Harris co-founded eMed, a digital healthcare company, where she most recently served as CEO. A board-certified psychiatrist, she brings distinguished experience as a practicing physician, county public health director, and patient advocate. Dr. Harris served as the 174th President of the American Medical Association, the first African American woman to hold that position, and brings deep expertise in public policy on legislative and regulatory matters at all levels of government. She spent six years as District Health Director for Fulton County, Ga., where she advanced meaningful improvements in children's health at the population level with particular focus on integrated care, adverse childhood experiences, and barriers to accessing care. She serves as an adjunct professor at Emory University School of Medicine and an adjunct clinical professor at Morehouse School of Medicine.
Dr. Harris earned her medical degree and a Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology from West Virginia University, where she currently serves on the Board of Governors. She completed her psychiatry residency and fellowships in child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry at the Emory University School of Medicine.
"I am deeply inspired by Nemours commitment to Whole Child Health and the bold vision this organization holds for the future of pediatric care," said Dr. Harris. "I look forward to partnering across the enterprise to advance health equity, drive meaningful outcomes for children and families, and further establish Nemours as the national model for what children's health can and should be."
***
Original text here: https://nemours.mediaroom.com/patrice-harris-chief-health-impact-officer
APF Canada Announces Launch of 2026-27 Media Fellowship Program
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Aug. 2 -- The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada issued the following news release:
* * *
APF Canada Announces Launch of 2026-27 Media Fellowship Program
The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APF Canada) is pleased to announce the launch of its annual Media Fellowship Program for 2026-27.
The APF Canada Media Fellowship Program, launched in 1986, offers two Canadian journalists the opportunity to spend time in Asia researching and preparing stories for Canadian audiences. The goal of the program is to help Canadian journalists become better informed about this dynamic ... Show Full Article VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Aug. 2 -- The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada issued the following news release: * * * APF Canada Announces Launch of 2026-27 Media Fellowship Program The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APF Canada) is pleased to announce the launch of its annual Media Fellowship Program for 2026-27. The APF Canada Media Fellowship Program, launched in 1986, offers two Canadian journalists the opportunity to spend time in Asia researching and preparing stories for Canadian audiences. The goal of the program is to help Canadian journalists become better informed about this dynamicpart of the world in order to write and broadcast insightfully on Asia and Canada-Asia relations.
To date, the program has supported 102 journalists, including well-known Canadian media figures such as Carol Off, John Ivison, Daphne Bramham, Nathan VanderKlippe, Chantal Hebert, Paul Kennedy, Francis Bula, Hayley Woodin Hastings, and Laura-Julie Perreault, among others.
Two 2026-2027 APF Canada Media Fellows will receive up to C$10,000 each for travel, accommodation, and in-country expenses. This year, proposals that align with the Foundation's current work around emerging technology, AI and data governance, economic security and supply chain resilience, maritime governance and security, energy security, climate solutions, space, trade and investment, and the Arctic will be given preferential consideration.
"As Canadians turn their attention and aspirations increasingly to the Indo-Pacific region, it is more important than ever that they be well-informed," said Jeff Nankivell, President and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. "A strong, sovereign Canada needs a strong independent media industry, and for decades now, APF Canada's Media Fellowships have supported professional journalists in their pursuit of new and important stories on issues impacting Asia and relevant to Canada. I look forward to the contributions of this year's Media Fellows."
The application deadline is August 31, 2026 (11:59 p.m. PT).
For more details on the APF Canada Media Fellowship Program and how to apply, please follow this link (http://www.asiapacific.ca/grants/media-fellowships).
* * *
About the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada is Canada's only national public-purpose institution dedicated exclusively to Canada-Asia engagement. Our vision is a prosperous, secure Canada shaping its future through high-impact engagement with Asia, and our mission is to enable Canadians to understand, connect with, and succeed in Asia.
Through trusted insights, high-level convening, talent development, and building sustained partnerships, we enable more effective, durable, and impactful Canadian engagement across the Indo-Pacific.
APF Canada sets an annual agenda for research, policy dialogue, convening, and education aligned with Canada's priorities across key domains including: diplomacy, security, and strategic partnerships; trade and investment diversification; supply-chain resilience; middle-power coalition-building; technology and innovation collaboration in priority and emerging sectors; and co-operation on global challenges such as energy security, food security, and climate change.
For over four decades, our research has provided high-quality, relevant, and timely information, insights, and perspectives on Canada-Asia relations for Canadians and stakeholders across the Asia Pacific.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.asiapacific.ca/media/news-releases/60101
* * *
APF Canada Announces Launch of 2026-27 Media Fellowship Program
The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APF Canada) is pleased to announce the launch of its annual Media Fellowship Program for 2026-27.
The APF Canada Media Fellowship Program, launched in 1986, offers two Canadian journalists the opportunity to spend time in Asia researching and preparing stories for Canadian audiences. The goal of the program is to help Canadian journalists become better informed about this dynamic ... Show Full Article VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Aug. 2 -- The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada issued the following news release: * * * APF Canada Announces Launch of 2026-27 Media Fellowship Program The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APF Canada) is pleased to announce the launch of its annual Media Fellowship Program for 2026-27. The APF Canada Media Fellowship Program, launched in 1986, offers two Canadian journalists the opportunity to spend time in Asia researching and preparing stories for Canadian audiences. The goal of the program is to help Canadian journalists become better informed about this dynamicpart of the world in order to write and broadcast insightfully on Asia and Canada-Asia relations.
To date, the program has supported 102 journalists, including well-known Canadian media figures such as Carol Off, John Ivison, Daphne Bramham, Nathan VanderKlippe, Chantal Hebert, Paul Kennedy, Francis Bula, Hayley Woodin Hastings, and Laura-Julie Perreault, among others.
Two 2026-2027 APF Canada Media Fellows will receive up to C$10,000 each for travel, accommodation, and in-country expenses. This year, proposals that align with the Foundation's current work around emerging technology, AI and data governance, economic security and supply chain resilience, maritime governance and security, energy security, climate solutions, space, trade and investment, and the Arctic will be given preferential consideration.
"As Canadians turn their attention and aspirations increasingly to the Indo-Pacific region, it is more important than ever that they be well-informed," said Jeff Nankivell, President and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. "A strong, sovereign Canada needs a strong independent media industry, and for decades now, APF Canada's Media Fellowships have supported professional journalists in their pursuit of new and important stories on issues impacting Asia and relevant to Canada. I look forward to the contributions of this year's Media Fellows."
The application deadline is August 31, 2026 (11:59 p.m. PT).
For more details on the APF Canada Media Fellowship Program and how to apply, please follow this link (http://www.asiapacific.ca/grants/media-fellowships).
* * *
About the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada is Canada's only national public-purpose institution dedicated exclusively to Canada-Asia engagement. Our vision is a prosperous, secure Canada shaping its future through high-impact engagement with Asia, and our mission is to enable Canadians to understand, connect with, and succeed in Asia.
Through trusted insights, high-level convening, talent development, and building sustained partnerships, we enable more effective, durable, and impactful Canadian engagement across the Indo-Pacific.
APF Canada sets an annual agenda for research, policy dialogue, convening, and education aligned with Canada's priorities across key domains including: diplomacy, security, and strategic partnerships; trade and investment diversification; supply-chain resilience; middle-power coalition-building; technology and innovation collaboration in priority and emerging sectors; and co-operation on global challenges such as energy security, food security, and climate change.
For over four decades, our research has provided high-quality, relevant, and timely information, insights, and perspectives on Canada-Asia relations for Canadians and stakeholders across the Asia Pacific.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.asiapacific.ca/media/news-releases/60101
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Trump's Department of Transportation Unevenly Advances Deregulation as Transparency Declines
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner:
* * *
Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
-
The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statements ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner: * * * Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. - The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statementson regulatory priorities. The Unified Agenda is intended as a biannual snapshot of the federal administrative state and tracks the thousands of regulatory actions across hundreds of agencies. While imperfect in many ways, it does provide some valuable insight into forthcoming federal agency actions. For each edition of the Unified Agenda, Reason Foundation surveys the rulemaking activities at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
This edition indicates that the professed deregulatory mission of the second Trump administration continues to be implemented at the Department of Transportation. But this general commitment to deregulation is not uniform, with several rulemaking projects being proposed that would increase regulation. The regulatory proposals generally involve other Trump administration policy priorities, suggesting that the Trump administration's commitment to deregulation has its limits. In addition, the Trump administration's public documentation of its regulatory reform efforts has become noticeably less frequent, raising serious concerns about regulatory transparency.
While it doesn't explicitly spell out its publication schedule, OIRA suggests by the publication name and contents that this will be the only edition published in 2026 after having missed publication of the Fall 2025 Unified Agenda, which also should have included the 2025 Regulatory Plan. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the publication of agency regulatory flexibility agendas in April and October of each year (5 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)). The publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda with an annual Regulatory Plan that accompanies the Fall editions of the Unified Agenda suggest that OIRA has forgone the Spring 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda. Consistent with that, OIRA has labeled it the "2026" edition without a seasonal identifier.
In its 2026 Regulatory Plan statement of regulatory priorities, the U.S. Department of Transportation states that it "oversaw the Federal Government's largest deregulatory program" during the first Trump administration and "intends to build upon this success in the second Trump [a]dministration."
According to OIRA's accounting of agency actions under the Executive Order (EO) 14192 requirement that agencies issue 10 deregulatory actions for each new regulatory action, the U.S. Department of Transportation initiated 78 deregulatory actions and zero regulatory actions in FY 2025 for a cost savings of $23 million. In terms of deregulatory actions, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked third (after the Departments of Treasury and Veterans Affairs) and accounted for 12.1% of reported deregulatory actions across the federal government. In terms of cost savings, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked 13th and accounted for just one-hundredth of one percent of federal-wide regulatory cost savings.
I previously examined the transportation rulemakings contained in Spring 2025, Fall 2024, Spring 2024, Fall 2023, Spring 2023, Fall 2022, Spring 2022, Fall 2021, Spring 2021, and Spring 2020 editions of the Unified Agenda for Reason Foundation. From a historical perspective, Figure 1 below shows that the 2026 volume of regulatory activity at the U.S. Department of Transportation has reverted to closer to the historical average after an unprecedented Spring 2025 edition that exceeded the previous record number of newly published rulemaking projects set in Spring 1996 by nearly 50%.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Of those 315, 45 are new rulemaking projects first published in the 2026 edition. These new rulemaking projects are listed in Table 1 at the bottom of this article.
The Unified Agenda contains rules determined to be "significant regulatory actions," or "economically significant" rules, which had been defined by EO 12866 (1993) as regulations that would have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or otherwise "adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." Rules deemed economically significant are subject to greater scrutiny, most notably a requirement that agencies conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the proposed regulation.
When the Biden administration issued EO 14094 (2023), the annual cost threshold for a rule to be considered a "significant regulatory action" doubled to $200 million plus an inflation adjustment every three years. A discussion of the rationale and implications of this change can be found in my review of the Fall 2023 edition of the Unified Agenda.
One important implication is that EO 14094 made historical comparisons of the stock and flow of "economically significant rules" more challenging. Fortunately, as part of the Congressional Review Act, Congress itself requires a separate "major" rule designation that retains the traditional $100 million threshold (5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2)(A)), allowing for continued like-for-like historical accounting.
Figure 1 maintains the $100 million cost threshold by counting "major" rules instead of "economically significant" rules. While Trump revoked EO 14094 (2023) as part of EO 14148 (2025) and thereby restored the traditional $100 million cost threshold for "economically significant" rules, we have opted to count "major" rules rather than economically significant rules to ensure continuity and historical comparability.
There are currently 12 "major" rules under development at the Department of Transportation. Of the 45 new rulemaking projects that first appeared in the 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda, only one has been designated a "major" rule. However, 23 have a "major" status listed as "undetermined," meaning they could be later designated as "major" rules as they move through the rulemaking process and economic costs are estimated.
Transportation deregulation in the first half of the second Trump administration
Given that Trump signed an executive order titled "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," it should perhaps not be surprising that the U.S. Department of Transportation has categorized many of its newly announced rulemaking actions as "deregulatory." That order, EO 14192, established a regulatory budget, which necessitates the categorization of rules as "regulatory" or "deregulatory." OIRA issued a memo in March 2025 providing guidance on this process.
According to the 2026 Unified Agenda, of the Department of Transportation's 45 newly announced rulemaking projects, 30 are categorized as "deregulatory," seven are categorized as "regulatory," with the remainder being categorized as "fully or partially exempt," "not subject to, not significant," or "other." This works out to a deregulatory-to-regulatory action ratio of 4.29:1, less than half the targeted 10:1 ratio in EO 14192. However, adding the U.S. Department of Transportation's completed regulatory activities from FY 2025 yields a deregulatory-to-regulatory ratio of 15:1, which suggests the current pipeline of regulatory activities is still on track to comply with EO 14192.
Setting aside the raw counts of regulatory actions, the specific actions that are categorized as regulatory or deregulatory reveal Trump administration transportation priorities. The seven actions announced in the 2026 Unified Agenda that are categorized as regulatory are two aviation equipment mandates from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on shielding aircraft altimeters from 5G radio wave interference (2120-AM21) and increasing airliner cockpit voice recording times from two hours to 25 hours (2120-AM19), one that would apply Buy America domestic content requirements to electric vehicle chargers procured under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program (2125-AG29), and four increasing requirements on the trucking workforce from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (2126-AC99, 2126-AD00, 2126-AD03, 2126-AC98).
All but one of these actions is justified as addressing a purported safety market failure. The arguments for the FAA altimeter shielding and 25-hour flight recorder requirements, which reflect a safety policy consensus, are better grounded than the FMCSA's crackdown on noncitizen truck drivers, which appear to be motivated by the Trump administration's broader policy agenda against immigration and has already spawned litigation. The other action, FHWA's Buy America requirements for federally funded electric vehicle charging stations, increases burdens on vehicle technology disfavored by the administration while being consistent with the economic protectionism that has animated the past three presidential administrations.
In contrast, Department of Transportation rulemakings around technologies and practices favored by the Trump administration tend to be categorized as deregulatory. This is most obvious in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's continued work to advance automated vehicle technologies. The 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda contains seven newly published rulemakings designed to clear a regulatory path for vehicle automation technologies and enable commercial deployment, all categorized as deregulatory, which are listed below:
* Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment (2127-AM99);
* Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 (2127-AN02);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles (2127-AM96);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN00);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN03);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicle (2127-AN04);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN05).
The use of regulation by any presidential administration to advance its policy priorities is to be expected. Elections have consequences, after all. While its professed commitment to deregulation is being applied unevenly, the Trump Department of Transportation's attention is welcome. However, if political leadership wishes to see durable deregulatory reforms, action must come from Congress to limit Executive Branch opportunities to engage in discretionary regulation in the first place.
Short of major economic policy reforms, Congress should at the very least demand regulatory transparency. The inconsistent publication of the Unified Agenda by the second Trump administration is concerning in this regard. The failure to meet the Regulatory Flexibility Act's biannual publication requirements is not unprecedented--the Obama administration published just a single edition of the Unified Agenda in 2012--but it is highly atypical. As it stands, the second Trump administration is on track to miss publication of at least two Unified Agenda editions, which would be unprecedented.
Congress should seek an explanation from the administration for this decline in regulatory transparency as well as a commitment to resume regular regulatory agenda publication consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. To further advance regulatory transparency, the U.S. Department of Transportation should resume publication of the Monthly Significant Rulemaking Report, which offered more frequent updates on the development economically significant rules. This report ceased regular publication during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at the end of the first Trump administration, was published only twice during the Biden administration, and was then terminated by the second Trump administration, also without explanation.
* * *
Table 1: U.S. Department of Transportation Rulemaking Projects First Published in the 2026 Unified Agenda
Agency ... Stage of Rulemaking ... Title ... RIN
OST ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Subtitle B of Title 2 on Federal Financial Assistance ... 2105-AF44
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Eliminating T-8 Report of All Cargo Operations ... 2105-AF41
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Corrections to DOT Operating Administration Titles ... 2105-AF42
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Updates to Aviation Economic Procedural Regulations ... 2105-AF43
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Rescinding Portions of Department of Transportation's Title VI Regulations to Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and to Implement Executive Order 14281 ... 2105-AF45
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing to Electronic Payments ... 2120-AM16
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flexibility Enhancements of Weather Reporting Systems ... 2120-AM17
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Improving Emergency Medical Kit Efficacy and Flexibility in Commercial Airline Operations ... 2120-AM18
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector Observation of Pilot-in-Command Requirement ... 2120-AM20
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Requirements for Certain Aircraft to be Equipped with Interference Tolerant NextGen Radio Altimeter Systems ... 2120-AM21
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Space Launch and Reentry Licensing and Permitting User Fees ... 2120-AM22
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of FAA Third-Class Medical Certificate Requirement for Military Pilot Trainees ... 2120-AM23
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flight Operations: Pilot requirements; Use of oxygen ... 2120-AM24
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing Medical Standards For Certain Low-Risk Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Cases ... 2120-AM25
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Streamlined Launch and Reentry License Requirements Improvement ... 2120-AM26
FAA ... Final Rule Stage ... 25 Hour Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) Requirements for Existing Aircraft ... 2120-AM19
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements - Buy America Standard for Electric Vehicle Chargers ... 2125-AG29
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2125-AG30
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... English Language Proficiency, Out of Service Criteria ... 2126-AC99
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Program for Strengthening Certification Requirements of Training Providers ... 2126-AD00
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Passenger Carrier Regulations in 49 CFR Part 374 ... 2126-AD01
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Standards for Broker and Freight Forwarder Qualifications/Knowledge ... 2126-AD02
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards ... 2126-AD03
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (NDCDL) ... 2126-AC98
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Amendments ... 2126-AD04
NHTSA Prerule Stage ... Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment ... 2127-AM99
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Seat Belt Assurance System Compliance Option for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AN01
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 ... 2127-AN02
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AM96
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AM97
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 122a, "Motorcycle Brake Systems" ... 2127-AM98
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AN00
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN03
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN04
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN05
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Litigation Protections for System Safety Program and Risk Reduction Program Information ... 2130-AD62
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Amendments to Streamline and Modernize Regulations Pertaining to New Safety Technology ... 2130-AD63
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ... 2130-AD64
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Major Capital Investment Projects ... 2132-AB62
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Charter Service ... 2132-AB63
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2132-AB64
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Seaway Rules and Regulations: Periodic Updates, Various Categories ... 2135-AA59
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Tariff of Tolls ... 2135-AA60
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Providing Regulatory Relief for Last Mile Delivery of Retail Products ... 2137-AG20
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Advancing Safety of Highway, Rail, and Vessel Transportation ... 2137-AG21
Source: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 2026
Note: RIN = Regulation Identifier Number, a unique alphanumeric code assigned by the Regulatory Information Service Center to each rulemaking project listed in the Unified Agenda. An explanation of Stage of Rulemaking terms can be found on page 13 of the Introduction to the Unified Agenda from the Regulatory Information Service Center.
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/trumps-department-of-transportation-unevenly-advances-deregulation-as-transparency-declines/
* * *
Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
-
The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statements ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner: * * * Trump's Department of Transportation unevenly advances deregulation as transparency declines The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. - The White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) published on July 3 the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions along with the annual Regulatory Plan, which is composed of agency statementson regulatory priorities. The Unified Agenda is intended as a biannual snapshot of the federal administrative state and tracks the thousands of regulatory actions across hundreds of agencies. While imperfect in many ways, it does provide some valuable insight into forthcoming federal agency actions. For each edition of the Unified Agenda, Reason Foundation surveys the rulemaking activities at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
This edition indicates that the professed deregulatory mission of the second Trump administration continues to be implemented at the Department of Transportation. But this general commitment to deregulation is not uniform, with several rulemaking projects being proposed that would increase regulation. The regulatory proposals generally involve other Trump administration policy priorities, suggesting that the Trump administration's commitment to deregulation has its limits. In addition, the Trump administration's public documentation of its regulatory reform efforts has become noticeably less frequent, raising serious concerns about regulatory transparency.
While it doesn't explicitly spell out its publication schedule, OIRA suggests by the publication name and contents that this will be the only edition published in 2026 after having missed publication of the Fall 2025 Unified Agenda, which also should have included the 2025 Regulatory Plan. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the publication of agency regulatory flexibility agendas in April and October of each year (5 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)). The publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda with an annual Regulatory Plan that accompanies the Fall editions of the Unified Agenda suggest that OIRA has forgone the Spring 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda. Consistent with that, OIRA has labeled it the "2026" edition without a seasonal identifier.
In its 2026 Regulatory Plan statement of regulatory priorities, the U.S. Department of Transportation states that it "oversaw the Federal Government's largest deregulatory program" during the first Trump administration and "intends to build upon this success in the second Trump [a]dministration."
According to OIRA's accounting of agency actions under the Executive Order (EO) 14192 requirement that agencies issue 10 deregulatory actions for each new regulatory action, the U.S. Department of Transportation initiated 78 deregulatory actions and zero regulatory actions in FY 2025 for a cost savings of $23 million. In terms of deregulatory actions, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked third (after the Departments of Treasury and Veterans Affairs) and accounted for 12.1% of reported deregulatory actions across the federal government. In terms of cost savings, the U.S. Department of Transportation ranked 13th and accounted for just one-hundredth of one percent of federal-wide regulatory cost savings.
I previously examined the transportation rulemakings contained in Spring 2025, Fall 2024, Spring 2024, Fall 2023, Spring 2023, Fall 2022, Spring 2022, Fall 2021, Spring 2021, and Spring 2020 editions of the Unified Agenda for Reason Foundation. From a historical perspective, Figure 1 below shows that the 2026 volume of regulatory activity at the U.S. Department of Transportation has reverted to closer to the historical average after an unprecedented Spring 2025 edition that exceeded the previous record number of newly published rulemaking projects set in Spring 1996 by nearly 50%.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
The 2026 Unified Agenda lists 315 active rulemaking projects at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Of those 315, 45 are new rulemaking projects first published in the 2026 edition. These new rulemaking projects are listed in Table 1 at the bottom of this article.
The Unified Agenda contains rules determined to be "significant regulatory actions," or "economically significant" rules, which had been defined by EO 12866 (1993) as regulations that would have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or otherwise "adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." Rules deemed economically significant are subject to greater scrutiny, most notably a requirement that agencies conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the proposed regulation.
When the Biden administration issued EO 14094 (2023), the annual cost threshold for a rule to be considered a "significant regulatory action" doubled to $200 million plus an inflation adjustment every three years. A discussion of the rationale and implications of this change can be found in my review of the Fall 2023 edition of the Unified Agenda.
One important implication is that EO 14094 made historical comparisons of the stock and flow of "economically significant rules" more challenging. Fortunately, as part of the Congressional Review Act, Congress itself requires a separate "major" rule designation that retains the traditional $100 million threshold (5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2)(A)), allowing for continued like-for-like historical accounting.
Figure 1 maintains the $100 million cost threshold by counting "major" rules instead of "economically significant" rules. While Trump revoked EO 14094 (2023) as part of EO 14148 (2025) and thereby restored the traditional $100 million cost threshold for "economically significant" rules, we have opted to count "major" rules rather than economically significant rules to ensure continuity and historical comparability.
There are currently 12 "major" rules under development at the Department of Transportation. Of the 45 new rulemaking projects that first appeared in the 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda, only one has been designated a "major" rule. However, 23 have a "major" status listed as "undetermined," meaning they could be later designated as "major" rules as they move through the rulemaking process and economic costs are estimated.
Transportation deregulation in the first half of the second Trump administration
Given that Trump signed an executive order titled "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," it should perhaps not be surprising that the U.S. Department of Transportation has categorized many of its newly announced rulemaking actions as "deregulatory." That order, EO 14192, established a regulatory budget, which necessitates the categorization of rules as "regulatory" or "deregulatory." OIRA issued a memo in March 2025 providing guidance on this process.
According to the 2026 Unified Agenda, of the Department of Transportation's 45 newly announced rulemaking projects, 30 are categorized as "deregulatory," seven are categorized as "regulatory," with the remainder being categorized as "fully or partially exempt," "not subject to, not significant," or "other." This works out to a deregulatory-to-regulatory action ratio of 4.29:1, less than half the targeted 10:1 ratio in EO 14192. However, adding the U.S. Department of Transportation's completed regulatory activities from FY 2025 yields a deregulatory-to-regulatory ratio of 15:1, which suggests the current pipeline of regulatory activities is still on track to comply with EO 14192.
Setting aside the raw counts of regulatory actions, the specific actions that are categorized as regulatory or deregulatory reveal Trump administration transportation priorities. The seven actions announced in the 2026 Unified Agenda that are categorized as regulatory are two aviation equipment mandates from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on shielding aircraft altimeters from 5G radio wave interference (2120-AM21) and increasing airliner cockpit voice recording times from two hours to 25 hours (2120-AM19), one that would apply Buy America domestic content requirements to electric vehicle chargers procured under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program (2125-AG29), and four increasing requirements on the trucking workforce from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (2126-AC99, 2126-AD00, 2126-AD03, 2126-AC98).
All but one of these actions is justified as addressing a purported safety market failure. The arguments for the FAA altimeter shielding and 25-hour flight recorder requirements, which reflect a safety policy consensus, are better grounded than the FMCSA's crackdown on noncitizen truck drivers, which appear to be motivated by the Trump administration's broader policy agenda against immigration and has already spawned litigation. The other action, FHWA's Buy America requirements for federally funded electric vehicle charging stations, increases burdens on vehicle technology disfavored by the administration while being consistent with the economic protectionism that has animated the past three presidential administrations.
In contrast, Department of Transportation rulemakings around technologies and practices favored by the Trump administration tend to be categorized as deregulatory. This is most obvious in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's continued work to advance automated vehicle technologies. The 2026 edition of the Unified Agenda contains seven newly published rulemakings designed to clear a regulatory path for vehicle automation technologies and enable commercial deployment, all categorized as deregulatory, which are listed below:
* Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment (2127-AM99);
* Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 (2127-AN02);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles (2127-AM96);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN00);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN03);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicle (2127-AN04);
* Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles (2127-AN05).
The use of regulation by any presidential administration to advance its policy priorities is to be expected. Elections have consequences, after all. While its professed commitment to deregulation is being applied unevenly, the Trump Department of Transportation's attention is welcome. However, if political leadership wishes to see durable deregulatory reforms, action must come from Congress to limit Executive Branch opportunities to engage in discretionary regulation in the first place.
Short of major economic policy reforms, Congress should at the very least demand regulatory transparency. The inconsistent publication of the Unified Agenda by the second Trump administration is concerning in this regard. The failure to meet the Regulatory Flexibility Act's biannual publication requirements is not unprecedented--the Obama administration published just a single edition of the Unified Agenda in 2012--but it is highly atypical. As it stands, the second Trump administration is on track to miss publication of at least two Unified Agenda editions, which would be unprecedented.
Congress should seek an explanation from the administration for this decline in regulatory transparency as well as a commitment to resume regular regulatory agenda publication consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. To further advance regulatory transparency, the U.S. Department of Transportation should resume publication of the Monthly Significant Rulemaking Report, which offered more frequent updates on the development economically significant rules. This report ceased regular publication during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at the end of the first Trump administration, was published only twice during the Biden administration, and was then terminated by the second Trump administration, also without explanation.
* * *
Table 1: U.S. Department of Transportation Rulemaking Projects First Published in the 2026 Unified Agenda
Agency ... Stage of Rulemaking ... Title ... RIN
OST ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Subtitle B of Title 2 on Federal Financial Assistance ... 2105-AF44
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Eliminating T-8 Report of All Cargo Operations ... 2105-AF41
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Corrections to DOT Operating Administration Titles ... 2105-AF42
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Updates to Aviation Economic Procedural Regulations ... 2105-AF43
OST ... Final Rule Stage ... Rescinding Portions of Department of Transportation's Title VI Regulations to Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and to Implement Executive Order 14281 ... 2105-AF45
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing to Electronic Payments ... 2120-AM16
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flexibility Enhancements of Weather Reporting Systems ... 2120-AM17
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Improving Emergency Medical Kit Efficacy and Flexibility in Commercial Airline Operations ... 2120-AM18
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector Observation of Pilot-in-Command Requirement ... 2120-AM20
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Requirements for Certain Aircraft to be Equipped with Interference Tolerant NextGen Radio Altimeter Systems ... 2120-AM21
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Space Launch and Reentry Licensing and Permitting User Fees ... 2120-AM22
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Removal of FAA Third-Class Medical Certificate Requirement for Military Pilot Trainees ... 2120-AM23
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Flight Operations: Pilot requirements; Use of oxygen ... 2120-AM24
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernizing Medical Standards For Certain Low-Risk Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Cases ... 2120-AM25
FAA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Streamlined Launch and Reentry License Requirements Improvement ... 2120-AM26
FAA ... Final Rule Stage ... 25 Hour Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) Requirements for Existing Aircraft ... 2120-AM19
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements - Buy America Standard for Electric Vehicle Chargers ... 2125-AG29
FHWA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2125-AG30
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... English Language Proficiency, Out of Service Criteria ... 2126-AC99
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Program for Strengthening Certification Requirements of Training Providers ... 2126-AD00
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Passenger Carrier Regulations in 49 CFR Part 374 ... 2126-AD01
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Standards for Broker and Freight Forwarder Qualifications/Knowledge ... 2126-AD02
FMCSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards ... 2126-AD03
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (NDCDL) ... 2126-AC98
FMCSA ... Final Rule Stage ... Technical Amendments ... 2126-AD04
NHTSA Prerule Stage ... Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Performance Assessment ... 2127-AM99
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Seat Belt Assurance System Compliance Option for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AN01
NHTSA ... Prerule Stage ... Amending Bumper Standard 49 CFR part 581 ... 2127-AN02
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 110 to Accommodate ADS-equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AM96
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" ... 2127-AM97
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernize FMVSS No. 122a, "Motorcycle Brake Systems" ... 2127-AM98
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles ... 2127-AN00
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN03
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 201 and FMVSS No. 208 to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN04
NHTSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Modernization of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, to Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. ... 2127-AN05
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Litigation Protections for System Safety Program and Risk Reduction Program Information ... 2130-AD62
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Amendments to Streamline and Modernize Regulations Pertaining to New Safety Technology ... 2130-AD63
FRA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ... 2130-AD64
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Major Capital Investment Projects ... 2132-AB62
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Charter Service ... 2132-AB63
FTA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Revisions to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ... 2132-AB64
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Seaway Rules and Regulations: Periodic Updates, Various Categories ... 2135-AA59
SLSDC ... Final Rule Stage ... Tariff of Tolls ... 2135-AA60
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Providing Regulatory Relief for Last Mile Delivery of Retail Products ... 2137-AG20
PHMSA ... Proposed Rule Stage ... Hazardous Materials: Advancing Safety of Highway, Rail, and Vessel Transportation ... 2137-AG21
Source: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 2026
Note: RIN = Regulation Identifier Number, a unique alphanumeric code assigned by the Regulatory Information Service Center to each rulemaking project listed in the Unified Agenda. An explanation of Stage of Rulemaking terms can be found on page 13 of the Introduction to the Unified Agenda from the Regulatory Information Service Center.
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/trumps-department-of-transportation-unevenly-advances-deregulation-as-transparency-declines/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Transit Contracting Works When Agencies Pay for Performance
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera:
* * *
Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance
Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination.
-
When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works.
The separation of responsibilities depends ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera: * * * Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination. - When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works. The separation of responsibilities dependson the contract. For example, in Douglas County, Georgia, as part of a 2025 agreement with transportation company Via, the company handles service planning, routing technology, call-center operations, vehicles, maintenance, and marketing, while the county sets service requirements and priorities, administers the contract, and monitors performance. This is how many contracted transit agreements work.
Competitive procurement allows agencies to compare providers, replace poor performers, and add services without immediately expanding in-house capacity. A 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey found that 61% of the 463 agencies that responded contracted for some operations or support services. Among large agencies, the share reached about 92%. Respondents cited lower costs, specialized expertise, greater flexibility, and the ability to launch service without first purchasing vehicles, building facilities, or hiring an entire workforce.
But not all transit modes are contracted equally. According to 2024 National Transit Database (NTD) data, purchased transportation accounted for about 61% of demand-response operating expenses but only about 1% of heavy-rail operating expenses. Rail systems require a more specialized skillset that not all contractors possess. However, some U.S. rail systems and most systems in Europe and Japan are contracted, indicating it is feasible.
Where competition exists, contractors that fail to meet performance standards risk penalties, lower evaluations, or contract termination. These consequences create financial incentives to address maintenance, staffing, and complaints, but they do not guarantee better service. GAO found mixed evidence. Some studies reported no measurable difference from in-house operations, while others found more collisions or breakdowns. Results depend on contract design and enforcement.
Effective contract enforcement requires criteria that evaluate service delivery, reliability, safety, vehicle condition, preventable breakdowns, and complaints in ways that meet the jurisdiction's goals. Giving one measure too much weight can distort an operator's decisions. For example, an operator could improve on-time performance or reduce reported breakdowns by cutting routes or canceling trips.
This kind of contracting only works if agencies select operators capable of meeting the contract's performance standards. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allows best-value procurement rather than requiring selection based solely on the lowest price. An unusually cheap proposal may rely on unrealistic staffing assumptions, deferred maintenance, or service levels the bidder cannot sustain. Evaluating factors such as safety, past performance, workforce and maintenance plans, management experience, and financial capacity alongside price gives agencies a better chance of selecting a reliable operator. Agencies must then verify performance, audit reported results, and enforce the agreement throughout the contract.
Transit agencies across the country are already applying these principles. Foothill Transit shows how a public agency can retain control while private companies operate service. Foothill sets routes, fares, service levels, and capital plans, while Keolis and Transdev operate and maintain its buses. After Foothill replaced routes previously run by the Southern California Rapid Transit District with competitively contracted service, ridership rose about 30%. One comparison found that Foothill carried 14% more riders than continued public operation was projected to carry, with no evidence that service quality worsened. Foothill's current Keolis contract also ties incentives to on-time performance, customer service, and maintenance.
Wilson, North Carolina, shows another reason agencies contract services. Rather than develop and operate the new service in-house, the city hired Via to run RIDE, which replaced its fixed-route bus system. In 2024, RIDE provided 63% more trips at a 37% lower operating cost per trip than Wilson's former system. The switch also expanded coverage and reduced wait times at similar funding levels, giving Wilson specialized operating capacity without having to develop those capabilities in-house.
Cost savings are possible, but they should not be assumed. Running services in-house can sometimes be less expensive, especially if an agency already has the staff, facilities, and management needed to operate efficiently. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 258 reported that earlier federally funded studies found operating-cost savings of about 10% to 50% for some competitively contracted bus and demand-response services. However, the report warned that these results are difficult to generalize because the studies used different methods and often did not fully include procurement, contract administration, monitoring, and other transaction costs. Reported savings resulted from lower contractor wages and benefits translating to greater efficiency. As labor is the primary operating cost of transit services, lowering these costs while maintaining or improving service quality is crucial to improving efficiency.
The broader lesson is that successful contracting relies more on how agencies design, procure, and manage contracts than on whether the service is public or private. Agencies considering contracting should therefore follow four principles:
1. Contract only services with clearly assigned responsibilities and measurable performance standards.
2. Use best-value procurement rather than selecting operators based on price alone.
3. Tie payment and contract renewal to measurable rider outcomes, including reliability, safety, completed service, and customer experience.
4. Retain the staff, data, and authority needed to verify performance and enforce every agreement.
Transit agencies should decide who operates each service based on the required capabilities, available competition, total cost, and verified performance. Neither a contractor nor an in-house department should keep the work simply because it already has it. If another arrangement can provide better service or needed capabilities at a justified full cost, the agency should make the change.
* * *
Neliann Rivera is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/transit-contracting-works-when-agencies-pay-for-performance/
* * *
Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance
Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination.
-
When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works.
The separation of responsibilities depends ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 1 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera: * * * Transit contracting works when agencies pay for performance Where competition exists, contractors that miss performance standards risk penalties, weaker evaluations, or contract termination. - When transit agencies face rising costs or declining service, contracting with a private operator looks like either a cure-all solution or a threat to public transit. Neither view truly reflects how contracting works. The separation of responsibilities dependson the contract. For example, in Douglas County, Georgia, as part of a 2025 agreement with transportation company Via, the company handles service planning, routing technology, call-center operations, vehicles, maintenance, and marketing, while the county sets service requirements and priorities, administers the contract, and monitors performance. This is how many contracted transit agreements work.
Competitive procurement allows agencies to compare providers, replace poor performers, and add services without immediately expanding in-house capacity. A 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey found that 61% of the 463 agencies that responded contracted for some operations or support services. Among large agencies, the share reached about 92%. Respondents cited lower costs, specialized expertise, greater flexibility, and the ability to launch service without first purchasing vehicles, building facilities, or hiring an entire workforce.
But not all transit modes are contracted equally. According to 2024 National Transit Database (NTD) data, purchased transportation accounted for about 61% of demand-response operating expenses but only about 1% of heavy-rail operating expenses. Rail systems require a more specialized skillset that not all contractors possess. However, some U.S. rail systems and most systems in Europe and Japan are contracted, indicating it is feasible.
Where competition exists, contractors that fail to meet performance standards risk penalties, lower evaluations, or contract termination. These consequences create financial incentives to address maintenance, staffing, and complaints, but they do not guarantee better service. GAO found mixed evidence. Some studies reported no measurable difference from in-house operations, while others found more collisions or breakdowns. Results depend on contract design and enforcement.
Effective contract enforcement requires criteria that evaluate service delivery, reliability, safety, vehicle condition, preventable breakdowns, and complaints in ways that meet the jurisdiction's goals. Giving one measure too much weight can distort an operator's decisions. For example, an operator could improve on-time performance or reduce reported breakdowns by cutting routes or canceling trips.
This kind of contracting only works if agencies select operators capable of meeting the contract's performance standards. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allows best-value procurement rather than requiring selection based solely on the lowest price. An unusually cheap proposal may rely on unrealistic staffing assumptions, deferred maintenance, or service levels the bidder cannot sustain. Evaluating factors such as safety, past performance, workforce and maintenance plans, management experience, and financial capacity alongside price gives agencies a better chance of selecting a reliable operator. Agencies must then verify performance, audit reported results, and enforce the agreement throughout the contract.
Transit agencies across the country are already applying these principles. Foothill Transit shows how a public agency can retain control while private companies operate service. Foothill sets routes, fares, service levels, and capital plans, while Keolis and Transdev operate and maintain its buses. After Foothill replaced routes previously run by the Southern California Rapid Transit District with competitively contracted service, ridership rose about 30%. One comparison found that Foothill carried 14% more riders than continued public operation was projected to carry, with no evidence that service quality worsened. Foothill's current Keolis contract also ties incentives to on-time performance, customer service, and maintenance.
Wilson, North Carolina, shows another reason agencies contract services. Rather than develop and operate the new service in-house, the city hired Via to run RIDE, which replaced its fixed-route bus system. In 2024, RIDE provided 63% more trips at a 37% lower operating cost per trip than Wilson's former system. The switch also expanded coverage and reduced wait times at similar funding levels, giving Wilson specialized operating capacity without having to develop those capabilities in-house.
Cost savings are possible, but they should not be assumed. Running services in-house can sometimes be less expensive, especially if an agency already has the staff, facilities, and management needed to operate efficiently. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 258 reported that earlier federally funded studies found operating-cost savings of about 10% to 50% for some competitively contracted bus and demand-response services. However, the report warned that these results are difficult to generalize because the studies used different methods and often did not fully include procurement, contract administration, monitoring, and other transaction costs. Reported savings resulted from lower contractor wages and benefits translating to greater efficiency. As labor is the primary operating cost of transit services, lowering these costs while maintaining or improving service quality is crucial to improving efficiency.
The broader lesson is that successful contracting relies more on how agencies design, procure, and manage contracts than on whether the service is public or private. Agencies considering contracting should therefore follow four principles:
1. Contract only services with clearly assigned responsibilities and measurable performance standards.
2. Use best-value procurement rather than selecting operators based on price alone.
3. Tie payment and contract renewal to measurable rider outcomes, including reliability, safety, completed service, and customer experience.
4. Retain the staff, data, and authority needed to verify performance and enforce every agreement.
Transit agencies should decide who operates each service based on the required capabilities, available competition, total cost, and verified performance. Neither a contractor nor an in-house department should keep the work simply because it already has it. If another arrangement can provide better service or needed capabilities at a justified full cost, the agency should make the change.
* * *
Neliann Rivera is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/transit-contracting-works-when-agencies-pay-for-performance/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: How Washington Won the War
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by President Emeritus Lawrence W. Reed:
* * *
How Washington Won the War
Integrity, decorum, respectful discretion, and proper conduct.
This essay by FEE's President Emeritus is drawn largely from his forthcoming book, Born of Ideas: How Principles, Faith, and Courage Forged America, available for pre-order now on Amazon.
-
If you want to do well in a job interview, or impress high society at a fancy cocktail party, remember this useful tidbit of 18th-century advice: "Rinse not your mouth in ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by President Emeritus Lawrence W. Reed: * * * How Washington Won the War Integrity, decorum, respectful discretion, and proper conduct. This essay by FEE's President Emeritus is drawn largely from his forthcoming book, Born of Ideas: How Principles, Faith, and Courage Forged America, available for pre-order now on Amazon. - If you want to do well in a job interview, or impress high society at a fancy cocktail party, remember this useful tidbit of 18th-century advice: "Rinse not your mouth inthe presence of others."
A teenage George Washington copied that from a popular collection of maxims known in his day as "The 110 Rules of Civility." It was number 101. With the earliest versions dating back to French Jesuits in the 1590s, that manual of good behavior shaped Washington's character at a formative age. He was renowned in later life as a man of integrity who practiced the decorum, respectful discretion, and proper conduct outlined in that influential pamphlet. He certainly never gargled in front of anyone, so far as we know.
"Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company." That was rule number 56. Washington seems to have lived up to that one, too.
My personal favorite of all the rules is number 110, the very last one, because it conveys what made Washington exceptional: "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
As commander-in-chief of the Continental Army throughout America's eight-year War for Independence, Washington led the country to a victory that seemed beyond reach in the early stages. His lost battles outnumbered his wins by more than two to one. How did he manage to keep thousands of regular soldiers and militia on the same page for so long when few of them received more than a pittance in compensation while their families struggled in their absence?
To be sure, Washington was daring and audacious. Crossing the Delaware on a wintry Christmas night in 1776 to assault Hessian mercenaries was a master stroke. So was his plan five years later to lay siege to Yorktown and rely on French allies to bottle up the Royal Navy. Washington's use of spies is legendary; he even forged documents in his own handwriting and deployed double agents to deliver them and befuddle the best British generals. Avoiding a risky "grand battle," he skillfully implemented a strategy and the appropriate tactics to wear down the enemy. But on paper, it almost always looked like a British victory was the safest bet.
Washington's greatest strength was intangible in one sense but very real in another. It was linked to the last word in rule 110--conscience. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a faculty, power, or principle that steers toward what is right and away from what is wrong." A person of strong character is a person of conscience who tries to do what he believes is morally good. Conscience is an inner voice, a moral compass. It helps form our character and guides our decision-making. A leader who holds his character accountable to his conscience possesses the ability to inspire and motivate. Self-discipline comes naturally to him. He sets a standard others can admire and emulate.
A leader with neither conscience nor character can only lead at gunpoint. His "followers" are usually looking for the exits. He is aloof, imperious, erratic, distrusting, and untrustworthy. Washington was just the opposite. To his men, he epitomized honor, dignity, principle, and patriotism. He lived and suffered with them. He never accepted any payment for his services. He rejected any suggestions that he seize power or pursue personal fame. His commitment to the patriot cause never wavered, no matter how dire the circumstances. He exuded grace, humility, and self-mastery. In short, he gained respect by virtue of his demeanor and behavior. This is what wins wars when the numbers, the money, and the firepower say that you can't.
Samuel Downing served under Washington and echoed a common sentiment among fellow soldiers: "We loved him. They [the troops] would sell their lives for him." Washington's character inspired that intense loyalty and devotion.
In an essay on Washington's generalship, historian Thomas Fleming noted this additional aspect of the great man's leadership:
Perhaps the most appealing thing about Washington's strategy was its strong link to freedom. It eschewed the militaristic idea of hauling every man into the ranks at the point of a gun. It rested instead on faith in the courage of free men. It was a realistic faith: He did not expect men to commit suicide in defense of freedom, but he did believe men would take grave risks if they thought they had a reasonable chance of succeeding.
Testimonies too numerous to count demonstrate how Washington's conscience and character were manifested in matters large and small. One you may not have heard about involved a lost dog. It unfolded immediately after the British under General Howe inflicted defeat on the Continental Army at Germantown in fall 1777. Washington, incidentally, was a life-long dog lover. He owned at least 50 of them over his lifetime.
As the patriots tended to their dead and wounded, a small fox terrier wandered into their camp. It wore a collar bearing the name of General Howe. K.A. Wisniewski recounts what happened next:
Washington's soldiers, weary and demoralized, saw an opportunity for a symbolic victory. They proposed keeping the dog as a form of retaliation for their recent losses. But Washington, ever conscious of the importance of dignity and honor, saw things differently. He ordered the dog to be returned to Howe, along with a short, respectful note.
Washington dictated the note to his aide-de-camp, none other than Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton (who would later serve as America's first Secretary of the Treasury). It read:
General Washington's compliments to General Howe, [who] does himself the pleasure to return him a Dog, which accidentally fell into his hands, and by the inscription on the Collar appears to belong to General Howe.
"The story of General Howe's dog," writes Wisniewski, "though a small footnote in the vast annals of war, endures as a testament to Washington's character. In a time when conflict often reduced opponents to mere enemies, Washington's decision to return the dog signaled a belief in decency that transcended the battlefield."
Washington's religious convictions surely help explain his moral decency. Though he never flaunted his faith, he was a life-long Anglican/Episcopalian who served his church as both a vestryman and a church warden. Because of his distance from Pohick Church in Fairfax County and Christ Church in Alexandria and his busy schedule as a plantation owner, Washington attended church only about once a month, but he often worshiped at the nearest church when traveling. As President, he attended church regularly in Philadelphia. He prayed frequently and encouraged his men to do the same, endorsed days of fasting and thanksgiving, and spoke often of "Divine Providence" and the Creator who gave us a moral code to live by.
Nonetheless, the 21st-century critic will say, "How can you claim Washington to be a man of character and conscience when he was a slaveowner?!" This objection is an illustration of "presentism," the error of judging people of the past not in the context of their times--the prevailing culture and views and the actions of their contemporaries--but by the conventional perspectives of today.
The 18th century was a time of moral and intellectual awakening, a time when men and women in great numbers began to question the age-old, ubiquitous institution of human bondage. Some accepted it, never thought much about it, and couldn't bring themselves to oppose it. Others were instant converts to the anti-slavery cause the moment they first heard its message. Most people were somewhere in between. Their thinking evolved over time. That's how it was with Washington.
In a letter to Robert Morris in April 1786, Washington wrote, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery." His perspective on the issue had evolved substantially from the day he first inherited slaves at the age of 11, from acceptance to disapproval.
America is not exceptional because we had slavery. We are, however, exceptional because of the lengths to which we went to end it--inspired by the words of the Declaration of Independence.
Before the dawn of the 19th century, you could count on one hand the number of countries where slavery never existed. It dates back at least as far as 3500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia. This includes every country of the African continent. Indeed, even at the height of the transatlantic slave trade in the 18th century, white Europeans almost never dispatched raiding parties into the African interior to capture people and enslave them. Local tribes did the initial dirty work by kidnapping people and then selling them to foreign slavers at dockside. Slavery of Africans by Africans within Africa was big business for centuries.
Slavery was so common the world over for so long that Haiti is credited with being the first nation in history to abolish it. And that didn't happen until 1804! By then, eight American states had already abolished it (in the North and mid-Atlantic) or passed laws to phase it out. Vermont (not one of the original 13 Colonies) embraced abolition in 1777 when it was an independent republic, well before it became a state in 1791.
Under the Articles of Confederation in 1787, the American Congress banned slavery north of the Ohio River in the Northwest Territories. Only one member voted against it. President George Washington signed it into law.
The first African country to abolish slavery was the Seychelles, and that did not take effect until 1837. Human sacrifice was commonplace in West African states through the 1800s, and the great majority of its victims were slaves. The last African country to get rid of slavery was Mauritania, which formally ended it only 45 years ago, in 1981.
Denmark didn't get around to ending slavery in its Caribbean colonies until 1848.
A single-digit percentage of kidnapped Africans ended up in North America. Nearly half of them were sent to Brazil, which finally abolished slavery in 1888, more than two decades after the American Civil War.
The patriots of the American Revolution, armed with the promise expressed in the Declaration of Independence, did as much or more to put human bondage on the road to extinction than any other generation anywhere. They refused to codify it by name in the Constitution. They included a provision that outlawed the transatlantic trade in slaves beginning in 1808.
"But didn't the Constitution recognize each black slave as only three-fifths of a person?" you might ask. Yes, it did, but that too was a compromise for the sake of union, and it was only in regard to determining population for apportioning representation in the federal Congress. It was not a statement against the "worth" of black individuals vis-a-vis whites.
Southern slave states wanted all slaves to count in the census because it would result in greater representation in the Congress without giving slaves any rights. Northern states generally argued that no slaves should count toward representation because they weren't free to vote. The Three-Fifths Compromise limited Southern representation compared to what slaveholders had hoped for.
In the middle of the 1700s, almost nobody anywhere regarded slavery as wrong or even unusual. But around the same time, sentiment on the matter was beginning to shift. By asserting that "all men are created equal," the Declaration of Independence put America on the cutting edge of a nascent abolitionist movement. Opponents of slavery, including Frederick Douglass, used the language of the Declaration to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of latecomers to the abolitionist cause. He argued that both the Declaration and the Constitution were "liberty documents" that later generations of Americans needed to live up to.
Does anyone today know for certain that if he had been born in 1700, he would have become a crusading abolitionist? The odds are that you would not have traveled that path, because abolitionism was largely a 19th-century movement. It was inspired in great measure by the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal" premise.
Washington put his life on the line for that premise. Later generations would have to extend it to its logical conclusion--ending slavery--but at a critical moment in world history, people like him helped us journey further in that direction than ever before. He was not perfect, but then neither are we.
That we had a man of Washington's character and courage in the right post at the right time was a blessing for which Americans owe eternal appreciation.
* * *
Additional Reading
Slavery, Equality, and the American Revolution by Yuval Levin (https://america250.aei.org/volume/slavery-equality-and-the-american-revolution/)
Defending the Constitution: Why the Founders Couldn't Abolish Slavery by Rob Natelson (https://i2i.org/defending-the-constitution-why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery/)
How the Slaveholding Founders Really Felt About Slavery by Timothy Sandefur (https://reason.com/2026/05/05/how-the-slaveholding-founders-really-felt-about-slavery/)
Recognizing Hard Truths About Slavery by Lawrence W. Reed (https://fee.org/articles/recognizing-hard-truths-about-americas-history-with-slavery/)
The History of Slavery You Probably Weren't Taught in School by Lawrence W. Reed (https://fee.org/articles/the-history-of-slavery-you-probably-werent-taught-in-school/)
The Truth About Slavery and America by Jason Riley (https://www.city-journal.org/article/slavery-history-america-economy)
Women and the Founders by Lawrence W. Reed (https://www.lawrencewreed.com/blog/womenandfounders)
Locke or Rousseau: America vs. France by Lawrence W. Reed (https://www.lawrencewreed.com/blog/2026/7/1/locke-or-rousseau-america-vs-france)
The First State of the Union Address by Lawrence W. Reed (https://fee.org/articles/george-washington-s-state-of-the-union-address-holds-lessons-for-the-21st-century/)
* * *
Lawrence W. ("Larry") Reed is FEE's President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty. He previously served as president of FEE from 2008-2019. He chaired FEE's board of trustees in the 1990s and has been both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-washington-won-the-war/
* * *
How Washington Won the War
Integrity, decorum, respectful discretion, and proper conduct.
This essay by FEE's President Emeritus is drawn largely from his forthcoming book, Born of Ideas: How Principles, Faith, and Courage Forged America, available for pre-order now on Amazon.
-
If you want to do well in a job interview, or impress high society at a fancy cocktail party, remember this useful tidbit of 18th-century advice: "Rinse not your mouth in ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by President Emeritus Lawrence W. Reed: * * * How Washington Won the War Integrity, decorum, respectful discretion, and proper conduct. This essay by FEE's President Emeritus is drawn largely from his forthcoming book, Born of Ideas: How Principles, Faith, and Courage Forged America, available for pre-order now on Amazon. - If you want to do well in a job interview, or impress high society at a fancy cocktail party, remember this useful tidbit of 18th-century advice: "Rinse not your mouth inthe presence of others."
A teenage George Washington copied that from a popular collection of maxims known in his day as "The 110 Rules of Civility." It was number 101. With the earliest versions dating back to French Jesuits in the 1590s, that manual of good behavior shaped Washington's character at a formative age. He was renowned in later life as a man of integrity who practiced the decorum, respectful discretion, and proper conduct outlined in that influential pamphlet. He certainly never gargled in front of anyone, so far as we know.
"Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company." That was rule number 56. Washington seems to have lived up to that one, too.
My personal favorite of all the rules is number 110, the very last one, because it conveys what made Washington exceptional: "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
As commander-in-chief of the Continental Army throughout America's eight-year War for Independence, Washington led the country to a victory that seemed beyond reach in the early stages. His lost battles outnumbered his wins by more than two to one. How did he manage to keep thousands of regular soldiers and militia on the same page for so long when few of them received more than a pittance in compensation while their families struggled in their absence?
To be sure, Washington was daring and audacious. Crossing the Delaware on a wintry Christmas night in 1776 to assault Hessian mercenaries was a master stroke. So was his plan five years later to lay siege to Yorktown and rely on French allies to bottle up the Royal Navy. Washington's use of spies is legendary; he even forged documents in his own handwriting and deployed double agents to deliver them and befuddle the best British generals. Avoiding a risky "grand battle," he skillfully implemented a strategy and the appropriate tactics to wear down the enemy. But on paper, it almost always looked like a British victory was the safest bet.
Washington's greatest strength was intangible in one sense but very real in another. It was linked to the last word in rule 110--conscience. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a faculty, power, or principle that steers toward what is right and away from what is wrong." A person of strong character is a person of conscience who tries to do what he believes is morally good. Conscience is an inner voice, a moral compass. It helps form our character and guides our decision-making. A leader who holds his character accountable to his conscience possesses the ability to inspire and motivate. Self-discipline comes naturally to him. He sets a standard others can admire and emulate.
A leader with neither conscience nor character can only lead at gunpoint. His "followers" are usually looking for the exits. He is aloof, imperious, erratic, distrusting, and untrustworthy. Washington was just the opposite. To his men, he epitomized honor, dignity, principle, and patriotism. He lived and suffered with them. He never accepted any payment for his services. He rejected any suggestions that he seize power or pursue personal fame. His commitment to the patriot cause never wavered, no matter how dire the circumstances. He exuded grace, humility, and self-mastery. In short, he gained respect by virtue of his demeanor and behavior. This is what wins wars when the numbers, the money, and the firepower say that you can't.
Samuel Downing served under Washington and echoed a common sentiment among fellow soldiers: "We loved him. They [the troops] would sell their lives for him." Washington's character inspired that intense loyalty and devotion.
In an essay on Washington's generalship, historian Thomas Fleming noted this additional aspect of the great man's leadership:
Perhaps the most appealing thing about Washington's strategy was its strong link to freedom. It eschewed the militaristic idea of hauling every man into the ranks at the point of a gun. It rested instead on faith in the courage of free men. It was a realistic faith: He did not expect men to commit suicide in defense of freedom, but he did believe men would take grave risks if they thought they had a reasonable chance of succeeding.
Testimonies too numerous to count demonstrate how Washington's conscience and character were manifested in matters large and small. One you may not have heard about involved a lost dog. It unfolded immediately after the British under General Howe inflicted defeat on the Continental Army at Germantown in fall 1777. Washington, incidentally, was a life-long dog lover. He owned at least 50 of them over his lifetime.
As the patriots tended to their dead and wounded, a small fox terrier wandered into their camp. It wore a collar bearing the name of General Howe. K.A. Wisniewski recounts what happened next:
Washington's soldiers, weary and demoralized, saw an opportunity for a symbolic victory. They proposed keeping the dog as a form of retaliation for their recent losses. But Washington, ever conscious of the importance of dignity and honor, saw things differently. He ordered the dog to be returned to Howe, along with a short, respectful note.
Washington dictated the note to his aide-de-camp, none other than Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton (who would later serve as America's first Secretary of the Treasury). It read:
General Washington's compliments to General Howe, [who] does himself the pleasure to return him a Dog, which accidentally fell into his hands, and by the inscription on the Collar appears to belong to General Howe.
"The story of General Howe's dog," writes Wisniewski, "though a small footnote in the vast annals of war, endures as a testament to Washington's character. In a time when conflict often reduced opponents to mere enemies, Washington's decision to return the dog signaled a belief in decency that transcended the battlefield."
Washington's religious convictions surely help explain his moral decency. Though he never flaunted his faith, he was a life-long Anglican/Episcopalian who served his church as both a vestryman and a church warden. Because of his distance from Pohick Church in Fairfax County and Christ Church in Alexandria and his busy schedule as a plantation owner, Washington attended church only about once a month, but he often worshiped at the nearest church when traveling. As President, he attended church regularly in Philadelphia. He prayed frequently and encouraged his men to do the same, endorsed days of fasting and thanksgiving, and spoke often of "Divine Providence" and the Creator who gave us a moral code to live by.
Nonetheless, the 21st-century critic will say, "How can you claim Washington to be a man of character and conscience when he was a slaveowner?!" This objection is an illustration of "presentism," the error of judging people of the past not in the context of their times--the prevailing culture and views and the actions of their contemporaries--but by the conventional perspectives of today.
The 18th century was a time of moral and intellectual awakening, a time when men and women in great numbers began to question the age-old, ubiquitous institution of human bondage. Some accepted it, never thought much about it, and couldn't bring themselves to oppose it. Others were instant converts to the anti-slavery cause the moment they first heard its message. Most people were somewhere in between. Their thinking evolved over time. That's how it was with Washington.
In a letter to Robert Morris in April 1786, Washington wrote, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery." His perspective on the issue had evolved substantially from the day he first inherited slaves at the age of 11, from acceptance to disapproval.
America is not exceptional because we had slavery. We are, however, exceptional because of the lengths to which we went to end it--inspired by the words of the Declaration of Independence.
Before the dawn of the 19th century, you could count on one hand the number of countries where slavery never existed. It dates back at least as far as 3500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia. This includes every country of the African continent. Indeed, even at the height of the transatlantic slave trade in the 18th century, white Europeans almost never dispatched raiding parties into the African interior to capture people and enslave them. Local tribes did the initial dirty work by kidnapping people and then selling them to foreign slavers at dockside. Slavery of Africans by Africans within Africa was big business for centuries.
Slavery was so common the world over for so long that Haiti is credited with being the first nation in history to abolish it. And that didn't happen until 1804! By then, eight American states had already abolished it (in the North and mid-Atlantic) or passed laws to phase it out. Vermont (not one of the original 13 Colonies) embraced abolition in 1777 when it was an independent republic, well before it became a state in 1791.
Under the Articles of Confederation in 1787, the American Congress banned slavery north of the Ohio River in the Northwest Territories. Only one member voted against it. President George Washington signed it into law.
The first African country to abolish slavery was the Seychelles, and that did not take effect until 1837. Human sacrifice was commonplace in West African states through the 1800s, and the great majority of its victims were slaves. The last African country to get rid of slavery was Mauritania, which formally ended it only 45 years ago, in 1981.
Denmark didn't get around to ending slavery in its Caribbean colonies until 1848.
A single-digit percentage of kidnapped Africans ended up in North America. Nearly half of them were sent to Brazil, which finally abolished slavery in 1888, more than two decades after the American Civil War.
The patriots of the American Revolution, armed with the promise expressed in the Declaration of Independence, did as much or more to put human bondage on the road to extinction than any other generation anywhere. They refused to codify it by name in the Constitution. They included a provision that outlawed the transatlantic trade in slaves beginning in 1808.
"But didn't the Constitution recognize each black slave as only three-fifths of a person?" you might ask. Yes, it did, but that too was a compromise for the sake of union, and it was only in regard to determining population for apportioning representation in the federal Congress. It was not a statement against the "worth" of black individuals vis-a-vis whites.
Southern slave states wanted all slaves to count in the census because it would result in greater representation in the Congress without giving slaves any rights. Northern states generally argued that no slaves should count toward representation because they weren't free to vote. The Three-Fifths Compromise limited Southern representation compared to what slaveholders had hoped for.
In the middle of the 1700s, almost nobody anywhere regarded slavery as wrong or even unusual. But around the same time, sentiment on the matter was beginning to shift. By asserting that "all men are created equal," the Declaration of Independence put America on the cutting edge of a nascent abolitionist movement. Opponents of slavery, including Frederick Douglass, used the language of the Declaration to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of latecomers to the abolitionist cause. He argued that both the Declaration and the Constitution were "liberty documents" that later generations of Americans needed to live up to.
Does anyone today know for certain that if he had been born in 1700, he would have become a crusading abolitionist? The odds are that you would not have traveled that path, because abolitionism was largely a 19th-century movement. It was inspired in great measure by the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal" premise.
Washington put his life on the line for that premise. Later generations would have to extend it to its logical conclusion--ending slavery--but at a critical moment in world history, people like him helped us journey further in that direction than ever before. He was not perfect, but then neither are we.
That we had a man of Washington's character and courage in the right post at the right time was a blessing for which Americans owe eternal appreciation.
* * *
Additional Reading
Slavery, Equality, and the American Revolution by Yuval Levin (https://america250.aei.org/volume/slavery-equality-and-the-american-revolution/)
Defending the Constitution: Why the Founders Couldn't Abolish Slavery by Rob Natelson (https://i2i.org/defending-the-constitution-why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery/)
How the Slaveholding Founders Really Felt About Slavery by Timothy Sandefur (https://reason.com/2026/05/05/how-the-slaveholding-founders-really-felt-about-slavery/)
Recognizing Hard Truths About Slavery by Lawrence W. Reed (https://fee.org/articles/recognizing-hard-truths-about-americas-history-with-slavery/)
The History of Slavery You Probably Weren't Taught in School by Lawrence W. Reed (https://fee.org/articles/the-history-of-slavery-you-probably-werent-taught-in-school/)
The Truth About Slavery and America by Jason Riley (https://www.city-journal.org/article/slavery-history-america-economy)
Women and the Founders by Lawrence W. Reed (https://www.lawrencewreed.com/blog/womenandfounders)
Locke or Rousseau: America vs. France by Lawrence W. Reed (https://www.lawrencewreed.com/blog/2026/7/1/locke-or-rousseau-america-vs-france)
The First State of the Union Address by Lawrence W. Reed (https://fee.org/articles/george-washington-s-state-of-the-union-address-holds-lessons-for-the-21st-century/)
* * *
Lawrence W. ("Larry") Reed is FEE's President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty. He previously served as president of FEE from 2008-2019. He chaired FEE's board of trustees in the 1990s and has been both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-washington-won-the-war/