Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Conservation Lands Foundation: Trump Administration Continues Systematic Dismantling of Public Lands
DURANGO, Colorado, Nov. 11 -- The Conservation Lands Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Trump Administration Continues Systematic Dismantling of Public Lands
November 10, 2026
Proposed Rule Would Shut the Public Out and Allow the Administration to Make Sweeping Decisions About 250 Million Acres of Western Public Lands Behind Closed Doors
-
November 9th, 2026 - Today, the Administration announced a proposed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rulemaking that would drastically weaken the public's involvement in land use planning and gut protections for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ... Show Full Article DURANGO, Colorado, Nov. 11 -- The Conservation Lands Foundation issued the following news: * * * Trump Administration Continues Systematic Dismantling of Public Lands November 10, 2026 Proposed Rule Would Shut the Public Out and Allow the Administration to Make Sweeping Decisions About 250 Million Acres of Western Public Lands Behind Closed Doors - November 9th, 2026 - Today, the Administration announced a proposed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rulemaking that would drastically weaken the public's involvement in land use planning and gut protections for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern(ACECs), one of BLM's primary conservation designations, across 245 million acres of Western public lands. The rule proposes to stifle the voices of local communities by significantly shortening public comment periods and cutting out robust environmental analysis. These changes would make it easier for the BLM to fast-track the sale, transfer, or use of public lands for oil and gas drilling, mining, data centers, and other industrial or commercial development, all while shutting out the American people. The announcement kicks off a 60 day comment period (January 9th deadline).
The public lands overseen by the BLM contain crucial wildlife corridors, critical habitat, cultural resources and landscapes, watersheds, historic sites, and access to nature and scenery. The rule threatens to strip vital safeguards for ACECs and environmental review that protect these values, leaving the West's most sensitive lands vulnerable to irreparable harm.
The new rule will (Brief Analysis):
* Attempt to eliminate mandatory Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for land use plans;
* Eliminate the 90-day public comment period;
* Allow BLM to eliminate written comment opportunities in favor of public meetings;
* Eliminate key planning and analysis requirements;
* Bypass normal planning procedures by creating new emergency authority and making broad programmatic amendments potentially easier;
* Weaken area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) designation and protection procedures
* Reduce state, local, and Tribal government participation.
This aggressive regulatory rollback is the latest chapter in a coordinated, systematic dismantling of America's public lands. It directly connects to a broader pattern of hostility toward balanced stewardship, which includes the recent rescission of the landmark Public Lands Rule, stated intention to roll back the Roadless Rule and Wilderness policies, the evisceration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards, and repeated attempts to give away public lands to corporations and developers. This rulemaking contributes to this administration's singular focus: fast-tracking industrial exploitation and drilling at the expense of our shared heritage, tribal sovereignty and the outdoor recreation economies that sustain rural Western communities.
The proposal comes as Congress debates permitting legislation that would also weaken public participation in decisions affecting shared lands and give more power to development interests.
Planning serves as the foundational blueprints governing public lands for decades; eroding these processes is a profound threat to the long-term health of the West. Making robust environmental review optional and weakening ACEC standards intentionally ties the agency's hands, preventing it from effectively responding to the compounding threats of climate change, drought, and habitat fragmentation. This action rejects the unmistakable demand from the American public, including local leaders, Tribal representatives, and local elected officials, who have consistently called for public lands to be managed transparently and protected for future generations.
Quotes
"Gutting transparency, review, and public engagement requirements within the West's most ecologically sensitive wildlife corridors, watersheds, and cultural resources are the actions of cowards trying to fast-track industrial development at any and all social costs," said Kara Matsumoto, senior policy director at the Conservation Lands Foundation. "Resource management plans are the blueprints for keeping public lands and waters healthy, and weakening them will weaken local economies and fragile ecosystems. We'll continue to fight this corporate greed because the overwhelming majority of Americans want more nature protected, not less."
"The opportunity to review and comment on land management actions keeps the public in public lands." said Hilary Eisen, federal policy director at Wild Montana. "Resource management plans provide the long-term framework for how vast swaths of public land across the West are managed and it is essential that these plans be crafted with robust public engagement. This proposed rule sidelines the public, as well as local, state, and tribal governments, in BLM land use planning."
"Resource management planning is meant to provide the public a real say in how BLM manages our shared public lands, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are how the agency turns that input into on-the-ground protections for special places and important wildlife habitat," said Maddy Munson, senior policy and planning specialist at Defenders of Wildlife. "Cutting back public participation and narrowing the agency's analysis isn't streamlining, but rather stacking the deck against the places and species that need protection the most."
"For Nevadans public land is our way of life. Whether we have jobs dependent on mining, grazing, the outdoor industry or just love taking our families camping, these public lands in Nevada are a huge part of who we are. We want to have an active role in determining how these lands are managed and efforts to take the public out of this planning process and weaken protections are just wrong," said Shaaron Netherton, Executive Director at Friends of Nevada WIlderness. "We need to stand up and keep the public in our public lands."
"The Trump Administration is once again plotting to undermine our world-renowned system of shared lands and the public processes that guide their management," said Jackie Feinberg, Sierra Club's National Lands Conservation Manager. "Weakening protections and public participation would fast-track the industrialization and privatization of places essential for wildlife, clean water, cultural and historic preservation, and access to nature. We stand firmly against these attempts to cut out the "public" from public lands for the benefit of corporate polluters and profiteers."
"The Trump administration continues to eliminate tools that the Bureau of Land Management has relied on for decades for conserving wildlife habitat, protecting clean water, and working with local communities. The objective is clear: replace the multiple uses and values of our public lands with the singular use of fossil fuel development. That agenda has no footing in Colorado, where 96% percent of Coloradans support conserving public lands and open space and 81% believe oil and gas development is not an acceptable use of public lands," said Juli Slivka, Senior Director of Policy and Programs at Wilderness Workshop.
"These are the plans that decide whether a valley gets drilled or a trout stream gets protected, and this proposal is built to make those decisions faster and with fewer people in the room," said Bobby McEnaney, Senior Lands Analyst at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "Cutting the public's time to weigh in by two thirds, scrapping the full environmental review, and letting a political appointee invoke an emergency to skip the rest is not modernization. It is a way to lock in drilling and mining decisions before anyone can object. Governors get 30 days and no appeal, Tribal plans drop out of the review entirely, and the agency gives itself the power to shrink or erase existing protected areas. Interior should withdraw this proposal and keep the public's seat at the table."
"These lands are called "public lands" for a reason: They are owned by the people of the United States. The Bureau of Land Management's job is to manage them in the public's interest, for the common good. By so severely restricting opportunities for the public--including, importantly, Tribal Nations--to be involved in planning for their management, the BLM is depriving all of us of our rights as the owners," said Michael Painter, Coordinator, Californians for Western Wilderness.
"The Trump administration continues its relentless agenda of handing over public lands to corporations," said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice's Rocky Mountain Office. "Cutting the public out of land management benefits no one except the extractive industries hellbent on controlling these shared resources for their own private gain. Anyone who values public lands must be loud and clear: these attacks end now."
"Public lands belong to all Americans, and decisions about their future should be made through transparent processes informed by science, meaningful public participation and consultation with Tribes and others in the community. This proposed rule would give us less of a say in the management of 245 million acres of our shared lands and weaken areas of critical environmental concern, the BLM's primary tool for protecting important natural and cultural sites. It is another clear attempt to give drilling, mining and other development interests more influence over our public lands, in the same spirit as rescission of the BLM Public Lands Rule--and only days after voters delivered a stinging rebuke to this administration's agenda of doing favors for oil and gas companies and other powerful corporations. Our public lands deserve better, and so do future generations that will inherit them." said Michael Carroll, BLM Campaign Director, The Wilderness Society.
"In New Mexico, the BLM planning process gives communities, Pueblos, Tribes, acequias, recreationalists, conservation organizations, ranchers, hunters and anglers a real say in what happens to the 13.5 million acres of public land that the agency manages here," said Sally Paez, senior staff attorney for New Mexico Wild. "Places like the Greater Chaco landscape, the Permian Basin's remaining wildlife habitat, and our desert grasslands have protections today because New Mexicans showed up and spoke out during planning. New Mexicans shouldn't be shut out of decisions about their own public lands."
"In Oregon, the BLM manages 2.6 million acres of Oregon and California Lands that are home to imperiled wildlife, endemic botanical resources, wild rivers, and climate change-mitigating ancient forests that provide outstanding recreational opportunities and socioeconomic benefits to Oregonians and all Americans," said Susan Jane Brown, attorney with Silvix Resources. "The public and other stakeholders must have a central role in the science-informed stewardship of these cherished resources, all of which will be placed at risk of existential loss with BLM's proposed rulemaking."
"Oregon's high desert community has modeled a long, successful history of federal planners, tribal interests, ranchers, hunters and anglers, recreationists, and conservationists working together to craft management strategies that balance land use and promote conservation across 12 million acres of our shared public lands," said Mark Salvo, Senior Conservation Advisor for Oregon Natural Desert Association. "Now the Trump administration is recklessly dismissing these decades of collaboration and compromise, trampling public processes, and sidelining those who have worked to protect these lands and resources for future generations--all to advance a narrow agenda of exploitation at the expense of the public interest."
"The public lands are the people's lands and the American people have spoken loud and clear. The Bureau's proposal to cut public participation, reduce protections for cultural sites and critically important habitat, and shortcut environmental analysis is just one more indication that the Trump Administration isn't listening and will do anything to silence the public, Tribes, and scientists and ignore the reality of what's happening on the ground," said Josh Osher, public policy director for Western Watersheds Project. "Millions of acres of climate-stressed Bureau-managed lands are already being degraded by extractive industries, and we need planning rules that include thorough and honest science-based assessments and as many voices as possible to help improve ecological conditions and resilience."
This is just the latest attempt from the Trump Administration to dismantle our public lands piece by piece," said Sandra Schubert, Executive Director of Tuleyome. "The proposed Planning Rule undermines protections that ensure that our public lands and wild forests remain accessible and are used sustainably. Resource management plans are built on science and centuries of management experience. They give local land managers and communities the ability to maintain healthy ecosystems while supporting the diverse ways communities depend on public lands. Undermining planning undermines our public lands"
"Once again, Doug Burgum is doing everything in his power to cut the public out of public lands," said Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities. "This new rule gives political appointees in DC more power to shrink protected places and ignore local voices. Public lands belong to all of us, and good land use planning means giving everyone the chance to weigh in."
"America's national parks are supported by the public lands that surround them, and this proposal is another blatant attempt to unravel decades of conservation progress that the public overwhelmingly supports," said Beau Kiklis, associate director of energy and landscape conservation at the National Parks Conservation Association. "Roughly 80 national park sites share a border with BLM lands, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern have helped protect Dinosaur National Monument from impacts of oil and gas development, support Joshua Tree's wildlife by protecting the neighboring Pinto Mountains, and protect ancestral sites near Hovenweep among countless others. This is another attempt to sell off and sell out our public lands, and the public deserves a real say before more is lost."
"The Trump administration is attempting to undermine conservation, remove the public from public lands, and make it easier to turn these lands over to extractive industries," said Neal Clark, Wildlands Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "Minimizing public engagement and comprehensive environmental analysis does nothing to streamline public land management and is only intended to prioritize private profit at the expense of ecosystem health and public land users."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.conservationlands.org/trump-administration-continues-systematic-dismantling-of-public-lands
* * *
Trump Administration Continues Systematic Dismantling of Public Lands
November 10, 2026
Proposed Rule Would Shut the Public Out and Allow the Administration to Make Sweeping Decisions About 250 Million Acres of Western Public Lands Behind Closed Doors
-
November 9th, 2026 - Today, the Administration announced a proposed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rulemaking that would drastically weaken the public's involvement in land use planning and gut protections for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ... Show Full Article DURANGO, Colorado, Nov. 11 -- The Conservation Lands Foundation issued the following news: * * * Trump Administration Continues Systematic Dismantling of Public Lands November 10, 2026 Proposed Rule Would Shut the Public Out and Allow the Administration to Make Sweeping Decisions About 250 Million Acres of Western Public Lands Behind Closed Doors - November 9th, 2026 - Today, the Administration announced a proposed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rulemaking that would drastically weaken the public's involvement in land use planning and gut protections for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern(ACECs), one of BLM's primary conservation designations, across 245 million acres of Western public lands. The rule proposes to stifle the voices of local communities by significantly shortening public comment periods and cutting out robust environmental analysis. These changes would make it easier for the BLM to fast-track the sale, transfer, or use of public lands for oil and gas drilling, mining, data centers, and other industrial or commercial development, all while shutting out the American people. The announcement kicks off a 60 day comment period (January 9th deadline).
The public lands overseen by the BLM contain crucial wildlife corridors, critical habitat, cultural resources and landscapes, watersheds, historic sites, and access to nature and scenery. The rule threatens to strip vital safeguards for ACECs and environmental review that protect these values, leaving the West's most sensitive lands vulnerable to irreparable harm.
The new rule will (Brief Analysis):
* Attempt to eliminate mandatory Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for land use plans;
* Eliminate the 90-day public comment period;
* Allow BLM to eliminate written comment opportunities in favor of public meetings;
* Eliminate key planning and analysis requirements;
* Bypass normal planning procedures by creating new emergency authority and making broad programmatic amendments potentially easier;
* Weaken area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) designation and protection procedures
* Reduce state, local, and Tribal government participation.
This aggressive regulatory rollback is the latest chapter in a coordinated, systematic dismantling of America's public lands. It directly connects to a broader pattern of hostility toward balanced stewardship, which includes the recent rescission of the landmark Public Lands Rule, stated intention to roll back the Roadless Rule and Wilderness policies, the evisceration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards, and repeated attempts to give away public lands to corporations and developers. This rulemaking contributes to this administration's singular focus: fast-tracking industrial exploitation and drilling at the expense of our shared heritage, tribal sovereignty and the outdoor recreation economies that sustain rural Western communities.
The proposal comes as Congress debates permitting legislation that would also weaken public participation in decisions affecting shared lands and give more power to development interests.
Planning serves as the foundational blueprints governing public lands for decades; eroding these processes is a profound threat to the long-term health of the West. Making robust environmental review optional and weakening ACEC standards intentionally ties the agency's hands, preventing it from effectively responding to the compounding threats of climate change, drought, and habitat fragmentation. This action rejects the unmistakable demand from the American public, including local leaders, Tribal representatives, and local elected officials, who have consistently called for public lands to be managed transparently and protected for future generations.
Quotes
"Gutting transparency, review, and public engagement requirements within the West's most ecologically sensitive wildlife corridors, watersheds, and cultural resources are the actions of cowards trying to fast-track industrial development at any and all social costs," said Kara Matsumoto, senior policy director at the Conservation Lands Foundation. "Resource management plans are the blueprints for keeping public lands and waters healthy, and weakening them will weaken local economies and fragile ecosystems. We'll continue to fight this corporate greed because the overwhelming majority of Americans want more nature protected, not less."
"The opportunity to review and comment on land management actions keeps the public in public lands." said Hilary Eisen, federal policy director at Wild Montana. "Resource management plans provide the long-term framework for how vast swaths of public land across the West are managed and it is essential that these plans be crafted with robust public engagement. This proposed rule sidelines the public, as well as local, state, and tribal governments, in BLM land use planning."
"Resource management planning is meant to provide the public a real say in how BLM manages our shared public lands, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are how the agency turns that input into on-the-ground protections for special places and important wildlife habitat," said Maddy Munson, senior policy and planning specialist at Defenders of Wildlife. "Cutting back public participation and narrowing the agency's analysis isn't streamlining, but rather stacking the deck against the places and species that need protection the most."
"For Nevadans public land is our way of life. Whether we have jobs dependent on mining, grazing, the outdoor industry or just love taking our families camping, these public lands in Nevada are a huge part of who we are. We want to have an active role in determining how these lands are managed and efforts to take the public out of this planning process and weaken protections are just wrong," said Shaaron Netherton, Executive Director at Friends of Nevada WIlderness. "We need to stand up and keep the public in our public lands."
"The Trump Administration is once again plotting to undermine our world-renowned system of shared lands and the public processes that guide their management," said Jackie Feinberg, Sierra Club's National Lands Conservation Manager. "Weakening protections and public participation would fast-track the industrialization and privatization of places essential for wildlife, clean water, cultural and historic preservation, and access to nature. We stand firmly against these attempts to cut out the "public" from public lands for the benefit of corporate polluters and profiteers."
"The Trump administration continues to eliminate tools that the Bureau of Land Management has relied on for decades for conserving wildlife habitat, protecting clean water, and working with local communities. The objective is clear: replace the multiple uses and values of our public lands with the singular use of fossil fuel development. That agenda has no footing in Colorado, where 96% percent of Coloradans support conserving public lands and open space and 81% believe oil and gas development is not an acceptable use of public lands," said Juli Slivka, Senior Director of Policy and Programs at Wilderness Workshop.
"These are the plans that decide whether a valley gets drilled or a trout stream gets protected, and this proposal is built to make those decisions faster and with fewer people in the room," said Bobby McEnaney, Senior Lands Analyst at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "Cutting the public's time to weigh in by two thirds, scrapping the full environmental review, and letting a political appointee invoke an emergency to skip the rest is not modernization. It is a way to lock in drilling and mining decisions before anyone can object. Governors get 30 days and no appeal, Tribal plans drop out of the review entirely, and the agency gives itself the power to shrink or erase existing protected areas. Interior should withdraw this proposal and keep the public's seat at the table."
"These lands are called "public lands" for a reason: They are owned by the people of the United States. The Bureau of Land Management's job is to manage them in the public's interest, for the common good. By so severely restricting opportunities for the public--including, importantly, Tribal Nations--to be involved in planning for their management, the BLM is depriving all of us of our rights as the owners," said Michael Painter, Coordinator, Californians for Western Wilderness.
"The Trump administration continues its relentless agenda of handing over public lands to corporations," said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice's Rocky Mountain Office. "Cutting the public out of land management benefits no one except the extractive industries hellbent on controlling these shared resources for their own private gain. Anyone who values public lands must be loud and clear: these attacks end now."
"Public lands belong to all Americans, and decisions about their future should be made through transparent processes informed by science, meaningful public participation and consultation with Tribes and others in the community. This proposed rule would give us less of a say in the management of 245 million acres of our shared lands and weaken areas of critical environmental concern, the BLM's primary tool for protecting important natural and cultural sites. It is another clear attempt to give drilling, mining and other development interests more influence over our public lands, in the same spirit as rescission of the BLM Public Lands Rule--and only days after voters delivered a stinging rebuke to this administration's agenda of doing favors for oil and gas companies and other powerful corporations. Our public lands deserve better, and so do future generations that will inherit them." said Michael Carroll, BLM Campaign Director, The Wilderness Society.
"In New Mexico, the BLM planning process gives communities, Pueblos, Tribes, acequias, recreationalists, conservation organizations, ranchers, hunters and anglers a real say in what happens to the 13.5 million acres of public land that the agency manages here," said Sally Paez, senior staff attorney for New Mexico Wild. "Places like the Greater Chaco landscape, the Permian Basin's remaining wildlife habitat, and our desert grasslands have protections today because New Mexicans showed up and spoke out during planning. New Mexicans shouldn't be shut out of decisions about their own public lands."
"In Oregon, the BLM manages 2.6 million acres of Oregon and California Lands that are home to imperiled wildlife, endemic botanical resources, wild rivers, and climate change-mitigating ancient forests that provide outstanding recreational opportunities and socioeconomic benefits to Oregonians and all Americans," said Susan Jane Brown, attorney with Silvix Resources. "The public and other stakeholders must have a central role in the science-informed stewardship of these cherished resources, all of which will be placed at risk of existential loss with BLM's proposed rulemaking."
"Oregon's high desert community has modeled a long, successful history of federal planners, tribal interests, ranchers, hunters and anglers, recreationists, and conservationists working together to craft management strategies that balance land use and promote conservation across 12 million acres of our shared public lands," said Mark Salvo, Senior Conservation Advisor for Oregon Natural Desert Association. "Now the Trump administration is recklessly dismissing these decades of collaboration and compromise, trampling public processes, and sidelining those who have worked to protect these lands and resources for future generations--all to advance a narrow agenda of exploitation at the expense of the public interest."
"The public lands are the people's lands and the American people have spoken loud and clear. The Bureau's proposal to cut public participation, reduce protections for cultural sites and critically important habitat, and shortcut environmental analysis is just one more indication that the Trump Administration isn't listening and will do anything to silence the public, Tribes, and scientists and ignore the reality of what's happening on the ground," said Josh Osher, public policy director for Western Watersheds Project. "Millions of acres of climate-stressed Bureau-managed lands are already being degraded by extractive industries, and we need planning rules that include thorough and honest science-based assessments and as many voices as possible to help improve ecological conditions and resilience."
This is just the latest attempt from the Trump Administration to dismantle our public lands piece by piece," said Sandra Schubert, Executive Director of Tuleyome. "The proposed Planning Rule undermines protections that ensure that our public lands and wild forests remain accessible and are used sustainably. Resource management plans are built on science and centuries of management experience. They give local land managers and communities the ability to maintain healthy ecosystems while supporting the diverse ways communities depend on public lands. Undermining planning undermines our public lands"
"Once again, Doug Burgum is doing everything in his power to cut the public out of public lands," said Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities. "This new rule gives political appointees in DC more power to shrink protected places and ignore local voices. Public lands belong to all of us, and good land use planning means giving everyone the chance to weigh in."
"America's national parks are supported by the public lands that surround them, and this proposal is another blatant attempt to unravel decades of conservation progress that the public overwhelmingly supports," said Beau Kiklis, associate director of energy and landscape conservation at the National Parks Conservation Association. "Roughly 80 national park sites share a border with BLM lands, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern have helped protect Dinosaur National Monument from impacts of oil and gas development, support Joshua Tree's wildlife by protecting the neighboring Pinto Mountains, and protect ancestral sites near Hovenweep among countless others. This is another attempt to sell off and sell out our public lands, and the public deserves a real say before more is lost."
"The Trump administration is attempting to undermine conservation, remove the public from public lands, and make it easier to turn these lands over to extractive industries," said Neal Clark, Wildlands Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "Minimizing public engagement and comprehensive environmental analysis does nothing to streamline public land management and is only intended to prioritize private profit at the expense of ecosystem health and public land users."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.conservationlands.org/trump-administration-continues-systematic-dismantling-of-public-lands
In Rural Rwanda, Ten Sewing Machines Became Part of HIV Care
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
In Rural Rwanda, Ten Sewing Machines Became Part of HIV Care
*
In global public health, $5,000 is not much money. Large programs are measured in millions and billions, with funding moving through governments, international agencies, and layers of administration. But in one rural community in Rwanda, $5,000 bought 10 sewing machines that saved lives.
I learned why that mattered on a visit to the country several years ago. Our Toyota Land Cruiser was clambering up a muddy hillside road when an ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * In Rural Rwanda, Ten Sewing Machines Became Part of HIV Care * In global public health, $5,000 is not much money. Large programs are measured in millions and billions, with funding moving through governments, international agencies, and layers of administration. But in one rural community in Rwanda, $5,000 bought 10 sewing machines that saved lives. I learned why that mattered on a visit to the country several years ago. Our Toyota Land Cruiser was clambering up a muddy hillside road when anAIDS Healthcare Foundation doctor traveling with me pointed out that heavy rain could make the route nearly impassable. For patients living in nearby villages, something as ordinary as bad weather could interfere with getting to the clinic to pick up HIV medication.
A little farther up the hill, we met Jean-Baptiste, the elderly, blind coordinator of a local sewing workshop. What I initially thought would be an interesting community visit turned into one of the clearest examples I have seen of how a relatively small amount of money, directed at a problem identified locally, can have an outsized effect.
Jean-Baptiste climbed out of the lead car with an assistant holding his arm. Together they made their way down a slippery clay path toward a brick house overlooking a lush green valley.
Behind the house, about a dozen women worked in an open-air courtyard beside banana plants. Five mechanical, foot-pedal sewing machines were in constant use. Some women sewed while others measured fabric or watched the more experienced seamstresses work.
A nearby table displayed brightly patterned dresses, backpacks, bags, and small pouches -- all made by hand with careful, even stitching.
Many of the women were also receiving antiretroviral treatment at an AHF-supported clinic. In an area with few jobs and limited transportation, the workshop offered something medicine alone could not. It gave women a way to earn income, learn a trade, and build greater financial independence.
Jean-Baptiste explained that the project had started with only a couple of machines. Demand had grown much faster than the workshop. There were now more students than equipment, and unreliable electricity meant most work had to be completed during daylight hours.
Five machines were simply not enough.
A few weeks after I returned to Los Angeles, AHF provided a $5,000 grant for 10 additional sewing machines and supplies. I still consider it one of the brightest moments of my career because the result was so easy to understand.
Years later, our doctor in Rwanda told me Jean-Baptiste still asked when the muzungu, a common East African term for a white foreigner, was coming back to see the workshop and the machines.
Global development is usually discussed in enormous sums of money. But here, the math was simple: $5,000 bought 10 sewing machines, which meant more women learning a marketable skill, more families with a source of income, and, for women living with HIV, more stability around the treatment keeping them healthy.
That is what effective development spending should look like: a clearly identified local need, a proportionate investment, and a result you can actually see.
Denys Nazarov is the Director of Global Policy and Communication at AIDS Healthcare Foundation. He has been with AHF for more than 17 years.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/in-rural-rwanda-ten-sewing-machines-became-part-of-hiv-care/
* * *
In Rural Rwanda, Ten Sewing Machines Became Part of HIV Care
*
In global public health, $5,000 is not much money. Large programs are measured in millions and billions, with funding moving through governments, international agencies, and layers of administration. But in one rural community in Rwanda, $5,000 bought 10 sewing machines that saved lives.
I learned why that mattered on a visit to the country several years ago. Our Toyota Land Cruiser was clambering up a muddy hillside road when an ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * In Rural Rwanda, Ten Sewing Machines Became Part of HIV Care * In global public health, $5,000 is not much money. Large programs are measured in millions and billions, with funding moving through governments, international agencies, and layers of administration. But in one rural community in Rwanda, $5,000 bought 10 sewing machines that saved lives. I learned why that mattered on a visit to the country several years ago. Our Toyota Land Cruiser was clambering up a muddy hillside road when anAIDS Healthcare Foundation doctor traveling with me pointed out that heavy rain could make the route nearly impassable. For patients living in nearby villages, something as ordinary as bad weather could interfere with getting to the clinic to pick up HIV medication.
A little farther up the hill, we met Jean-Baptiste, the elderly, blind coordinator of a local sewing workshop. What I initially thought would be an interesting community visit turned into one of the clearest examples I have seen of how a relatively small amount of money, directed at a problem identified locally, can have an outsized effect.
Jean-Baptiste climbed out of the lead car with an assistant holding his arm. Together they made their way down a slippery clay path toward a brick house overlooking a lush green valley.
Behind the house, about a dozen women worked in an open-air courtyard beside banana plants. Five mechanical, foot-pedal sewing machines were in constant use. Some women sewed while others measured fabric or watched the more experienced seamstresses work.
A nearby table displayed brightly patterned dresses, backpacks, bags, and small pouches -- all made by hand with careful, even stitching.
Many of the women were also receiving antiretroviral treatment at an AHF-supported clinic. In an area with few jobs and limited transportation, the workshop offered something medicine alone could not. It gave women a way to earn income, learn a trade, and build greater financial independence.
Jean-Baptiste explained that the project had started with only a couple of machines. Demand had grown much faster than the workshop. There were now more students than equipment, and unreliable electricity meant most work had to be completed during daylight hours.
Five machines were simply not enough.
A few weeks after I returned to Los Angeles, AHF provided a $5,000 grant for 10 additional sewing machines and supplies. I still consider it one of the brightest moments of my career because the result was so easy to understand.
Years later, our doctor in Rwanda told me Jean-Baptiste still asked when the muzungu, a common East African term for a white foreigner, was coming back to see the workshop and the machines.
Global development is usually discussed in enormous sums of money. But here, the math was simple: $5,000 bought 10 sewing machines, which meant more women learning a marketable skill, more families with a source of income, and, for women living with HIV, more stability around the treatment keeping them healthy.
That is what effective development spending should look like: a clearly identified local need, a proportionate investment, and a result you can actually see.
Denys Nazarov is the Director of Global Policy and Communication at AIDS Healthcare Foundation. He has been with AHF for more than 17 years.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/in-rural-rwanda-ten-sewing-machines-became-part-of-hiv-care/
Identity is Not Just a Pronoun, But Defines Life's Journey
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Identity is Not Just a Pronoun, But Defines Life's Journey
*
Identity is more than who we are. It is the story we tell ourselves about who we are, the experiences that have shaped us, the values that guide us, and the ways we understand our place in the world. At the core of shaping our identity is answering three basic questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? Who am I becoming? As we go through our journey called life, identity is both something we inherit and something we create.
From the moment ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * Identity is Not Just a Pronoun, But Defines Life's Journey * Identity is more than who we are. It is the story we tell ourselves about who we are, the experiences that have shaped us, the values that guide us, and the ways we understand our place in the world. At the core of shaping our identity is answering three basic questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? Who am I becoming? As we go through our journey called life, identity is both something we inherit and something we create. From the momentwe are born, our identity begins to take shape. Our families, cultures, communities, traditions, and environments influence how we see ourselves and the world. We are shaped by what we have been taught, what we have experienced, what we have overcome, and even what we have been denied. Our experiences shape our identity, but they don't have to determine the limits of who we can become.
We often think of identity as something individual, but much of who we are is connected to others. Our racial and cultural identities, gender, family histories, spiritual beliefs, nationalities, and communities help shape our understanding of ourselves. Collective identity gives us a sense of history, connection, responsibility, and belonging. It reminds us that we are part of something larger than our individual existence.
However, there's an important distinction between belonging to a community and allowing that community to completely define us.
In modern-day society, one could say that identity has become even more a part of the framework of how we operate. As identity becomes more of a fluid concept, particularly around gender identity and sexual orientation, many have begun to incorporate pronouns as a means of expressing their identity and increased dialogue around same-gender loving individuals being referred to as "queer" versus "gay."
As racism and classism continue to be ills that plague our world, individuals continue to stress identity around socio-economic status and terms of racial and cultural identity, such as using Black Americans instead of African Americans to be more inclusive of all within the Diasporic community.
Where identity can be a source of empowerment and joy, it can also be a means of stigma, judgment, and shame -- or lead to an individual struggling with the duplicity of both dynamics.
Identity has also continued to be a source of what has created a myriad of what might be seen as "sub-communities" within a community. For example, within the queer or LGBTQIA+ community, there are many "sub-communities" that exist: the ballroom community, the leather community, the circuit community, among others.
I reference these, as even within a larger, "same-gender-identifying" community, there exists stigma and judgment around others that may identify as a part of these sub-communities. While the dynamic may be layered, at the core -- even in the basic ideology of any identity -- is the human desire to be seen, valued, and loved.
I speak of the concept of identity and basic desires because they can be a contributing factor to the increased numbers of new HIV diagnoses, drug abuse, and suicide that we are experiencing across the United States, especially among young people.
For some, the very essence of our identity may lead us down this challenging path. Or the desire to be loved and valued causes us to connect with certain identifying communities that take us on this journey. What continues to be a central theme, no matter the identity, is that the impact of one being stigmatized or judged based on their identity can very often cause us to experience life in secret and/or make compromising or destructive decisions about our body and ultimately our lives.
In exploring the intersectionality of identity and stigma, the research speaks for itself. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, risk of suicide varies across different identity and cultural groups -- in many cases, historically disadvantaged communities who experience discrimination, social/environmental stressors, and limited access to care and support resources also experience higher rates of suicide.
The National Institutes of Health tells us that sexually transmitted infection transmission and outcomes are deeply shaped by sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), not purely by biological anatomy or birth sex alone. Disparities across identities are driven by a combination of social factors, systemic stigma, and distinct physiological or behavioral contexts. The one consistent message is that stigmatization by virtue of identity is destructive.
Understanding the impact of stigmatization around identity, we must shift the narrative. It is imperative that we move from stigma and shame to fully celebrating the unity in the diversity of our unique identities. Actualizing the richness of being our brother's and our sister's keeper, no matter the fullness of one's identity, is the priority. Our country is shifting to honoring the beauty of all, and identity should be a source of upliftment, recognizing that there is no community without unity.
Imara Canady is Director of Communications & Community Engagement at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/identity-is-not-just-a-pronoun-but-defines-lifes-journey/
* * *
Identity is Not Just a Pronoun, But Defines Life's Journey
*
Identity is more than who we are. It is the story we tell ourselves about who we are, the experiences that have shaped us, the values that guide us, and the ways we understand our place in the world. At the core of shaping our identity is answering three basic questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? Who am I becoming? As we go through our journey called life, identity is both something we inherit and something we create.
From the moment ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * Identity is Not Just a Pronoun, But Defines Life's Journey * Identity is more than who we are. It is the story we tell ourselves about who we are, the experiences that have shaped us, the values that guide us, and the ways we understand our place in the world. At the core of shaping our identity is answering three basic questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? Who am I becoming? As we go through our journey called life, identity is both something we inherit and something we create. From the momentwe are born, our identity begins to take shape. Our families, cultures, communities, traditions, and environments influence how we see ourselves and the world. We are shaped by what we have been taught, what we have experienced, what we have overcome, and even what we have been denied. Our experiences shape our identity, but they don't have to determine the limits of who we can become.
We often think of identity as something individual, but much of who we are is connected to others. Our racial and cultural identities, gender, family histories, spiritual beliefs, nationalities, and communities help shape our understanding of ourselves. Collective identity gives us a sense of history, connection, responsibility, and belonging. It reminds us that we are part of something larger than our individual existence.
However, there's an important distinction between belonging to a community and allowing that community to completely define us.
In modern-day society, one could say that identity has become even more a part of the framework of how we operate. As identity becomes more of a fluid concept, particularly around gender identity and sexual orientation, many have begun to incorporate pronouns as a means of expressing their identity and increased dialogue around same-gender loving individuals being referred to as "queer" versus "gay."
As racism and classism continue to be ills that plague our world, individuals continue to stress identity around socio-economic status and terms of racial and cultural identity, such as using Black Americans instead of African Americans to be more inclusive of all within the Diasporic community.
Where identity can be a source of empowerment and joy, it can also be a means of stigma, judgment, and shame -- or lead to an individual struggling with the duplicity of both dynamics.
Identity has also continued to be a source of what has created a myriad of what might be seen as "sub-communities" within a community. For example, within the queer or LGBTQIA+ community, there are many "sub-communities" that exist: the ballroom community, the leather community, the circuit community, among others.
I reference these, as even within a larger, "same-gender-identifying" community, there exists stigma and judgment around others that may identify as a part of these sub-communities. While the dynamic may be layered, at the core -- even in the basic ideology of any identity -- is the human desire to be seen, valued, and loved.
I speak of the concept of identity and basic desires because they can be a contributing factor to the increased numbers of new HIV diagnoses, drug abuse, and suicide that we are experiencing across the United States, especially among young people.
For some, the very essence of our identity may lead us down this challenging path. Or the desire to be loved and valued causes us to connect with certain identifying communities that take us on this journey. What continues to be a central theme, no matter the identity, is that the impact of one being stigmatized or judged based on their identity can very often cause us to experience life in secret and/or make compromising or destructive decisions about our body and ultimately our lives.
In exploring the intersectionality of identity and stigma, the research speaks for itself. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, risk of suicide varies across different identity and cultural groups -- in many cases, historically disadvantaged communities who experience discrimination, social/environmental stressors, and limited access to care and support resources also experience higher rates of suicide.
The National Institutes of Health tells us that sexually transmitted infection transmission and outcomes are deeply shaped by sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), not purely by biological anatomy or birth sex alone. Disparities across identities are driven by a combination of social factors, systemic stigma, and distinct physiological or behavioral contexts. The one consistent message is that stigmatization by virtue of identity is destructive.
Understanding the impact of stigmatization around identity, we must shift the narrative. It is imperative that we move from stigma and shame to fully celebrating the unity in the diversity of our unique identities. Actualizing the richness of being our brother's and our sister's keeper, no matter the fullness of one's identity, is the priority. Our country is shifting to honoring the beauty of all, and identity should be a source of upliftment, recognizing that there is no community without unity.
Imara Canady is Director of Communications & Community Engagement at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/identity-is-not-just-a-pronoun-but-defines-lifes-journey/
Cutting Red Tape is One Way to Address America's Lack of Affordable Housing
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Cutting Red Tape is One Way to Address America's Lack of Affordable Housing
*
In its recent annual report, the National Low Income Housing Coalition laid out some shocking facts. First, no state or major metropolitan area in America has an adequate supply of affordable housing for extremely-low-income renters. Second, there is a national shortage of 7.2 million affordable units for 11 million extremely-low-income households. As much as those numbers seem daunting, something can be done about ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * Cutting Red Tape is One Way to Address America's Lack of Affordable Housing * In its recent annual report, the National Low Income Housing Coalition laid out some shocking facts. First, no state or major metropolitan area in America has an adequate supply of affordable housing for extremely-low-income renters. Second, there is a national shortage of 7.2 million affordable units for 11 million extremely-low-income households. As much as those numbers seem daunting, something can be done aboutit.
For years, researchers and activists have been calling on federal, state, and local politicians to address the lack of affordable apartments for poor and moderate- and lower-income tenants.
In 2016, for example, Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell sounded the alarm that there's not enough affordable housing for moderate- and lower-income renters being built, fueling the housing affordability crisis. She warned that "apartment construction at the low end needs to start ramping up, and soon, in order to see real improvement."
Obviously, that didn't happen, with the National Low Income Housing Coalition finding ten years later the shortage of 7.2 million affordable homes for extremely-low income renters.
In addition, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, in its 2026 "The State of the Nation's Housing" report, found that the "most serious and intractable housing shortage involves units affordable to households with low and moderate incomes."
Both the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies call for interventions by federal, state, and local governments to help build more affordable housing, including major public subsidies to pay for moderate- and lower-income units. Such investment is needed, but it's also vitally important to create a streamlined approval and permitting process to quickly construct millions of affordable apartments.
While housing think tanks often push for loosening zoning and land-use rules to trigger more construction, just as important, and maybe even more important, is the need to fix the bureaucratic red tape that stalls approvals and permits. Right now, across the United States, that problem with red tape routinely delays the construction of affordable units for months and often years.
One approach to speed up the approval and permitting process is to decrease the time period that local governments must give permits to lower-income-housing developers - municipalities are notorious for drawn-out approvals and permits.
(Read the rest of the article at the Housing Is A Human Right website.)
Patrick Range McDonald is a veteran investigative reporter and the award-winning advocacy journalist for Housing Is A Human Right.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/cutting-red-tape-is-one-way-to-address-americas-lack-of-affordable-housing/ (TNSmrp)
* * *
Cutting Red Tape is One Way to Address America's Lack of Affordable Housing
*
In its recent annual report, the National Low Income Housing Coalition laid out some shocking facts. First, no state or major metropolitan area in America has an adequate supply of affordable housing for extremely-low-income renters. Second, there is a national shortage of 7.2 million affordable units for 11 million extremely-low-income households. As much as those numbers seem daunting, something can be done about ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 10 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news: * * * Cutting Red Tape is One Way to Address America's Lack of Affordable Housing * In its recent annual report, the National Low Income Housing Coalition laid out some shocking facts. First, no state or major metropolitan area in America has an adequate supply of affordable housing for extremely-low-income renters. Second, there is a national shortage of 7.2 million affordable units for 11 million extremely-low-income households. As much as those numbers seem daunting, something can be done aboutit.
For years, researchers and activists have been calling on federal, state, and local politicians to address the lack of affordable apartments for poor and moderate- and lower-income tenants.
In 2016, for example, Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell sounded the alarm that there's not enough affordable housing for moderate- and lower-income renters being built, fueling the housing affordability crisis. She warned that "apartment construction at the low end needs to start ramping up, and soon, in order to see real improvement."
Obviously, that didn't happen, with the National Low Income Housing Coalition finding ten years later the shortage of 7.2 million affordable homes for extremely-low income renters.
In addition, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, in its 2026 "The State of the Nation's Housing" report, found that the "most serious and intractable housing shortage involves units affordable to households with low and moderate incomes."
Both the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies call for interventions by federal, state, and local governments to help build more affordable housing, including major public subsidies to pay for moderate- and lower-income units. Such investment is needed, but it's also vitally important to create a streamlined approval and permitting process to quickly construct millions of affordable apartments.
While housing think tanks often push for loosening zoning and land-use rules to trigger more construction, just as important, and maybe even more important, is the need to fix the bureaucratic red tape that stalls approvals and permits. Right now, across the United States, that problem with red tape routinely delays the construction of affordable units for months and often years.
One approach to speed up the approval and permitting process is to decrease the time period that local governments must give permits to lower-income-housing developers - municipalities are notorious for drawn-out approvals and permits.
(Read the rest of the article at the Housing Is A Human Right website.)
Patrick Range McDonald is a veteran investigative reporter and the award-winning advocacy journalist for Housing Is A Human Right.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/11/cutting-red-tape-is-one-way-to-address-americas-lack-of-affordable-housing/ (TNSmrp)
Conservation Lands Foundation Urges Senators to Oppose Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
DURANGO, Colorado, Nov. 10 -- The Conservation Lands Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The Conservation Lands Foundation Urges Senators to Oppose Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
November 9, 2026
Manager's amendment added over the weekend fails to address fundamental issues that would decimate core cultural and environmental safeguards.
-
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the Senate votes today to advance consideration of S.5653 the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, the Conservation Lands Foundation remains opposed to the bill as written and urges members of the ... Show Full Article DURANGO, Colorado, Nov. 10 -- The Conservation Lands Foundation issued the following news: * * * The Conservation Lands Foundation Urges Senators to Oppose Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act November 9, 2026 Manager's amendment added over the weekend fails to address fundamental issues that would decimate core cultural and environmental safeguards. - WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the Senate votes today to advance consideration of S.5653 the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, the Conservation Lands Foundation remains opposed to the bill as written and urges members of theSenate to oppose the proposal as it would weaken core cultural resource and environmental safeguards that protect the integrity of the National Conservation Lands -- the 38-million-acre system of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national trails managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
"This proposed legislation is a snake in the grass. If the proposal were to clear the Senate in its current form, it would result in cursory review of impacts to cultural resources and Tribal cultural values on public lands during environmental review of industrial projects; allow the federal government to rubber stamp destructive projects on landscapes without sufficient analysis of the impacts on wildlife and communities; and remove options for the public to engage in the process," said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation, which represents a nonpartisan, national network of community advocates solely focused on the public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management.
"Voters this past week were loud and clear that they are opposed to the countless assaults our public lands have endured during this Congressional session. Members of Congress should be taking voters' feedback and focusing on strengthening safeguards to prevent future attacks instead of widening loopholes to be exploited for private gain. Therefore, the Conservation Lands Foundation continues to oppose S. 5653 in its current form and urges Congress not to advance it without removing or fundamentally revising the Historic Preservation title and several other sections which weaken meaningful Tribal cultural resource consultation, science-based environmental review, and endangered species safeguards for the National Conservation Lands," said Hill.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.conservationlands.org/the-conservation-lands-foundation-urges-senators-to-oppose-bipartisan-american-affordability-and-jobs-act
* * *
The Conservation Lands Foundation Urges Senators to Oppose Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
November 9, 2026
Manager's amendment added over the weekend fails to address fundamental issues that would decimate core cultural and environmental safeguards.
-
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the Senate votes today to advance consideration of S.5653 the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, the Conservation Lands Foundation remains opposed to the bill as written and urges members of the ... Show Full Article DURANGO, Colorado, Nov. 10 -- The Conservation Lands Foundation issued the following news: * * * The Conservation Lands Foundation Urges Senators to Oppose Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act November 9, 2026 Manager's amendment added over the weekend fails to address fundamental issues that would decimate core cultural and environmental safeguards. - WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the Senate votes today to advance consideration of S.5653 the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, the Conservation Lands Foundation remains opposed to the bill as written and urges members of theSenate to oppose the proposal as it would weaken core cultural resource and environmental safeguards that protect the integrity of the National Conservation Lands -- the 38-million-acre system of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national trails managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
"This proposed legislation is a snake in the grass. If the proposal were to clear the Senate in its current form, it would result in cursory review of impacts to cultural resources and Tribal cultural values on public lands during environmental review of industrial projects; allow the federal government to rubber stamp destructive projects on landscapes without sufficient analysis of the impacts on wildlife and communities; and remove options for the public to engage in the process," said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation, which represents a nonpartisan, national network of community advocates solely focused on the public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management.
"Voters this past week were loud and clear that they are opposed to the countless assaults our public lands have endured during this Congressional session. Members of Congress should be taking voters' feedback and focusing on strengthening safeguards to prevent future attacks instead of widening loopholes to be exploited for private gain. Therefore, the Conservation Lands Foundation continues to oppose S. 5653 in its current form and urges Congress not to advance it without removing or fundamentally revising the Historic Preservation title and several other sections which weaken meaningful Tribal cultural resource consultation, science-based environmental review, and endangered species safeguards for the National Conservation Lands," said Hill.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.conservationlands.org/the-conservation-lands-foundation-urges-senators-to-oppose-bipartisan-american-affordability-and-jobs-act
Colorado news site runs FFRF op-ed on Supreme Court case
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 10 [Category: Religion] -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Colorado news site runs FFRF op-ed on Supreme Court case
*
A leading Colorado news site has published a Freedom From Religion Foundation op-ed that spotlights the attempt of religious schools in the state to discriminate while receiving tax money.
"[In 2020,] the Legislature passed a law to implement the program, including basic requirements such as a minimum number of instructional hours, maximum educator-to-child ratios, qualification standards for teachers and ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 10 [Category: Religion] -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Colorado news site runs FFRF op-ed on Supreme Court case * A leading Colorado news site has published a Freedom From Religion Foundation op-ed that spotlights the attempt of religious schools in the state to discriminate while receiving tax money. "[In 2020,] the Legislature passed a law to implement the program, including basic requirements such as a minimum number of instructional hours, maximum educator-to-child ratios, qualification standards for teachers andother best practices," Patrick O'Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude writes for the Colorado Newsline. "The Statehouse also required preschool providers to give children an 'equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability' of both the child and their family. This seems perfectly in line with a universal program, as universal typically means all -- without exception."
Unfortunately, as Charlotte writes, a number of religious preschools are fighting for admission to the program while being unwilling to offer the very equal opportunities the state clearly highlights, leading to a current U.S. Supreme Court case:
However, some religious preschools, including St. Mary's Catholic Parish, refused to agree to this nondiscrimination requirement and sued Colorado to be let into the program anyway, arguing that Colorado was discriminating against their religious beliefs by requiring them to admit LGBTQ+ children or children with LGBTQ+ families to get funding. Apparently, to them, "universal" should allow exceptions.
If it seems backward to suggest that states can't condition funds on reasonable requirements, that's because it is. In fact, most government-funded programs include conditions that must be met before funding is available. Nondiscrimination requirements have been mandated to receive funding for decades. For example, in 1981, the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant was amended to require funded programs to comply with the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act's nondiscrimination requirements. Even school voucher programs typically require participating private schools to comply with nondiscrimination requirements.
Even more backward is the suggestion that states must fund private entities even when those entities openly state their intention to discriminate, just because the discrimination is based on a religious belief. Governments cannot be in the business of funding discrimination. To require Colorado taxpayers to fund preschools that openly intend to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people because of a religious belief opens the door to state funding for other types of discrimination based on claimed religious beliefs. Any attempt at defining what counts as a religious belief would require deciding that some beliefs don't count as religious. Preventing the government from making that choice is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to do.
The piece concludes by urging the Supreme Court to stand behind Colorado's guidelines and keep the program's benefits from being abused by unwelcoming religious schools.
"If schools want government benefits, they have to play by the government's rules," the op-ed states. "Colorado says universal means all preschoolers. Colorado taxpayers voted to fund every preschooler. The Supreme Court must not reverse decades of law that has established where the line between religious liberty and illegal discrimination stands."
You can read the full op-ed here.
This column is part of FFRF's initiative to engage with pertinent issues and spread the messages of secularism and freethought to a broader audience.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,300 members and two chapters in Colorado, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
***
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/colorado-news-site-runs-ffrf-op-ed-on-supreme-court-case/
* * *
Colorado news site runs FFRF op-ed on Supreme Court case
*
A leading Colorado news site has published a Freedom From Religion Foundation op-ed that spotlights the attempt of religious schools in the state to discriminate while receiving tax money.
"[In 2020,] the Legislature passed a law to implement the program, including basic requirements such as a minimum number of instructional hours, maximum educator-to-child ratios, qualification standards for teachers and ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 10 [Category: Religion] -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Colorado news site runs FFRF op-ed on Supreme Court case * A leading Colorado news site has published a Freedom From Religion Foundation op-ed that spotlights the attempt of religious schools in the state to discriminate while receiving tax money. "[In 2020,] the Legislature passed a law to implement the program, including basic requirements such as a minimum number of instructional hours, maximum educator-to-child ratios, qualification standards for teachers andother best practices," Patrick O'Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude writes for the Colorado Newsline. "The Statehouse also required preschool providers to give children an 'equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability' of both the child and their family. This seems perfectly in line with a universal program, as universal typically means all -- without exception."
Unfortunately, as Charlotte writes, a number of religious preschools are fighting for admission to the program while being unwilling to offer the very equal opportunities the state clearly highlights, leading to a current U.S. Supreme Court case:
However, some religious preschools, including St. Mary's Catholic Parish, refused to agree to this nondiscrimination requirement and sued Colorado to be let into the program anyway, arguing that Colorado was discriminating against their religious beliefs by requiring them to admit LGBTQ+ children or children with LGBTQ+ families to get funding. Apparently, to them, "universal" should allow exceptions.
If it seems backward to suggest that states can't condition funds on reasonable requirements, that's because it is. In fact, most government-funded programs include conditions that must be met before funding is available. Nondiscrimination requirements have been mandated to receive funding for decades. For example, in 1981, the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant was amended to require funded programs to comply with the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act's nondiscrimination requirements. Even school voucher programs typically require participating private schools to comply with nondiscrimination requirements.
Even more backward is the suggestion that states must fund private entities even when those entities openly state their intention to discriminate, just because the discrimination is based on a religious belief. Governments cannot be in the business of funding discrimination. To require Colorado taxpayers to fund preschools that openly intend to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people because of a religious belief opens the door to state funding for other types of discrimination based on claimed religious beliefs. Any attempt at defining what counts as a religious belief would require deciding that some beliefs don't count as religious. Preventing the government from making that choice is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to do.
The piece concludes by urging the Supreme Court to stand behind Colorado's guidelines and keep the program's benefits from being abused by unwelcoming religious schools.
"If schools want government benefits, they have to play by the government's rules," the op-ed states. "Colorado says universal means all preschoolers. Colorado taxpayers voted to fund every preschooler. The Supreme Court must not reverse decades of law that has established where the line between religious liberty and illegal discrimination stands."
You can read the full op-ed here.
This column is part of FFRF's initiative to engage with pertinent issues and spread the messages of secularism and freethought to a broader audience.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,300 members and two chapters in Colorado, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
***
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/colorado-news-site-runs-ffrf-op-ed-on-supreme-court-case/
2026 Housing Report Card highlights housing market uncertainty as local efforts bump up against economic conditions and federal actions
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Nov. 10 -- The Boston Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
2026 Housing Report Card highlights housing market uncertainty as local efforts bump up against economic conditions and federal actions
*
Special section examines social housing as one possible solution for high renter costs
November 10, 2026
Boston - Efforts to expand housing production through legislation and expanded permitting in Massachusetts have helped slow but not reverse the housing cost and supply trends that have made the state especially challenging for renters and homeowners, according ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Nov. 10 -- The Boston Foundation posted the following news release: * * * 2026 Housing Report Card highlights housing market uncertainty as local efforts bump up against economic conditions and federal actions * Special section examines social housing as one possible solution for high renter costs November 10, 2026 Boston - Efforts to expand housing production through legislation and expanded permitting in Massachusetts have helped slow but not reverse the housing cost and supply trends that have made the state especially challenging for renters and homeowners, accordingto the 2026 Greater Boston Housing Report Card. The report, which was released today at the Boston Foundation, finds that while price increases have leveled off for both homebuyers and renters, the combination of slowing population growth and a slower-growth economy have kept housing production below the levels needed to meet the region's housing goals.
"The core metrics in this year's report illustrate how hard it is to build momentum," said Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators, the research arm of the Boston Foundation. "The high regional cost of living and federal immigration policies slow population growth, and the regional economy has lost steam. Meanwhile, the slowdown in housing construction has left us short of needed progress on the region's housing gap."
Once again this year, the research team from Boston Indicators wove together data on Greater Boston's demographics, housing prices, affordability, and housing instability in the Core Metrics section of the report. This year's Special Topic section, produced by researchers from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, explored one possible path toward rental affordability, the development of social housing projects that leverage public or nonprofit investments to create housing that can be offered at below-market rate rents.
"Social housing offers a path to affordable housing that stays affordable permanently, serves a mix of incomes, gives tenants a real measure of control, and adapts to local needs and constraints," said Chris Herbert, Managing Director of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. "These projects show both the diversity and the promise of social housing, and how it could fill a critical gap in Greater Boston's housing portfolio."
Slower growth, lower supply in Greater Boston housing market
The new report card finds economic and federal policy factors are placing a significant drag on Greater Boston's growth - the region grew by just an estimated 9,000 people in 2025, the slowest year-over-year growth since at least 2011 (outside of the COVID-19 pandemic). Much of that slowdown can be attributed to policies that cut the region's international net in-migration by half, to just over 30,000 people. That smaller influx was more than offset by an estimate of nearly 32,000 people leaving the region for other U.S. destinations.
While in theory that population slowdown could provide an opportunity for Greater Boston's housing stock to "catch up," the data suggest an anticipated slowdown in housing construction cited in the 2025 Housing Report Card is also coming into reality.
These housing supply challenges are captured in a pair of data points: the U.S. Census Address Count showed the number of new housing units coming online fell by more than half in Greater Boston and statewide between a spike in July 2025 and July 2026. Additionally, the annual number of permits issued in Greater Boston has continued to lag since a post-pandemic uptick in 2021-2022, with the number of permits issued in Greater Boston falling to its lowest level in over a decade in 2025. Despite the demonstrated need for new units, Greater Boston ranks 9th of 11 large metro areas in permits issued per 1,000 residents.
"The data show that at least some of the warning signs for the housing market in last year's report card played out this year," said Keith Mahoney, Vice President of Public Affairs at the Boston Foundation. "But there are hopeful signs, too. While current supply has slowed, prices and cost burdens remain high, the impact of new policies addressing zoning, accessory dwelling units and more can help clear a path for new housing that can move the needle in the longer-term on housing."
Costs continue to shut renters and potential homeowners out of the market
The lack of housing inventory continues to provide upward pressure on prices, with many lower-cost communities seeing the largest price increases. Just six Greater Boston communities had median home prices under $500,000 in 2026 - down from 42 a decade earlier, even adjusting for inflation.
The report looked again this year at the issue of entry-level home affordability for renters and found little change over the past year. Using a simulation that follows a model used by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, estimating total carrying costs (mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance) under typical underwriting standards, and adding realistic assumptions about down payments and closing costs, the researchers found that even in a "low-priced" community, a household would need an annual income of $181,000 per year to afford an entry-level home while spending 30 percent of their income on housing. Just one in six renters in these communities has that income.
The report does note that those with the ability to make larger down payment can reduce their monthly costs sharply. Making a 20 percent down payment on a $600,000 home reduces monthly costs by nearly $1,000 per month.
Meanwhile for those locked into renting, cost burdens remain high - data show over 48 percent of renters in Greater Boston in 2024 were "housing cost burdened," meaning they paid over 30 percent of their monthly income on housing. Nearly half of those were "severely cost burdened," with housing costs taking over half their income.
Exploring the long-term effect of "social housing" on affordability.
The persistence of high cost burdens for Greater Boston renters is leading to the exploration of several ideas for improving affordability. This year's report Special Topic digs into the potential of social housing, housing that uses public and/or nonprofit funds to help create permanently affordable housing options for a mix of incomes and family sizes.
Building off a track record of success in many parts of Europe, social housing initiatives are seeing an uptick in development across the U.S. The Center's researchers highlight both the European inspirations for American social housing efforts and feature several developments across American cities, as well as two in Boston - the Boston Housing Authority's Building F at Bunker Hill and the East Boston Neighborhood Trust housing portfolio, while exploring several initiatives under consideration to fund social housing more broadly in Greater Boston, including bond considerations, zoning changes, and other incentives and supports.
The 2026 Greater Boston Housing Report Card, along with several data interactives, is available now from the Boston Foundation at https://www.tbf.org/gbhrc2026.
***
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/november/greater-boston-housing-report-card-release-20261110 (TNSmrp)
* * *
2026 Housing Report Card highlights housing market uncertainty as local efforts bump up against economic conditions and federal actions
*
Special section examines social housing as one possible solution for high renter costs
November 10, 2026
Boston - Efforts to expand housing production through legislation and expanded permitting in Massachusetts have helped slow but not reverse the housing cost and supply trends that have made the state especially challenging for renters and homeowners, according ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Nov. 10 -- The Boston Foundation posted the following news release: * * * 2026 Housing Report Card highlights housing market uncertainty as local efforts bump up against economic conditions and federal actions * Special section examines social housing as one possible solution for high renter costs November 10, 2026 Boston - Efforts to expand housing production through legislation and expanded permitting in Massachusetts have helped slow but not reverse the housing cost and supply trends that have made the state especially challenging for renters and homeowners, accordingto the 2026 Greater Boston Housing Report Card. The report, which was released today at the Boston Foundation, finds that while price increases have leveled off for both homebuyers and renters, the combination of slowing population growth and a slower-growth economy have kept housing production below the levels needed to meet the region's housing goals.
"The core metrics in this year's report illustrate how hard it is to build momentum," said Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators, the research arm of the Boston Foundation. "The high regional cost of living and federal immigration policies slow population growth, and the regional economy has lost steam. Meanwhile, the slowdown in housing construction has left us short of needed progress on the region's housing gap."
Once again this year, the research team from Boston Indicators wove together data on Greater Boston's demographics, housing prices, affordability, and housing instability in the Core Metrics section of the report. This year's Special Topic section, produced by researchers from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, explored one possible path toward rental affordability, the development of social housing projects that leverage public or nonprofit investments to create housing that can be offered at below-market rate rents.
"Social housing offers a path to affordable housing that stays affordable permanently, serves a mix of incomes, gives tenants a real measure of control, and adapts to local needs and constraints," said Chris Herbert, Managing Director of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. "These projects show both the diversity and the promise of social housing, and how it could fill a critical gap in Greater Boston's housing portfolio."
Slower growth, lower supply in Greater Boston housing market
The new report card finds economic and federal policy factors are placing a significant drag on Greater Boston's growth - the region grew by just an estimated 9,000 people in 2025, the slowest year-over-year growth since at least 2011 (outside of the COVID-19 pandemic). Much of that slowdown can be attributed to policies that cut the region's international net in-migration by half, to just over 30,000 people. That smaller influx was more than offset by an estimate of nearly 32,000 people leaving the region for other U.S. destinations.
While in theory that population slowdown could provide an opportunity for Greater Boston's housing stock to "catch up," the data suggest an anticipated slowdown in housing construction cited in the 2025 Housing Report Card is also coming into reality.
These housing supply challenges are captured in a pair of data points: the U.S. Census Address Count showed the number of new housing units coming online fell by more than half in Greater Boston and statewide between a spike in July 2025 and July 2026. Additionally, the annual number of permits issued in Greater Boston has continued to lag since a post-pandemic uptick in 2021-2022, with the number of permits issued in Greater Boston falling to its lowest level in over a decade in 2025. Despite the demonstrated need for new units, Greater Boston ranks 9th of 11 large metro areas in permits issued per 1,000 residents.
"The data show that at least some of the warning signs for the housing market in last year's report card played out this year," said Keith Mahoney, Vice President of Public Affairs at the Boston Foundation. "But there are hopeful signs, too. While current supply has slowed, prices and cost burdens remain high, the impact of new policies addressing zoning, accessory dwelling units and more can help clear a path for new housing that can move the needle in the longer-term on housing."
Costs continue to shut renters and potential homeowners out of the market
The lack of housing inventory continues to provide upward pressure on prices, with many lower-cost communities seeing the largest price increases. Just six Greater Boston communities had median home prices under $500,000 in 2026 - down from 42 a decade earlier, even adjusting for inflation.
The report looked again this year at the issue of entry-level home affordability for renters and found little change over the past year. Using a simulation that follows a model used by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, estimating total carrying costs (mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance) under typical underwriting standards, and adding realistic assumptions about down payments and closing costs, the researchers found that even in a "low-priced" community, a household would need an annual income of $181,000 per year to afford an entry-level home while spending 30 percent of their income on housing. Just one in six renters in these communities has that income.
The report does note that those with the ability to make larger down payment can reduce their monthly costs sharply. Making a 20 percent down payment on a $600,000 home reduces monthly costs by nearly $1,000 per month.
Meanwhile for those locked into renting, cost burdens remain high - data show over 48 percent of renters in Greater Boston in 2024 were "housing cost burdened," meaning they paid over 30 percent of their monthly income on housing. Nearly half of those were "severely cost burdened," with housing costs taking over half their income.
Exploring the long-term effect of "social housing" on affordability.
The persistence of high cost burdens for Greater Boston renters is leading to the exploration of several ideas for improving affordability. This year's report Special Topic digs into the potential of social housing, housing that uses public and/or nonprofit funds to help create permanently affordable housing options for a mix of incomes and family sizes.
Building off a track record of success in many parts of Europe, social housing initiatives are seeing an uptick in development across the U.S. The Center's researchers highlight both the European inspirations for American social housing efforts and feature several developments across American cities, as well as two in Boston - the Boston Housing Authority's Building F at Bunker Hill and the East Boston Neighborhood Trust housing portfolio, while exploring several initiatives under consideration to fund social housing more broadly in Greater Boston, including bond considerations, zoning changes, and other incentives and supports.
The 2026 Greater Boston Housing Report Card, along with several data interactives, is available now from the Boston Foundation at https://www.tbf.org/gbhrc2026.
***
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/november/greater-boston-housing-report-card-release-20261110 (TNSmrp)