Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Separating Fact From Fear in Drug-Related Child Welfare Policy
LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by drug policy analyst Layal Bou Harfouch and senior fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:* * *
Separating fact from fear in drug-related child welfare policy
Parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children.
*
Child welfare is a particularly difficult area of public policy. Interventions are frequently based on limited information and early warning signs, rather than on confirmed harm, and are carried out in the name of "protecting the children." While the urgency ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by drug policy analyst Layal Bou Harfouch and senior fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz: * * * Separating fact from fear in drug-related child welfare policy Parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children. * Child welfare is a particularly difficult area of public policy. Interventions are frequently based on limited information and early warning signs, rather than on confirmed harm, and are carried out in the name of "protecting the children." While the urgencymay feel justified, these short-term decisions can have lasting negative consequences for families and the future of the children involved.
In recent years, Naomi Schaefer Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has argued that government-facilitated family separation should be more strongly considered* when authorities find parents have used drugs, both during pregnancy and while parenting.
"We can't let the occasional story about government overreach blind us to the larger truth: that tens of thousands of children are being failed by the system every day--and without intervention from the authorities, they will suffer and die without anyone hearing their cries for help," Riley wrote at AEI last year.
But parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children. The incidence of reporting families to child protective services is high relative to the number of cases where actual abuse or neglect is ultimately found. A recent study found that child welfare agencies in 21 states referred at least 70,778 reports of alleged substance use during pregnancy to police or prosecutors between 2017 and 2023. In the 15 states where investigation outcomes were verified, about 55% of referred cases (around 22,000) were not found to involve abuse or neglect, meaning that though drug use may have occurred, it does not mean that child welfare was at risk.
The practice of automatically reporting parental drug use to child welfare agencies treats perceived risk as proof of harm and removal as prevention, but evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is thin. Research shows that separation itself can cause serious harm to children, such as severe anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), toxic stress, and delays in cognitive development, as well as harm to parents. And there is a demonstrated elevated risk of abuse in foster care, according to a recent meta-analysis.
Despite the downsides, the impulse to separate children from parents continues to influence child welfare interventions around parental drug use, driven largely by misconceptions and myths. An examination of the evidence suggests that we would achieve better results with alternative approaches.
Myth 1: All parental drug use is dangerous
In a 2025 article in National Affairs, Riley argues that society must stop viewing drug use as "a valid if unfortunate decision" and instead recognize it as a "terrible blight on children and families." Her article urges political and media leaders to reframe substance use from a personal choice to a primary driver of family instability. Riley's overarching claim is that economic and social pressures will not prevent children from succeeding in life so long as they have at least one sober, self-sacrificing parent.
Truth: Drug use is not the same as drug abuse
Arguments that equate drug use with drug abuse fail to recognize the full spectrum of substance-using behavior and the spectrum of dependency that can include both legal drugs, like caffeine, nicotine, and prescription medications, as well as illicit substances. Alcohol's central role in social life complicates rigid claims about "drugs" and parental fitness.
Importantly, most drug use does not meet the criteria for a substance use disorder as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), and different substances carry different levels of risk.
* * *
Table 1 - Comparative substance risk and policy context.
* * *
Of course, having a glass of wine on a Saturday is totally different than spending every weekend on a cocaine bender. In order to justify the drastic and inherently harmful step of removing a child where a single drug test is the basis, decision-makers must determine that there are other indications of family dysfunction likely to harm children and that removal is the only safe option. If two parents attend a party and one agrees to be the designated driver while the other drinks alcohol, that may constitute responsible parenting despite the presence of "substance use" in the home.
Interventions that can result in family separation should occur only when there is an actual danger in the family and no other alternatives are available. The presence of any substance use alone is simply not enough proof without further evidence of dysfunction.
Research finds that children who are removed from their homes face 20 to 70% higher odds of adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, poorer educational attainment, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system, compared to similarly situated children who remain with their families. Child welfare policies should reflect those nuances.
Furthermore, national survey data show that about 8% of caregivers meet criteria for alcohol dependence compared to roughly 3% for drug dependence, with approximately 11% meeting criteria for either alcohol or drug dependence. Researchers note that differences in reported prevalence may partly reflect lower stigma and greater social acceptability surrounding alcohol use, which can influence how substance use is reported.
Substance use can appear alongside cases of harm to children, but reports do not show that drug use itself directly causes a large share of the negative outcomes attributed to it. In child welfare investigations, case reports and administrative records that cite parental substance use as a factor in family separation often classify the outcome simply as "neglect." Context, co-occurring factors, and structural conditions are frequently omitted from these accounts. Realistically, families experiencing neglect or abuse are dealing with a web of problems, and drug use is often not the dominant factor driving the dysfunction.
Treating all parental drug use as equivalent ignores these meaningful distinctions. In practice, child welfare policies and reporting frameworks often still treat parental substance use as a monolith, not distinguishing between occasional alcohol use, prescription medication misuse, or high-risk illicit drug dependence. This approach fails to differentiate less dangerous behaviors from much more destabilizing ones, leading to unnecessary family disruption or separation.
The narrative that all parental drug use is dangerous inaccurately portrays parental sobriety as the decisive factor in child wellbeing, downplaying the effects of poverty, education, community safety, and access to services on childhood outcomes.
Myth 2: People who use drugs are dangerous and unsafe parents
This myth operates less as a claim about behavior and more as a shortcut for decision-making. In practice, drug use is often treated as a stand-in for risk, where its mere presence is used to justify concern, intervention, or removal without fully assessing what is actually happening in the home. It is commonly supported by citing child fatality or neglect cases where parental substance use is mentioned as a contributing factor and presenting those cases as evidence that drug use itself leads to harm.
Tragic outcomes involving infants and children are recounted in detail, including prenatal drug exposure, unsafe sleep environments, accidental ingestion of drugs by children, and lack of supervision. These examples are used to imply a direct causal link between parental drug use and child injury or death. As an example, the Spring 2025 National Affairs piece** by Riley asserted that "drug abuse drives child maltreatment," which in turn "drives the lack of social mobility for kids at the very bottom."
Truth: Parental drug use alone is not a reliable indicator of child safety risk
Proponents of more punitive child welfare policies often treat parental drug use as evidence of unsafe parenting, using dramatic accounts of extreme cases to suggest that people who use drugs are inherently dangerous caregivers. These narratives rely on outlier incidents to generalize risk, despite the fact that most drug use in households does not result in harm to children. In fact, in more than 82% of child physical and sexual abuse cases, there are no reported alcohol or drug use problems.
Claims that drugs and bad mothering drive child maltreatment are largely fueled by a single research paper published more than 18 years ago. That study established a correlation between parental substance use and outcomes such as child maltreatment and foster care placement, but it did not demonstrate that substance use causes maltreatment. While substance use and child maltreatment often occur in tandem, this does not mean that drug use causes the maltreatment. In reality, parental drug use overlaps with numerous other factors that impact child welfare, such as housing instability, poor access to healthcare, and poverty.
This disconnect between correlation and causation is reflected in how these assumptions are translated into practice. As reported by The Marshall Project, hospital drug testing and reporting practices routinely funnel families into the child welfare system without reliable evidence of harm. In 2022 alone, more than 35,000 infants were reported as substance-exposed, often relying on tests that are not fully reliable.
These results point to a system that too often substitutes suspicion and stigma for evidence, nuance, and proportional response.
Reports often point to conditions such as congenital malformations, preterm birth, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) as leading contributors to infant mortality, and these outcomes are sometimes attributed to simple parental fault. Research does find associations between prenatal substance exposure and elevated risks, including higher rates of preterm birth, impaired fetal growth, neonatal mortality, and SIDS or sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), even after adjusting for other factors. However, these associations reflect complex biological, medical, and social conditions and do not justify treating every instance of prenatal substance exposure as evidence of abuse or neglect.
Critically, elevated risks associated with prenatal substance exposure are often interpreted as evidence of parental fault, even though similar outcomes can arise from a wide range of medical and social factors. Conditions such as low birth weight, preterm birth, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission are not unique to illicit substance use and do not, on their own, indicate neglect or abuse.
The narrative also suggests that parents who do use drugs are not as loving or attentive as other parents and have less desire to care properly for their children, which is overwhelmingly not the case.
In her book Curious, foster mother Christina Dent describes her initial confusion when caring for an infant whose birth mother had used drugs during pregnancy, noting the fierce commitment she observed from the mother: "This whole-hearted, vulnerable affection and emotion is not at all what I was expecting. Isn't this the same woman who used drugs while she was pregnant? How can a mom who would do that also love her child this much? I don't know much about addiction, but I have some experience with motherhood, and I have no category for this."
In a study out of two drug treatment centers in Southern Florida, mothers identify concern for the well-being of a child as a powerful motivator for them to engage in treatment and abstain from substance use. In this qualitative study with 20 mothers, findings show that even amid substance use, mothers remain deeply motivated to care for their children and often view their caregiving role as central to their identity and recovery. The inaccurate perception that mothers who use drugs are indifferent to their babies may explain why people who make these arguments frequently downplay the value and efficacy of lesser interventions that don't separate families.
Myth 3: Stigma is necessary to dissuade drug use
Riley asserts that the dramatic decline in smoking in the United States was driven primarily by stigma, arguing, "How did we drastically reduce smoking in America? It was stigma."
Truth: Stigma is not necessary to dissuade drug use. Instead, what dissuades drug use is accurate information, honest education, and access to services and treatment
Stigma is ever-present for people who use drugs and their families, and that stigma is compounded by stigma associated with being involved in the child welfare system, to a persistent and pernicious effect.
But stigma is not what dissuades drug use, nor is it what drove declines in smoking. The evidence consistently shows that behavior change is driven by accurate information, sustained public education, and access to services and treatment. Public awareness of health risks is not the same as public stigmatization. Smoking rates fell alongside decades of data-driven education, warning labels, advertising restrictions, and cessation support, not through social exclusion or moral condemnation.
By contrast, stigma toward people who use drugs is associated with worse outcomes, including delayed treatment-seeking, reduced engagement with care, lower access to harm-reduction services, and higher overdose risk--outcomes that also undermine family stability and harm children.
Qualitative research further shows that stigma plays a distinct and often overlooked role in shaping child welfare involvement, particularly for parents who use drugs. Studies of affected families document that mothers report being treated as inherently unfit, regardless of actual caregiving behavior, and describe avoiding healthcare, prenatal care, and social services out of fear of surveillance and child removal.
Providers, in turn, acknowledge that substance use can trigger heightened scrutiny and reporting thresholds that are not applied consistently across substances or contexts. This dynamic can distort decision-making, where stigma, rather than clear evidence of harm, influences perceptions of risk. In this way, stigma does not simply accompany substance use, but can actively shape pathways into the child welfare system and contribute to findings of neglect or maltreatment that are not always grounded in demonstrated harm.
Myth 4: Removal is necessary to protect child welfare
This argument by Riley is grounded in the belief that child welfare systems err on the side of inaction, with proponents pointing to cases of severe abuse and neglect to argue that stronger intervention, including removal, is necessary to prevent serious harm or death.
Truth: The risk of removal must be weighed against the harms, and we should adopt evidence-based alternatives that yield better outcomes
Though removing children from potentially unsafe homes can feel like a safe approach, family separation is not without its own risks. Removing children from the home itself causes harm to children that must be weighed carefully when assessing a child's best interests. These harms include emotional and psychological harms, separation and attachment disorders, trauma inherent to the removal process, grief and confusion, and other long-term consequences that may be more harmful to children than leaving them at home.
Parents are a central part of a child's life, and many of the most effective child welfare responses involve supporting parents who are willing and able to address challenges that affect caregiving. The purpose of these interventions is to improve the family's overall functioning and support the most conducive environment possible for raising the child.
Federal policy reflects this understanding of the value of family cohesion. The Families First Prevention Services Act, a bipartisan bill passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in 2018, increased federal funding for services to prevent the need for children to enter the foster care system at all.
The act recognized that access to funding for in-home services, treatment, and other concrete assistance to parents who may be struggling reduces the risk of child maltreatment and child welfare involvement.
A growing body of evidence shows that alternatives to removal can produce equal or better outcomes when properly implemented, compared to standard child welfare practice, which typically relies on case monitoring, service referrals, and court oversight without intensive, family-centered support. These alternatives include models such as family drug treatment courts, peer mentorship and parent partner programs, intensive in-home reunification services, and wraparound approaches that integrate substance use treatment, parenting support, and case management.
One systematic review shows that roughly 20% of children who reunify with their families reenter foster care, with the risk of reentry highest in the first few months following separation, highlighting the instability created by repeated removals. By contrast, targeted, family-centered interventions have demonstrated measurable improvements. In one program, children receiving peer mentorship support had a 13.4% reentry rate within 12 months compared to 21.8% among those receiving standard services. Family drug treatment court models have reduced reentry rates to as low as 2% compared with 12% in traditional court processing, while also reducing subsequent child protective service investigations from 64% to 33% in some cases. Intensive in-home reunification services have similarly reduced re-referral rates, from 32.5% to 25.2%.
While results vary across studies, the overall pattern is clear. Interventions that stabilize families and address underlying needs can outperform default reliance on removal.
Myth 5: To protect unborn children, expectant mothers should be routinely drug-tested, and results should inform child welfare or legal action
Many hospitals routinely test mothers or newborns for drugs, and many report those results to child welfare agencies.
Truth: Testing should be consensual, and given known accuracy limitations, a positive test should not be relied on alone as evidence of problematic drug use
As documented by The Nation, many prosecutions and child removals hinge on positive toxicology screens that may be inaccurate, reflect prescribed medications, or indicate substance use without demonstrating harm. For this reason, leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose using drug testing as a punitive or criminal tool during pregnancy.
Evidence suggests that health-centered approaches are more effective. For example, when hospitals limit nonconsensual drug screening and use testing to support care rather than build criminal cases, family surveillance declines without harming infant outcomes. This was demonstrated in New York City, where toxicology-only reports to child welfare departments fell by 80% following such reforms without leading to increased harm to infants.
Conclusion
Riley advances oversimplified and often inaccurate narratives about child welfare, particularly when it comes to mothers with substance use disorder or mothers who have used drugs. These myths are frequently presented as settled facts, despite conflicting evidence and a growing body of research that points to far more complex realities.
Supporting families through accessible treatment, economic stability, and coordinated care is more consistent with both the data and the long-term interests of children than reflexive surveillance and removal. Reason has crafted a model bill for states that wish to improve their approach in this way. Separating fact from fear is a prerequisite for building a child welfare system that is both humane and effective.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/separating-fact-from-fear-in-drug-related-child-welfare-policy/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Why the US South Is Rising
DETROIT, Michigan, April 4 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by Douglas Carswell, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy:* * *
Why the US South Is Rising
The region has become a business-friendly destination.
*
While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth.
A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception: 36% of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growth ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, April 4 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by Douglas Carswell, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy: * * * Why the US South Is Rising The region has become a business-friendly destination. * While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth. A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception: 36% of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growthover the next decade--far ahead of the West Coast (23%), Northeast (21%), and Midwest (19%).
This is quite a transformation for a region sometimes regarded as a backwater.
Since the late 19th century, American commerce and industry centered on the traditional business hubs of New York, Chicago, and California. Each successive wave of innovation--automobile manufacturing and aerospace, chemicals and consumer goods, financial services and digital startups--seemed to happen outside of the South.
Starting in the 1980s, an initial wave of "Sun Belt" states, like Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, began to prosper. But what you might call the "core" Southern states, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina, remained resolutely stuck in the slow lane. Until now.
Over the past decade, economic growth in the South has exceeded the national average, and in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and South Carolina, significantly so. Real GDP in 2024 rose 4.2% in Mississippi and South Carolina, 3.8% in Alabama and Arkansas, and 3.0% in Tennessee, surpassing the national rate of 2.8%.
Manufacturing jobs might have disappeared in the Rust Belt, but many of those jobs went South, not to China. US industrial output has roughly doubled since the Reagan era, and much of that expansion happened in states like Alabama, which has added over 50,000 auto jobs since 2000 while Michigan lost them.
Combined, Alabama and Mississippi now produce more vehicles annually than Italy or the United Kingdom.
The South is not just a manufacturing powerhouse--it's rapidly emerging as a major financial service center. Think "Y'all Street" rather than Wall Street. Cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Miami, and even Nashville have become financial hubs in ways that once seemed unimaginable. This shift is so pronounced that JPMorgan Chase now employs more people in Texas (around 31,000) than in New York.
So strong has Southern growth been that between 2020 and 2024, 78% of all US jobs added to the economy have been located in the South.
The population of the South has increased by 7 million since 2020.
If anything, this shift in population to the South seems to be accelerating. According to the 2026 HireAHelper Moving Migration Report, in 2025, for every 10,000 residents, South Carolina gained 79 more people, Tennessee 47, Alabama 36, and Mississippi 18. New York, by contrast, lost 28, California 25, and Washington state 10.
Even as America's college-age population shrinks due to lower birth rates, Southeastern Conference (SEC) universities are bucking the trend with rising applications, especially from out-of-state Northeastern students. Between 2014 and 2023, SEC schools saw a 91% surge in undergraduates from out of state. These students aren't just chasing sunshine and football; many seek a campus culture that is the antithesis of Northeastern or Westcoast woke.
Unsurprisingly, the JL Partners survey found young graduates particularly bullish on the South's prospects, with nearly 4 in 10 naming it the region most likely to grow fastest in the coming decade.
What explains this Southern success? Southern states are not just more friendly. They are business-friendly.
Taxes tend to be lower. Some Southern states, such as Texas, Florida, or Tennessee, have no income tax; others, like Mississippi and South Carolina, are on the road to income tax elimination. State income taxes are higher elsewhere, with Washington state, for example, about to introduce an income tax for the first time.
Southern states tend to have less red tape. South Carolina recently repealed a lot of the so-called Certificate of Need red tape that held back the healthcare economy. Contrast that to California, now one of the most stringent regulatory environments in the US, with onerous compliance requirements, for example, on climate disclosure and environmental standards.
Southern states have more flexible labor laws, and most are right-to-work states, meaning that workers cannot be required to join unions. Southern states like Mississippi have begun to remove restrictive occupational licensing rules, too, making it easier for people to find work.
The South has significantly lower electricity costs on average, largely because the South never really took the Biden-era inducements to take up renewable energy. Ironically, given that the Sun Belt is where the sunshine is, the South avoids prescriptive renewable mandates, while making practical use of solar power. In contrast, the Northeast and California have stringent renewable mandates and face higher prices as a consequence.
The secret of America's success is having fifty different states trying out different policy solutions side by side. The Southern states seem to have found a winning formula.
* * *
Douglas Carswell is President and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/why-the-us-south-is-rising/
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Personal Jurisdiction
WASHINGTON, April 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:* * *
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Personal Jurisdiction
*
"A Delaware defendant headquartered in Texas. An Iowa plaintiff alleging a South Dakota injury. Yet the case was brought in Minnesota. That just can't be right."
-Zac Morgan, 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 take a case that asks whether a Minnesota state ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Personal Jurisdiction * "A Delaware defendant headquartered in Texas. An Iowa plaintiff alleging a South Dakota injury. Yet the case was brought in Minnesota. That just can't be right." -Zac Morgan, 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 take a case that asks whether a Minnesota statecourt can exercise jurisdiction over a dispute between two out-of-state parties arising from an out-of-state injury.
The case stems from a lawsuit by Tanner Lynn, an Iowa resident. Mr. Lynn was employed by BNSF-a legal resident of Delaware that principally conducts business in Texas. Lynn was injured on the job in South Dakota. He sued-not in South Dakota, Iowa, Delaware, or Texas-but in Minnesota. Solely because BNSF is registered to do business in Minnesota, the state court determined that the company had consented to such suits.
That outcome can be traced to the Supreme Court's contentious 2023 decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, where a 5-4 Court found a Pennsylvania statute that expressly claimed open-ended jurisdiction via business registration did not run afoul of the Due Process Clause. But Justice Alito, a member of the Mallory majority, penned an unusual concurrence, arguing that while such jurisdiction does not undermine due process, it very likely violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
WLF's amicus brief urges the Court to take the case on two grounds. First, after Mallory,the lower courts are divided on whether consent can be inferred from a generic business registration statute-with Connecticut in the odd situation of having the federal and state judiciaries at loggerheads on that issue. That undermines business certainty. WLF's brief also explains that the Court can use this case to help clarify its broader dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/04/03/communicating/wlf-asks-supreme-court-to-clarify-scope-of-the-dormant-commerce-clause-for-personal-jurisdiction/
Georgia Public Policy Foundation Issues Commentary: Georgia Won't Lower Cost of Housing Until State Tackles the 'Regulatory Tax'
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 3 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by President and CEO Kyle Wingfield:* * *
Georgia won't lower cost of housing until state tackles the 'regulatory tax'
If you've spent any time scrolling through social media or watching the evening news lately, you've likely heard a familiar villain blamed for the skyrocketing cost of housing in Georgia: the "institutional investor."
The narrative is simple and, for many, emotionally satisfying. We're told that Wall Street hedge funds are swooping into neighborhoods from Gwinnett ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, April 3 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by President and CEO Kyle Wingfield: * * * Georgia won't lower cost of housing until state tackles the 'regulatory tax' If you've spent any time scrolling through social media or watching the evening news lately, you've likely heard a familiar villain blamed for the skyrocketing cost of housing in Georgia: the "institutional investor." The narrative is simple and, for many, emotionally satisfying. We're told that Wall Street hedge funds are swooping into neighborhoods from GwinnettCounty to Glynn, outbidding hard-working families with all-cash offers and turning the American Dream into a permanent rental nightmare.
I'm not here to convince you this never happens, or that these companies are sympathetic figures. I would simply tell you that if housing affordability is one of your concerns, the "investor" issue is a distraction.
The math of the housing market is remarkably straightforward: Prices rise when demand outstrips supply. And in Georgia, the supply of housing isn't being held back by investors. It's being strangled by government regulation.
If we want to ensure that the next generation of Georgians has a place to call home, that's the problem we have to solve.
Why regulations make homes more expensive
Research from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation shows the "corporate landlord" narrative doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Institutional investors represent a relatively small slice of the overall market: only 3% across all of metro Atlanta, ranging from 0.5% in Spalding County to 8.3% in Henry County.
At the same time, homeownership rates in each metro county have risen in recent years after bottoming out due to the Great Recession.
The logical conclusion is that if institutional investors are increasing their market share, then it's more at the expense of smaller investors in rental property than of would-be homebuyers.
But even if your pitchfork is still drawn, know that these investors are a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
Investors are drawn to Georgia's housing market precisely because they see a chronic, government-induced shortage that practically guarantees home values will continue to climb. They are responding to scarcity, not creating it.
The real culprit is what we might call the "regulatory tax."
According to our research, government regulations -ranging from impact fees to outdated zoning laws -can account for about 27% of the final price of a new single-family home in Georgia.
That's higher than the national average of about 24%. For a home priced at $400,000, those extra 3 percentage points alone represent about $12,000. That's real money.
Allow for different types of housing in communities
Homebuilders today face more than just the costs of lumber and labor. They must also contend with minimum lot-size requirements that force developers to build on large, expensive plots.
They must meet "design standards" that dictate everything from the type of siding used to the pitch of the roof, piling tens of thousands of dollars onto the price tag without adding a lick of structural value.
Housing's "missing middle" -townhomes, duplexes and smaller cottages -comprises options often banned outright by local zoning boards that view anything other than a 2,500-square-foot home as a threat to "neighborhood character."
When we make it prohibitively expensive or even illegal to build modest, attainable homes, we shouldn't be surprised when modest, attainable homes are hard to find.
If a young teacher or a police officer can't afford a home in the community they serve, it probably isn't because a hedge fund manager in Manhattan outbid them. More likely, it's because their local government made it impossible to build a home at a price point that fits their budget.
There are also national headwinds making it tougher for hard-working Georgians to purchase a home.
Changes to federal lending standards following the Great Recession have made it much more difficult for buyers with short credit histories to get mortgages, even if their earnings would otherwise justify a loan. That's true even in places where local regulation hasn't gone overboard.
We can lessen regulations on homebuilding by streamlining the permitting process, eliminating unnecessary design mandates and allowing for a greater variety of housing types. We need to allow the market to work.
When we artificially restrain supply through red tape, we create a "musical chairs" economy where the person with the most money always wins. We can keep blaming the people winning the game, or we can finally decide to add more chairs. For the sake of Georgia's future, it's time we chose the latter.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/georgia-wont-lower-cost-of-housing-until-state-tackles-the-regulatory-tax/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Going Nuclear
DETROIT, Michigan, April 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 1, 2026, by freelance journalist and critic Mark Nayler:* * *
Going Nuclear
Europe is re-embracing nuclear power, but Spain refuses to follow.
On April 28 last year, a massive blackout plunged Spain and Portugal into darkness for over twelve hours. Flights were canceled, thousands of people were stranded on trains, and there were at least eight related deaths. The Spanish right seized on this freak event to attack what it called the Socialist-led government's "climate fanaticism"--but ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, April 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 1, 2026, by freelance journalist and critic Mark Nayler: * * * Going Nuclear Europe is re-embracing nuclear power, but Spain refuses to follow. On April 28 last year, a massive blackout plunged Spain and Portugal into darkness for over twelve hours. Flights were canceled, thousands of people were stranded on trains, and there were at least eight related deaths. The Spanish right seized on this freak event to attack what it called the Socialist-led government's "climate fanaticism"--butalthough renewable energy was generating about 70% of Spain's power at the time, an in-depth investigation has found that it wasn't the cause.
Spain's Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez, it seems, was right in saying, "Those who link this incident to the lack of nuclear energy are either lying or revealing their ignorance," although he can't have had sufficient evidence for this when he said it. The Spanish premier, however, may still have to rethink his position on nuclear power, as the rest of Europe shifts its energy policy in reaction to a fraught global situation. Sanchez's crowd-pleasing Euros5 billion emergency package, designed to reduce the economic impact on Spaniards of events in the Middle East, is a short-term fix for what could be a long-term problem.
The final report on Spain and Portugal's 2025 blackout was released on March 20 by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E). Its panel of 49 experts concluded that 17 "interacting factors" caused the power outage, including "oscillations, gaps in voltage and power control [and] rapid output reproductions and generation disconnections." They illustrate this "perfect storm" of inter-connected events with a diagram that resembles the family tree of an ancient dynasty.
According to ENTSO-E, no single cause can be blamed for last April's blackout. Rooftop solar panels were found to have tripped early, and some might have to be re-fitted--but that's hardly enough to justify the Spanish right's claim that an overreliance on green energy was the main culprit. Most of ENTSO-E's recommendations to ensure that a blackout doesn't happen again are aimed at the entities responsible for voltage control (although the overall picture is of a badly-managed system with insufficient regulation). It might seem that Sanchez, who has promised to phase out the country's seven nuclear reactors by 2035, can breathe a sigh of relief: his beloved renewables have been vindicated.
Not quite. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a consequence of the Iran War, has once again highlighted Europe's dependence on energy imports, prompting a dramatic policy reversal. Speaking at the Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris on March 10, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said that reducing the EU's reliance on a "reliable, affordable source of low-emissions powers" has proved a "strategic mistake."
Von der Leyen announced that the EU, which imports almost 60% of its energy, will be investing Euros330 million in fusion technology, with a focus on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). In this way, Europe hopes to reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas, which respectively account for 67% and 24% of its energy imports. The need is urgent: one recent report by Deloitte calculated that, had Spain's nuclear fleet not been operating during the energy crisis triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it would have faced extra costs of Euros5 billion, equivalent to 0.4% of its GDP.
Von der Leyen's renewed endorsement of nuclear power would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. The Fukushima disaster of March 2011--when a tsunami and earthquake severely damaged a nuclear plant on the northeast coast of Japan, releasing radioactive contaminants--caused an EU-wide shift towards renewables (even though only one fatality in Fukushima was linked to radiation exposure). Germany's then-Chancellor Angela Merkel--in whose cabinet von der Leyen was serving as Minister for Labor and Social Affairs--led the way, announcing an 11-year phaseout of nuclear power. In April 2023, its last three reactors were decommissioned, but current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz considers this to have been a "serious strategic mistake."
Geopolitical crises are forcing many other EU countries to reconsider their energy mixes. In 2023, Sweden changed its 2040 goal from "100% renewable" to "100% fossil-free," freeing itself up to invest in new nuclear technologies. Belgium, which had planned to abandon nuclear power by 2025, pushed this back by a decade after Russia's invasion of Ukraine; then, last May, a large parliamentary majority passed a bill repealing the phaseout completely. Italy is also considering a return to atomic power, after shutting its last reactor in 1987, while Poland is building its first nuclear plant with EU funds. Even Denmark, a country that generates 80% of its electricity with renewable energy, is reconsidering a 40-year ban on nuclear power, in favor of investing in SMR technology.
Spain is under increasing pressure to follow their example--and time is running out. Between 2027 and 2028, Sanchez plans to shut down the two reactors at the country's oldest and largest nuclear plant, situated near the western town of Almaraz, which provide about 7% of the country's electricity. (Almaraz uses the Tagus River, which flows into Portugal, for cooling, and has long been a point of contention between Lisbon and Madrid.) This will be the first stage of Spain's plan to abandon nuclear power by 2035, agreed on in 2019 by Sanchez's government, the major electricity providers, and Enresa, a public company that manages radioactive waste.
But according to a manifesto signed last February (less than two months before the blackout) by 32 leading representatives of Spain's nuclear industry, that agreement "was made under an industrial, geopolitical, social and economic context that is vastly different from today's reality." Their argument is that an expected surge in electricity demand over the next decade, combined with an overreliance on imported gas and oil, makes this timeline unrealistic. Premature dismantling of Spain's nuclear infrastructure, they warned, would cause "irreparable" social and economic damage.
Shortly before the manifesto was released, the Conservative People's Party (PP) presented a proposal to parliament calling for the reversal of Spain's nuclear phaseout. It was approved by 171 votes to 164, but Sanchez took no notice. Last June, he said that he wouldn't "deviate a single millimeter from the planned energy roadmap," and that "Spain's energy future will be green or there will be no future." Presumably, in ten years' time, when most other European nations have been reduced to radioactive wastelands, Spain will be living happily off wind and sun.
Green energy might not have caused the Iberian blackout, but that doesn't mean that Madrid can ignore the nuclear renaissance occurring throughout Europe. Almost a year on, Sanchez clings to his immovable faith in renewables, managing energy policy with what PP leader Alberto Nunez Feijoo has called "enormous ideological bias." Meanwhile, all eyes are on Almaraz: Will it receive a stay of execution, or become the first casualty of Sanchez's obsession with green energy?
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain. He writes regularly for The Spectator and Times Literary Supplement and is working on a biography of the philosopher Bryan Magee, due to be published by Bloomsbury (London) in 2028.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/going-nuclear/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: From Content to Design
DETROIT, Michigan, April 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, Ladies of Liberty Alliance president:* * *
From Content to Design
The EU's new digital ambition, starting with TikTok.
*
Brussels has accused TikTok of adopting an addictive design and is demanding changes, extending the Digital Services Act (DSA) from a content regulator to the design of platforms themselves. Motivations aside, such a move would deepen the micromanagement of Europeans' digital lives, while such regulatory reach increasingly imposes ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, April 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, Ladies of Liberty Alliance president: * * * From Content to Design The EU's new digital ambition, starting with TikTok. * Brussels has accused TikTok of adopting an addictive design and is demanding changes, extending the Digital Services Act (DSA) from a content regulator to the design of platforms themselves. Motivations aside, such a move would deepen the micromanagement of Europeans' digital lives, while such regulatory reach increasingly imposesstandards that end up shaping technology worldwide.
For years, the European Union (EU) has been engaged in a battle against large technology companies. Through regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Brussels has created a complex, bureaucratic, and punitive regulatory environment that makes it difficult for truly competitive European tech companies to emerge and grow.
While imposing increasingly intrusive rules on foreign platforms, Europe has failed to produce its own technology giants. Instead of fostering innovation through open competition and entrepreneurial freedom, the EU has chosen to regulate existing companies quite heavily. The result is a landscape of limited European innovation and growing dependence on technologies developed outside the continent, the very technologies that, in turn, Brussels continues to shape according to its regulatory preferences. Major platforms comply simply because losing access to the European market is not an option.
In February 2026, under the DSA, Brussels concluded that TikTok's design is addictive, citing violations of Articles 34 and 35, which require the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks, including risks to mental health and minors. Brussels also cited Article 25, which prohibits manipulative interfaces.
If the DSA was originally designed to address content on platforms--already a problematic principle in itself, given that it places a central authority in charge of regulating speech--this new step goes further. The EU is now expanding its interpretation of existing law and intervening directly in platform design, claiming that certain features were intentionally created to encourage compulsive use.
By requiring measures such as limiting or disabling infinite scroll over time, introducing mandatory screen breaks (including at night), and altering recommendation algorithms to make them less "addictive," regulation shifts away from content and begins to dictate how platforms should function.
Although the protection of children is the main justification, these measures do not apply only to minors. The Commission's conclusions also affect adults, and because, as mentioned above, digital platforms operate with unified global designs, rules adopted in Brussels end up shaping user experiences worldwide, including in the United States, where tensions around the DSA have been growing.
One example comes from the report "The Foreign Censorship Threat, Part II," published in February 2026 by the House Judiciary Committee. Based on thousands of internal documents obtained through subpoenas, the report accuses the European Commission of pressuring major platforms, across more than 100 closed-door meetings, to strengthen their content moderation policies globally, including the removal or suppression of political content and factual information that is legal in the United States.
Regardless of the report's political framing, it highlights a growing risk. When European regulators impose heavy requirements, platforms tend to apply the same rules worldwide in order to avoid fines of up to 6% of global revenue. Penalizing the very design that has made an application successful under threat of fines goes far beyond the proper role of the state, and carries wider consequences for innovation. Forcing companies to alter their products deliberately and abandon the formulas that made them successful discourages technological progress, both for the specific company and others.
Above all, this approach erodes individual responsibility. Instead of trusting parents and users themselves to manage their digital habits, the state assumes the role of an ever-present guardian that decides what is acceptable.
Throughout history, society has consistently adapted to new entertainment and information technologies. Television sparked decades of concern about its impact, yet these concerns were largely addressed through industry self-regulation, rating systems, and parental tools. Video games triggered even stronger moral panics, from pinball to titles like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto, but were ultimately integrated through classification systems and recognition as forms of protected expression.
In both cases, adaptation came through individual responsibility, market competition, and innovation, without the state dictating how technologies should be technically designed.
The relationship between individuals and technology should rest on personal responsibility, not on overreaching government mandates that seek to replace the freedom to innovate, to speak, and to consume entertainment with control.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/from-content-to-design/
FFRF's Chicago Chapter Puts Up Secular Display at the Daley Center Plaza
MADISON, Wisconsin, April 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 2, 2026:* * *
FFRF's Chicago chapter puts up secular display at the Daley Center Plaza
The Freedom From Religion Foundation's Metropolitan Chicago Chapter has set up a display at the Daley Center Plaza in Chicago to counter Easter activities there.
Each year, the chapter erects a banner display to protest a Catholic prayer shrine and worship service taking place annually on the city plaza during the Christian "holy week." The Catholic organization responsible for the service has insisted ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, April 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 2, 2026: * * * FFRF's Chicago chapter puts up secular display at the Daley Center Plaza The Freedom From Religion Foundation's Metropolitan Chicago Chapter has set up a display at the Daley Center Plaza in Chicago to counter Easter activities there. Each year, the chapter erects a banner display to protest a Catholic prayer shrine and worship service taking place annually on the city plaza during the Christian "holy week." The Catholic organization responsible for the service has insistedon using taxpayer property as a platform to proselytize its religion and convert others to its belief system. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has long disagreed with and fought to prevent such public forums, which serve mainly to provide a voice to religion. Proving that point is the fact that the FFRF banner was stolen last year in broad daylight, showing that such so-called public forums are viewed as belonging to the dominant religion.
The banner proclaims quotes supportive of the separation of state and church by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan and reads:
Keep religion in a place of worship -- Not on secular government property
* * *
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."
John F. Kennedy, Sept. 12, 1960
* * *
"We establish no religion in this country. ... Church and state are and must remain separate."
Ronald Reagan, Oct. 26, 1984
* * *
Thanks to the awesome team of volunteers who braved the cold, windy temperatures, the FFRF banner was set up on Wednesday, April 1, in the afternoon at Chicago's Daley Center Plaza, and will be on display for one week.
FFRF thanks chapter members for their work in setting up the display, pictured from left to right: Brian Emerick, Bob Hunter, Jeff Kramer and Manuel Beltran. Not pictured are Steve Foulkes, who also assisted with the setup, and Bob Elmore, who kindly took the photos.
"Taxpayers of all faiths, and no faith, should be free from government influence regarding their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Just as important, religions of any tradition should have no influence regarding the legislation of our laws and public policy," FFRF Metropolitan Chicago Chapter Associate Executive Director Tom Cara says. "Our deepest appreciation goes out to each of [the volunteers] for their staunch activism toward maintaining the wall of separation between state and religion. Our thanks as well to the national Freedom From Religion Foundation for funding the required (and costly!) permit fee for Daley Center Plaza displays."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including more than 1,400 members and a chapter in Illinois. FFRF's purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrfs-chicago-chapter-puts-up-secular-display-at-the-daley-center-plaza/
[Category: Religion]