Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Systems of Trust
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Systems of Trust
What sheepdogs teach us about liberty.
By Benjamin BH Ko
On the Isle of Lewis, crofters still work the old way: one man, two dogs, a flock and the Atlantic wind. Watching Leslie and his collies, Bruce and Jude, round up sheep across the moor, I was struck by how little command was needed. After a whistle and a word, Bruce and Jude's instincts took care of the rest. It was order without control, and freedom within purpose. This is liberty properly understood.
Lewis ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Systems of Trust What sheepdogs teach us about liberty. By Benjamin BH Ko On the Isle of Lewis, crofters still work the old way: one man, two dogs, a flock and the Atlantic wind. Watching Leslie and his collies, Bruce and Jude, round up sheep across the moor, I was struck by how little command was needed. After a whistle and a word, Bruce and Jude's instincts took care of the rest. It was order without control, and freedom within purpose. This is liberty properly understood. Lewisis home to many traditional industries: crofting, tweed weaving and fishing. It is a place where life still depends on skill, community and respect for the elements. When Leslie led his dogs up the slope, the scene felt timeless - as if little had changed in hundreds of years. Yet what struck me most was not nostalgia, but what this simple working relationship revealed about freedom, trust and the limits of control.
Bruce and Jude know exactly what to do when faced with a stubborn or stray sheep. Leslie doesn't bark a dozen new commands; he trusts their judgement. They read the terrain, sense the flock's movement, and decide how best to bring order. It's a partnership built on mutual understanding. The dogs aren't free in the sense of doing whatever they please. Instead, they're free within the bounds of purpose and discipline. Their obedience doesn't crush their independence; it makes their independence possible.
That relationship holds a lesson far beyond the croft. Today, governments too often resemble over-anxious shepherds, issuing endless directives in an attempt to control every variable. If Leslie tried to script each move Bruce and Jude made, chaos would follow. They'd be confused, hesitant and paralysed by instruction. The croft would fall apart under the weight of micromanagement. The same is true in governance: when the state presumes it must command every detail of life, initiative disappears, trust erodes and competence declines.
The partnership between crofter and dog is a vivid example of order emerging from freedom, not imposed from above but grown from within. The dogs act through local knowledge: they understand their environment, the flock and the subtle cues of their master. They don't need constant direction because the system they're part of already carries shared norms and mutual trust. That is how real cooperation happens, not through regulation, but through relationship.
Liberty isn't lawlessness. Bruce and Jude don't dash off into the heather the moment Leslie's whistle falls silent. Their freedom is earnedrooted in discipline, skill and trust. The same kind of freedom sustains the island itself. Across Lewis, you'll find honesty boxes beside country roads, where locals leave fresh eggs, freshly baked goods and even second-hand tweed clothing with only a tin for payment. There's no CCTV or bureaucracy, just trust that people will do the right thing. In addition, if a crofter falls ill, a neighbour will tend their flock. Responsibility here is personal, not outsourced to an agency or committee.
Life on the island runs on initiative and mutual respect, not official instruction. No one decreed that honesty boxes must exist, or that crofters must help one another. These customs endure because it worked in the past and still does now. That's what gives Lewis its quiet strength: a sense that freedom is not a problem to be solved, but a condition to be sustained.
Compare that with the modern political impulse to regulate everything from speech to stove tops. Too often, policymakers assume that order must come from above - from central planners in Whitehall or Holyrood. Yet on the boggy hills of Lewis, order arises naturally from trust and shared purpose. The dogs don't need a policy paper to know what to do. They need training, trust and space to act. The same is true for free people.
Freedom doesn't mean chaos; it means responsibility and room to exercise it. The moors of Lewis quietly remind us that systems built on trust work better than those built on control. The more power that drifts upward to the state, the weaker those local bonds become. Freedom, once replaced by bureaucracy, rarely returns.
Watching Leslie, Bruce and Jude herd sheep against the Atlantic wind, it was easy to see why this relationship has endured for centuries. It's efficient, humane and rooted in mutual understanding; a living metaphor for liberty. The crofter doesn't need to dominate his dogs. Instead, he trusts them to do their work. That trust, once earned, becomes the foundation of order. And whether on the hillside or in society at large, that's what freedom really should be: not the absence of structure, but the presence of trust.
This article originally ran at CapX.
* * *
Benjamin BH Ko
Benjamin B.H. Ko is a Masters student at the University of St Andrews and an intern at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/systems-of-trust/
The Tariff Vindication That Still Isn't
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:* * *
The Tariff Vindication That Still Isn't
*
Working Americans are paying the price.
The financial columnist, Matthew Lynn, is back at it. His latest essay asserts that economists still have egg on their faces because the Trump tariffs are, according to him, being paid by foreign corporations, not Americans. As he writes, Volkswagen took a EUR5 billion hit, Toyota warned of $9 billion in losses, and Adidas is eating EUR120 million. Checkmate, free traders.
I already responded to Lynn's previous ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news: * * * The Tariff Vindication That Still Isn't * Working Americans are paying the price. The financial columnist, Matthew Lynn, is back at it. His latest essay asserts that economists still have egg on their faces because the Trump tariffs are, according to him, being paid by foreign corporations, not Americans. As he writes, Volkswagen took a EUR5 billion hit, Toyota warned of $9 billion in losses, and Adidas is eating EUR120 million. Checkmate, free traders. I already responded to Lynn's previousattempt at tariff vindication last month. This latest requires a fresh rebuttal, not because the new article is more sophisticated, but because it manages to commit an even more fundamental economic error while ignoring the inconvenient mountain of evidence since "Liberation Day."
Let's start with a refresher on Econ 101 and what it really predicts will happen when a nation imposes tariffs.
What Do Tariffs Actually Do?
As Lynn acknowledges, "the tariffs are a tax." Because they are a tax, they are going to be paid by someone in some form. You can't have money flowing into the Treasury without someone paying that extra money in some way. Broadly speaking, we can divide the potential payors of American-imposed tariffs into three camps: American consumers, American importers, and foreigners.
One of the oft-cited effects of a tariff is to reduce the amount of imports coming into America. This makes sense and is in fact one of the numerous goals administration officials have pointed to. Insofar as American consumers and importers end up paying the tariff, they will buy less of the now-more-expensive foreign products. We're already seeing this happen in the US, which Lynn alludes to throughout his article.
If foreigners pay the tariff, they'll sell less of the now-tariffed goods to the US. This will, as President Trump and others have correctly identified, hurt their bottom line. To offset at least some of this, these countries will try to sell more of their products to their domestic consumers or consumers in countries other than the US. This is exactly what we have seen and what we are seeing, as other countries around the world are securing new trade deals with one another and deliberately excluding the United States from said deals.
So, Lynn is correct to point out that foreign corporations have incurred costs because of the Trump tariffs. However, despite his repeated implication to the contrary, this is not money that goes to the US Treasury. Volkswagen, for example, has raised the price of its 2026 models by up to 6.5 percent, largely due to tariffs, and has indicated that this is just the beginning. That's more money coming out of American consumers' pockets. At these higher prices, American consumers are purchasing fewer Volkswagens than last year. Volkswagen's losses from the tariffs include an almost 30 percent decline in profits from auto sales. Importantly, sales that do not happen count toward the reduced profit that Volkswagen reported but generate no tariff revenue for the Treasury to collect. That Lynn, a financial commentator, does not understand this distinction is deeply troubling.
Who Really Pays the Tariff?
Lynn's central argument rests on a fundamental confusion between what economists refer to as the "legal incidence" and the "economic incidence" of a tax. Legally, because tariffs are a tax on imports, it is the US importers who must write the check to Customs and Border Protection. But this says nothing about who actually pays the tariff.
For example, when landlords' property taxes go up, who pays? The landlord will obviously write the check to the county assessor, but unless Lynn thinks that landlords are running charities, that cost gets passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent, less frequent maintenance, or fewer included benefits (utilities or access to designated parking, for example). The legal incidence falls on the landlord, but the economic incidence falls disproportionately on renters, i.e., young Americans already besieged by high housing costs.
Tariffs work the same way. US Customs and Border Protection bills the American importer directly, which is the legal incidence of the tariff. But the economic burden gets distributed among American consumers, American importers, and foreign exporters, depending on the particulars of the individual markets.
Lynn cites the Harvard Pricing Lab finding an approximately 20 percent "pass-through rate," meaning that American consumers are only paying about one-fifth of the tariff costs. He treats this as a permanent feature of the tariff regime and as proof that foreigners are footing the bill. But the question isn't who writes the check today, it's who bears the cost over time. And here, the evidence directly contradicts Lynn's fables.
As we have seen, pass-through rates are not static, but evolve over time as markets adjust. And every piece of evidence suggests that the pass-through rate has been and is continuing to rise rapidly. Goldman Sachs and the Council on Foreign Relations tracked the evolution over just this administration. Their findings are stunning: In June, US businesses absorbed about 64 percent of the tariff costs, American consumers about 22 percent, and foreign exporters about 14 percent in the form of reduced profits. Just four months later, American businesses absorbed just 27 percent, while American consumers absorbed 55 percent and exporters absorbed 18 percent. Projections for 2026 continue the trend with consumers absorbing 67 percent, exporters 25 percent, and importers just 8 percent.
The logic behind this is simple and has been echoed by President Trump and Scott Bessent themselves. In the initial months following Liberation Day, American importers could not quickly shift to alternative suppliers, giving them little leverage to demand price cuts from existing foreign vendors. Many American importers also believed (or hoped?) that the tariffs were simply a negotiating tool that would be bargained away. Having built up inventories before April, they were able to avoid raising consumer prices, with the belief that the "temporary pains would be worth the long term gains."
That's no longer the case. As the BLS notes in its latest import price index report, the price of imports has barely changed. This matters because US importers, not foreign sellers, are legally required to write the tariff check. American buyers pay the foreign company's price, then pay the tariff on top of it. If foreigners were truly absorbing the tariffs, they'd have to lower their prices to compensate, and we would see a decrease in the import price index. We haven't. The index is flat, which is evidence that the burden of the tariff is, as economists warned, being paid disproportionately by Americans in one form or another. As the Council on Foreign Relations analysis points out, by October, importers have "had time to seek alternative suppliers, giving them a bit more negotiating leverage." More importantly, the "trade deals" that the administration has inked have made it clear that substantially higher tariffs are here to stay. All of this gives importers and retailers good reason to continue passing more of the costs along to consumers.
We are already seeing evidence of this happening. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's survey of small and medium-sized businesses, for example, confirms this dynamic. Firms expecting tariffs to persist for a year or longer plan to pass through three times more of their cost increases to consumers than firms expecting short-lived tariffs. As of August, over 45 percent of affected businesses expected their costs to be impacted for longer than a year.
But how does all of this compare to the pass-through rate felt during the 2018-2019 tariffs? The Harvard Pricing Lab the same data that Lynn citesactually undermines his entire argument. After just six months, the 2025 tariff pass-through rate is indeed around 20 percent. But if we compare this to the 2018 tariffs, the difference is night and day. After Trump's first-term tariffs, the pass-through rate stayed under 5 percent after a full year. This isn't evidence that these tariffs are working. It's evidence that these tariffs are hitting consumers harder and faster than the previous round.
What Businesses Are Saying
All of these numbers and statistics can certainly feel abstract. The lived, human reality is decidedly not.
The Federal Reserve's Beige Book, which collects both quantitative and qualitative reports from businesses across the country, tells a consistent story. In Cleveland, "some manufacturers and auto dealers reported passing along 100 percent of tariff increases to customers, while others said that they are slow[ly] raising prices in response to tariffs." In Chicago, "manufacturers attributed higher raw materials prices to tariffs and several said that they had passed on those increases to customers." In Richmond, a glass manufacturer reported that its supplier was driven out of business by the tariffs, forcing consolidation among remaining suppliers, eliminating regional jobs, and driving prices higher.
Survey data from Cleveland shows that 87 percent of manufacturing firms report increased costs due to tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding them. For firms that receive at least half of their materials from imports, 75 percent reported that they would pass at least a majority of the tariffs on to consumers. None reported that they would absorb the full cost themselves.
Philip Luck, former deputy chief economist at the State Department, put it succinctly : the president promised "millions and millions of jobs" from the tariffs, but those promises are completely out of step with reality.
The Manufacturing Renaissance That Isn't
Lynn alleges that tariffs are working as intended. If that's the case, we should see American manufacturing employment surging. After all, the entire point of the tariffs is to reshore American manufacturing jobssomething President Trump and his administration have been remarkably clear about.
So how's that going?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing sector has lost jobs for the past five months. The jobs report for September found 6,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, which brings the total job losses in manufacturing to 59,000 since April's "Liberation Day." The Institute for Supply Management finds similar figures, with eight consecutive months of contracting manufacturing employment.
These aren't statistical blips, and they're not the result of "fake data." They form a pattern. Manufacturing job openings have plunged by over 100,000 since Trump took office. Factory hiring in May fell to its weakest rate since 2016, including the pace of hiring during the COVID pandemic.
But these aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. They reflect the real, human toll felt by communities across the country. In Detroit, for example, a city that President Trump marked his 100th day in office by promising that "a lot of auto jobs coming" (sic), has been besieged by struggles in both the automotive and steel industries. Stellantis laid off 900 workers at five Midwest plants, specifically citing tariff-created conditions. Steel manufacturer, Cleveland-Cliffs, cut 1,200 jobs in Michigan and Minnesota.
This is not a surprise to anyone who remembers even recent history. When President Bush imposed steel tariffs in 2002, the effect was clear: steel manufacturing employment suffered, so much so that Bush had to rescind the tariffs ahead of schedule, yet the effect persisted years after their removal. Likewise, Trump's 2018 steel tariffs did save about 1,000 steel jobs in the short run but wiped out roughly 75,000 manufacturing jobs due to higher input costs.
The Real Story
Lynn wants us to believe that economists were wrong, that tariffs are a wealth transfer from Beijing and Berlin to Washington, and that Americans are getting a free ride while foreigners foot the bill. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
Still, Lynn and I agree on one thing: "there's nothing inherently wrong with a government robustly promoting the interest of its own citizens." The problem is that tariffs are not promoting America's interest. They are taxing American consumers, destroying American manufacturing jobs, and actively pushing trading partners away from the US such that our industries will have fewer, not more, customers on the world stage.
The American people are, on a per-capita basis, the most industrious and productive people on the planet. We don't need "protection" from the rest of the world. We need the freedom to trade with willing partners, the ability to buy inputs at competitive prices, and partnerships with foreign buyers so we can export our products to the rest of the world.
The tariff vindication that Lynn keeps promising remains as elusive as ever. And working Americans are paying the price. It's time to end this failed experiment once and for all.
This article originally appeared at Law & Liberty.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-tariff-vindication-that-still-isnt/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Brussels Bets the Farm
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Brussels Bets the Farm
By Claudia Ascensao Nunes
Why the EU-Mercosur agreement is not a free trade deal.
In Brussels, we have witnessed a scene that has become increasingly common: protests by European farmers marked by escalating hostility, including burning tires and clashes with police. This discontent is the cumulative reaction to a process that has dragged on for more than 25 years, and is now being pushed toward completion under conditions that are deeply damaging to European farmers. ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 26 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Brussels Bets the Farm By Claudia Ascensao Nunes Why the EU-Mercosur agreement is not a free trade deal. In Brussels, we have witnessed a scene that has become increasingly common: protests by European farmers marked by escalating hostility, including burning tires and clashes with police. This discontent is the cumulative reaction to a process that has dragged on for more than 25 years, and is now being pushed toward completion under conditions that are deeply damaging to European farmers.
Some invoke the benefits of free markets, and, under normal circumstances, these do indeed offer the best outcomes for both producers and consumers. The problem is that between European farmers and producers from Mercosura trade bloc that includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguaythe market can never be truly free, because farmers in each bloc operate under fundamentally different regulatory conditions.
The European Union (EU) requires its farmers to comply with increasingly stringent environmental, sanitary, and labor standards under the European Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)including specific rules such as GAEC 8, which obliges farmers to leave portions of their land uncultivated as fallow areas or nonproductive features like hedgerows or biodiversity zones. These requirements significantly raise production costs. At the same time, the EU seeks to open its market to products from countries that are not subject to comparable rules and can sell at lower prices. Under these conditions, to speak of a "free market" is a conceptual error. There is no market freedom when costs are imposed asymmetrically by political decision.
In practice, this forces European farmers to give up part of their productive capacity in order to meet politically defined environmental objectives, without any proportional compensation in income and without equivalent obligations being imposed on imported products. This represents an indirect cost imposed by regulatory decisions. The farmer produces less, while continuing to compete in an open market with external producers who are not required to withdraw land from production.
The same applies to the severe restrictions on the use of pesticides and fertilizers imposed by the Farm to Fork strategy. European farmers are compelled to rely on alternative inputs that are often more expensive and operationally less effective, not because they fail environmental or ecological standards, but because they tend to provide narrower protection, require more frequent application, and function reliably only under specific agronomic conditions. This increases exposure to pests and crop disease, raises production costs, and makes yields more volatile, particularly for small farms.
Producers in Mercosur countries are not operating without regulation: These countries have their own environmental, sanitary, and labor rules, and agricultural exports to the European Union must comply with EU food safety standards at the border. However, these requirements are not comparable in scope or economic impact to the EU's production-level constraints.
Under the Farm to Fork strategy, the EU has set targets to reduce pesticide use and risk by 50% and fertilizer use by at least 20% by 2030, implementing these goals through restrictions on inputs and bans on numerous active substances. Many substances prohibited in the EU, such as Chlorothalonil, remain authorized for agricultural use in Mercosur countries.
While Mercosur producers may be subject to national regulations and sustainability objectives, they are not required to internalize equivalent production-level constraints that systematically reduce output or raise compliance costs. As a result, European farmers face regulatory pressures that are not shared by their external competitors, creating an artificial price gap driven by regulatory asymmetry rather than differences in productive efficiency.
Added to these pressures are the costs associated with labor and social standards in force within the EU. European farmers must comply with high minimum wages, social security contributions, and strict rules governing hiring and workplace safety, at a time of severe agricultural labor shortages. These obligations are legitimate within an economic system that values social protection and workers' rights. However, they become a source of distortion when the EU opens its market to products from countries where labor costs are substantially lower, regulations are less demanding, and enforcement is weaker. Once again, price differences do not reflect greater productive efficiency but a profoundly unequal regulatory framework.
At the same time, European farmers face an effective reduction in support under the CAP, as financial assistance is increasingly conditional on compliance with environmental requirements and administrative controls. Farmers who fail to meet these conditions risk losing income support. This model disproportionately affects small farmers, who lack the financial and administrative capacity to absorb additional costs, continuously adapt to new rules, and compete in a liberalized market without regulatory reciprocity.
More than a simple trade agreement, the EU-Mercosur dossier is becoming a source of division within the EU itself. The public opposition of French President Emmanuel Macron and the resistance of other member states with vulnerable agricultural sectors reveal deep differences among countries with divergent economic priorities. When an agreement places national governments under intense social pressure and forces member states to choose between preserving European unity and protecting internal stability, the issue ceases to be merely agricultural or commercial and becomes clearly political. Moving forward without correcting these inequalities risks worsening internal tensions and deepening public distrust in European institutions.
If the EU wishes to be honest about the concept of free markets and preserve its agricultural base, it must reduce the environmental, administrative, and social burdens imposed on its own farmers. Maintaining a system in which European producers are burdened with politically imposed costs while competing in an open global market is unsustainable. Continuing on this path will inevitably lead to the disappearance of small farmers, increased concentration of production, and greater dependence on foreign nations for food.
* * *
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/brussels-bets-the-farm/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: U.S. Law Shouldn't Copy Europe's App Store Regulation
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
U.S. law shouldn't copy Europe's app store regulation
The App Store Freedom Act would undermine security features and complicate the user experiences of hundreds of millions of consumers.
By Nicole Shekhovtsova
Lawmakers in the United States are considering a major intervention in the way big mobile platforms like Apple and Google sell apps to hundreds of millions of smartphone owners. Taking a page from Europe's Digital Markets Act (DMA), the App Store Freedom Act would require Apple and Google ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * U.S. law shouldn't copy Europe's app store regulation The App Store Freedom Act would undermine security features and complicate the user experiences of hundreds of millions of consumers. By Nicole Shekhovtsova Lawmakers in the United States are considering a major intervention in the way big mobile platforms like Apple and Google sell apps to hundreds of millions of smartphone owners. Taking a page from Europe's Digital Markets Act (DMA), the App Store Freedom Act would require Apple and Googleto host rival app stores and give app developers equal technical access to those using official channels. Rather than greater freedom, the act would undermine security features and complicate the user experiences of hundreds of millions of consumers.
The App Store Freedom Act attempts to break up so-called "mobile walled gardens," mandating that large mobile platforms let users replace and delete apps and services that come pre-installed on their devices in favor of third-party apps downloaded from unofficial app stores. Users would also be given the ability to choose alternative in-app payments and payment systems that are not operated or controlled by the covered company's app store. On top of that, platforms would have to give third-party app developers the same kind of system-level access that official apps get--the same tools, interfaces, and technical permissions.
The core of the bill is a U.S. version of what the European Union has already done through similar provisions in the DMA. In theory, both laws aim to make digital app markets more competitive. But in practice, as critics of the DMA have noted, breaking down the walls leads to emerging security risks, clunkier user journeys, and still-uncertain gains for competition. None of that should appeal to U.S. policymakers.
Why the walls exist
There are plenty of reasons why an app store would want to limit which apps are available for download, what data an app developer can access, and which methods app developers can use to interact with and advertise to consumers. Devices and app stores carry the burden of preventing the spread of malware, blocking deceptive apps, and setting clear user consent requirements when apps access onboard systems like a device's camera and location.
Early app stores were flooded with scams and services using questionable data practices, especially around subscriptions. These so-called "fleeceware" apps advertised themselves as free, then quietly converted users into expensive recurring subscriptions that are difficult to cancel. In 2018, for instance, TechCrunch highlighted a QR code reader that advertised itself as free but quietly enrolled users in a $156 per year subscription, briefly landing it among the App Store's top grossing apps.
Over time, Apple and Google responded by tightening their rules, stepping up human review, and adding automated scanning. Apple now reports that its App Store has prevented billions of dollars in fraudulent transactions in recent years and blocked millions of risky app submissions. Google's Play Protect scans hundreds of billions of apps per day, including app submissions to the Play Store, and blocks millions of apps and developer accounts that violate policies. These protections work because platforms have the ability to set strict app store rules, but by forcing platforms to treat unofficial apps and app stores on equal terms, the App Store Freedom Act would make that job harder and more complex.
Upending the U.S. app store security model
Much of the App Store Freedom Act is ripped from the interoperability section of Europe's DMA. Under this section, the European Commission decides which big tech companies count as "gatekeepers" by looking at their turnover inside the EU, market capitalization, and user thresholds, then imposes a set of rules on their "core platform services." Those obligations include allowing users to uninstall pre loaded apps, permitting installation of third party app stores, banning self preferential rankings, and requiring fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory terms for access to app stores and key technical interfaces. The App Store Freedom Act is narrower in scope, but the regulatory logic is the same.
Europe's experience under the DMA already shows how quickly a well-intentioned regulation can produce a messy, hard-to-manage safety environment. Earlier this year, EU iPhone users found that minors could install Hot Tub, a porn app, through a third-party app store called AltStore PAL. Because the app was installed via a third-party store, it bypassed Apple's parental controls.
The controversy highlighted the importance of user trust. Most users have come to understand that apps on an iPhone have gone through the same App Store screening, age-rating, and parental-control regime they've relied on for years. But the DMA undermined this assumption. Third-party apps pass only minimal checks on iPhones to ensure they are compatible with the device, bypassing the App Store's curated review. That gap between what users think an iPhone app means and what the platform can actually guarantee is an inevitable side effect of treating third-party app stores as interchangeable with the official store despite obvious differences in oversight and risk.
This serves as just one of the core reasons why these interoperability mandates risk undoing many of the hard-won improvements to the app-store ecosystem over the last decade. They don't abolish platform review entirely, but they do make it easier for riskier app stores, sideloaded apps, and third party payment systems to reach consumers without going through the same curated, tightly controlled channels that exist today. A platform can't offer the same level of privacy or safety when it's legally required to allow apps, app stores, and payment systems it can't fully vet.
The changes mandated by the App Store Freedom Act are not simply a matter of facilitating consumer choice. The bill's supporters suppose that individual smartphone users can choose to deactivate specific security features, but this is not how complex smartphone ecosystems work. Allowing this functionality at the user level forces mobile platforms to undermine ease of use and security features for all users. The sets of features sometimes called "walled gardens" have evolved from decades of mobile platforms responding in the market to what their consumers demand. Forcing down such walls would do nothing to enhance the "freedom" of app store customers.
* * *
Nicole Shekhovtsova is a technology policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/u-s-law-shouldnt-copy-europes-app-store-regulation/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Ohio's Reckless Kratom Ban Could Create New Public Safety Concerns and Grow the Illegal Market
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
Ohio's reckless kratom ban could create new public safety concerns and grow the illegal market
By banning nearly every kratom product, save for unprocessed leaf kratom, the state has functionally outlawed the entire consumer market.
By Michelle Minton
The Ohio Board of Pharmacy issued an emergency ruling Dec. 12 banning most kratom products for 180 days, a misguided public health mistake that substitutes political panic for sound policy. The ruling imposes a sweeping de facto prohibition disguised ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Ohio's reckless kratom ban could create new public safety concerns and grow the illegal market By banning nearly every kratom product, save for unprocessed leaf kratom, the state has functionally outlawed the entire consumer market. By Michelle Minton The Ohio Board of Pharmacy issued an emergency ruling Dec. 12 banning most kratom products for 180 days, a misguided public health mistake that substitutes political panic for sound policy. The ruling imposes a sweeping de facto prohibition disguisedas a measured action on synthetic products. By banning nearly every kratom product, save for unprocessed leaf kratom, the state has functionally outlawed the entire consumer market. This will push the market underground, eliminate safe access for adults, and criminalize consumers across the state. Far from addressing legitimate safety concerns, the rule is likely to create new and more severe ones.
The ruling, issued at Gov. Mike DeWine's request, classifies "mitragynine-related compounds" as Schedule I controlled substances. This includes compounds derived from kratom, like 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), whether synthetic or naturally occurring. The practical effect is that the rule bans not only synthetic kratom compounds, but also any processed kratom product on the market.
The rule's lone exemption is for mitragynine itself and "natural kratom in its vegetation form." In other words, the only kratom product now legal in Ohio is raw, unprocessed leaf--a form impractical for most consumers that represents a fraction of the existing consumer market. What DeWine has billed as a narrow ban on "synthetics" is, in reality, the elimination of the legal kratom industry in Ohio.
DeWine justified the ban by citing more than 200 Ohio overdose deaths since 2019 in which kratom played a role. Yet, toxicology reports consistently show these overdoses involve poly-drug use, most often with illicit opioids like fentanyl, benzodiazepines, or alcohol. Additionally, because managing opioid dependence is a common motivation cited by kratom users, its role in these overdose incidents is unclear.
Meanwhile, Ohio has seen a dramatic decline in overall overdose deaths even as kratom use has become more common. This correlation deserves scrutiny, not panic. For many adults, kratom serves as a less-risky alternative to illicit opioids and as a tool for managing both pain and opioid dependence. Criminalizing products that people with substance use disorder tell us they rely on to maintain abstinence will not make them safer. It will only push them toward the more dangerous options of illicit kratom supplies, which may be adulterated with substances like fentanyl, or toward illicit opioids, potentially increasing overdoses in the state.
The emergency prohibition on 7-OH and other kratom derivatives is an example of the "ratchet effect" we repeatedly see in drug policy, where fear and incomplete data lead to pre-emptive scheduling, which then paralyzes scientific research and halts the development of science-informed regulations. Once a substance is classified as Schedule I, studying its risks, benefits, or safe manufacturing standards becomes practically impossible.
DeWine is correct to consider the state's role in safeguarding public health from novel products and substances. But such decisions must be grounded in the full spectrum of evidence, including the testimony of thousands of Ohioans who use kratom and 7-OH responsibly for pain management and opioid withdrawal. Public policy should aim to reduce death, disease, and crime. An emergency prohibition will do the opposite, driving consumers toward dangerous, unregulated products or back to the illicit opioid supply.
If protecting public health is truly the goal, Ohio should pursue regulation, not prohibition. As with other adult substances, like alcohol and cannabis, the state can establish product safety standards, require accurate labeling and potency testing, maintain a system of registration for manufacturers and retailers, and restrict legal sales to adults. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy and the state legislature should look beyond emergency scheduling and embrace a regulatory approach that protects consumers through clarity, quality controls, and age gating--not through criminalization that invariably causes more harm than it prevents.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/ohios-reckless-kratom-ban-could-create-new-public-safety-concerns-and-grow-the-illegal-market/
Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida, Announces Partnership with Professional Tennis Star Madison Keys
JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Dec. 23 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida, Announces Partnership with Professional Tennis Star Madison Keys
*
ORLANDO, Florida (December 23, 2025) Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida, today announced a two-year partnership with professional tennis powerhouse and reigning Australian Open Champion Madison Keys. She will serve as a Nemours Children's brand ambassador, working with the hospital's department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine.
As a top 10-ranked tennis star, Keys appreciates the role sports ... Show Full Article JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Dec. 23 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida, Announces Partnership with Professional Tennis Star Madison Keys * ORLANDO, Florida (December 23, 2025) Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida, today announced a two-year partnership with professional tennis powerhouse and reigning Australian Open Champion Madison Keys. She will serve as a Nemours Children's brand ambassador, working with the hospital's department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. As a top 10-ranked tennis star, Keys appreciates the role sportscan play in keeping children active as part of an overall healthy lifestyle. This partnership expands upon Nemours Children's ongoing role as an official medical provider at the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA) National Campus in Orlando.
"Our collaboration with Madison Keys is a testament to our shared commitment to improving the lives of children in our community and creating the healthiest generations of children through Whole Child Health," said Martha McGill, MBA, MHA, President, Nemours Children's Health, Central Florida. "As Central Florida's only licensed specialty children's hospital, by combining our passion for helping children and Madison's enthusiasm, we aim to enhance the lives of young patients and their families. Together, we can expand our impact in the communities we serve."
"Partnering with Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida, and working closely with their Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine truly means a lot to me," said Keys. "This collaboration goes beyond medicineit's about connecting with patients and the community, and sharing the importance of staying active, healthy, and confident in what your body can achieve."
"By working alongside such a well-respected athlete who shares our passion for children's well-being, we can make a lasting impact both on and off the court," said John Lovejoy, MD, Chair of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine for Nemours Children's Hospital, Florida. "As one of the nation's top-ranked pediatric orthopedic programs this collaboration is a natural extension of the support that we have long given the tennis community. We look forward to working with Madison to celebrate how tennis and sports can impact lifelong health, starting with children."
About Nemours Children's Health
Nemours Children's Health is one of the nation's largest multistate pediatric health systems, which includes two freestanding children's hospitals and a network of more than 70 primary and specialty care practices. Nemours Children's seeks to transform the health of children by adopting a holistic health model that utilizes innovative, safe, and high-quality care, while also addressing children's needs well beyond medicine. In producing the highly acclaimed, award-winning pediatric medicine podcast Well Beyond Medicine, Nemours underscores that commitment by featuring the people, programs and partnerships addressing whole child health. Nemours Children's also powers the world's most-visited website with health information written for parents, kids and teens, Nemours KidsHealth.
The Nemours Foundation, established through the legacy and philanthropy of Alfred I. duPont, provides pediatric clinical care, research, education, advocacy, and prevention programs to the children, families and communities it serves. For more information, visit Nemours.org.
***
Original text here: https://nemours.mediaroom.com/MadisonKeys
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Values in the Market
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 23 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Values in the Market
By Kimberlee Josephson
What 'Love Actually' teaches us about buyer-business relationships.
Love Actually has become a beloved holiday classic precisely because it captures the messy, often contradictory nature of human relationships. The film's intersecting storylines show just how essential trust isand how devastating its absence can be. Few scenes hit harder than the moment Karen (Emma Thompson) puts on the Joni Mitchell album her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) gave ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 23 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Values in the Market By Kimberlee Josephson What 'Love Actually' teaches us about buyer-business relationships. Love Actually has become a beloved holiday classic precisely because it captures the messy, often contradictory nature of human relationships. The film's intersecting storylines show just how essential trust isand how devastating its absence can be. Few scenes hit harder than the moment Karen (Emma Thompson) puts on the Joni Mitchell album her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) gaveher, after discovering that the expensive necklace she found in his pocket earlier wasn't intended for her but for another woman. The other woman, Mia (Heike Makatsch), is an office assistant at Harry's workplace and she persistently makes her interests known, with Harry succumbing to the desire to please her.
When Corporate Messaging Collides with Human Imperfection
What's most striking about Harry and Mia's storyline, in my opinion, isn't the affair itself but the setting in which it unfolds. Although it is never called out directly, the signage and decor of their office denote that the organization has an interest in social matters. Roughly six minutes into the movie, it shows Collin Frissell (Kris Marshall) walking up to a building that has a banner with the company name Fairtrade Co. Ltd. outside. And, as he walks about the office making deliveries and attempting to flirt with Mia, you can briefly catch phrases on the wall which say "Shopping that saves lives" and "Help shoulder their burden."
Now, given that I have been critical of companies that focus on signaling their virtue, rather than value, and I've expressed concerns regarding firms that emphasize ethical certification over wealth creation, it is probably not surprising that the social orientation of the company caught my eye. The irony is hard to miss: Harry and Mia work for an agency that promotes good intentionsbut their own actions fall short of doing so. And as with many things, art imitates life. A firm can wrap itself in altruistic messaging, but at the end of the day, every organization is made up of individuals with their own incentives, values, and failings.
Individuals, Incentives, and the Marketplace
Ludwig von Mises understood the central role individuals play in the marketplace, and his praxeological approach highlights that human action is always purposefuleven when it appears to run counter to societal expectations or organizational goals. "The market economy," according to Mises, "is a system of social cooperation," and the course of transactions and relationships ultimately reflects the intentions, incentives, and decisions of the individuals involved.
Recently, in a course I teach, we briefly discussed Douglas McGregor's framework which positions managerial styles to fall into two categories: Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X managers view employees in a negative light, wherein workers need to be coerced to complete tasks. Theory Y managers assume that employees are engaged, and enjoy working and taking on new responsibilities. I tell my students, if I were a Theory X professor, pop quizzes would be commonplace, and if I were a Theory Y professor, I wouldn't question the use of their laptops and there would be no need for exams. Now clearly, these are extremes, but understanding how to incentivize and motivate employees, along with providing guardrails for company activities, is an important aspect of management. Mission statements, codes of conduct, and reporting structures exist for a reason: they provide clarity about goals, expectations, and responsibilities.
Managers can help shape employee behavior, but businesses have far less control over the actions of customers, clients, and outside partners. Returning to Love Actually, Hugh Grant (playing the Prime Minister) must welcome Billy Bob Thornton (portraying the US President) out of diplomatic necessityuntil the President's arrogance forces him to draw a line. The bounds of a relationship are built on trust, and the marketplace works the same way.
Companies cater to customer interests, but the degree of trust between both sides ultimately shapes how a transaction unfolds. I was reminded of this during a recent pickup at my local Kohl's. I was struck by how frictionless the process was. I received a notification and a bin number, walked into the store, grabbed my bagged purchase from the designated cubby, and walked right out. No check-in. No scanning. No employee oversight. I couldn't help but wonder: What would happen if someone took the wrong bag? Or deliberately walked off with someone else's purchase? The system works only because Kohl's assumes that most customers will behave honestly and are comfortable with the grab-and-go method.
Compare that to my nearby Walmart, where I need an associate to unlock the case containing Lego sets. Two retailers, two different assumptions about customer behavior and views of the type of oversight neededand therefore two very different shopping experiences.
These contrasts illustrate a broader point: If we want more open shelves, smoother pickups, and fewer barriers in retail and beyond, we must remember that trust is not just something we demand from companies; it is something they must extend to us as well. And trust, whether in commerce or in everyday life, is a fragile thingeasy to fracture and difficult to rebuild.
A Marketplace Built on Mutual Responsibility
The most memorable moments in Love Actually are the ones in which characters extend goodwill despite uncertainty, revealing how meaningful trust becomes precisely when vulnerability is involved. Business transactions rely on a similar dynamic. Every seamless checkout, generous return policy, or unmonitored pickup represents a small extension of faith from companies to consumers. And those conveniences can vanish quickly if that faith is abused.
Ultimately, the relationship between buyers and businesses should be understood as a mutually beneficial partnership. Company success hinges on the ability to deliver genuine valuebecause, as Peter Drucker famously observed, "the purpose of business is to create and keep a customer." But that value can only be delivered when customers participate in good faith, honoring the systems that make modern retail fast, open, and affordable.
Good firms strive to serve customers, not work against them. And good customers contribute to an environment where such service is viable. When both sides respect the relationship, the marketplace functions as it should : cooperatively, efficiently, and in a way that benefits everyone involved. It's a delicate balanceone that depends heavily on reputation and the trust that underpins it. As Warren Buffett reminds us, "It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."
* * *
Dr. Kimberlee Josephson is an Associate Professor of Business at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania, and a Research Fellow for the Consumer Choice Center. Her academic background is in international studies and strategic management and she teaches courses covering topics on global sustainability, international marketing, and workplace diversity.
Prior to serving in academia, her professional career spanned from working in sales in Manhattan, as a producer for a web marketing firm, freelancing for on-air promotions at QVC, and as a research assistant for an international NGO. Her op-eds have appeared at University Business, Quartz at Work, and PA Capital Star. She holds a doctorate in Global Studies and Commerce from La Trobe University in Australia, a master's degree in Political Science from Temple University in Philadelphia, another master's degree in International Policy from La Trobe University, and a bachelor's degree in Business Administration with a minor in Political Science from Bloomsburg University.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/values-in-the-market/