Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: Rent-Setting Algorithms Require Targeted Regulation, Not New Laws
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Rent-setting algorithms require targeted regulation, not new laws
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties.
Eliza Terziev
Housing Policy Analyst
Max Gulker
Managing Director
October 12, 2026
The use of algorithms in housing rental markets to help assess and determine market pricing has come under increased scrutiny, with both federal regulators and state assemblies taking action. While many ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Rent-setting algorithms require targeted regulation, not new laws Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties. Eliza Terziev Housing Policy Analyst Max Gulker Managing Director October 12, 2026 The use of algorithms in housing rental markets to help assess and determine market pricing has come under increased scrutiny, with both federal regulators and state assemblies taking action. While manyfear these services will inevitably lead to collusion that only raises rents, a closer look shows algorithmic pricing is not the boogeyman many have portrayed. Whether algorithms benefit or harm consumers depends on the data they use and the goals of the software.
A recent settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and RealPage, the largest firm in the rent-setting algorithm market, shows that the federal regulatory system is working to preserve the positive features of these tools while disallowing the use of certain data that may facilitate price collusion between landlords.
Several states have also acted, either passing or considering legislation with goals similar to the antitrust settlement. However, many of these bills prove irrelevant at best and harmful at worst when considered alongside the federal settlement. A better approach would be to focus on enforcing existing federal regulations instead of layering new laws that add many costs for landlords and few benefits for renters.
Algorithmic rent-setting in practice
Algorithmic pricing uses computer software to recommend a price for a product based on user data, economic variables, and other information. While the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought greater public attention to the practice, algorithmic pricing has been a part of many markets for decades, including airfare, ridesharing, and e-commerce.
In the rental market, companies like RealPage and Yardi use macroeconomic variables and property-level data to generate real-time, algorithmically recommended rents for each unit in a property. Landlords can choose to implement these prices or ignore them. Property occupancy, historical price data, and lease length are examples of data points used to understand each property's internal supply-and-demand dynamics and ultimately inform final price recommendations. Current estimates find that 10.4% of rentals in the United States use algorithmic pricing, with users skewing towards larger multifamily buildings. An estimated 30% of buildings with 20 or more residential units use algorithmic pricing. In an estimated 90% of cases, landlords accept and implement the price recommendation generated by the algorithms.
Researchers and regulators separate the potential effects of rent-setting algorithms into two categories. First, algorithms make rents more responsive to changing market conditions. More efficient price-setting benefits the market overall. Like any other product or service, markets function best when landlords can quickly learn from and act on public information. For example, in 2008, when housing markets were in a nationwide downturn, properties that used algorithms had lower rents and higher occupancy rates. Algorithms quickly updated their recommendations based on new macroeconomic information, which resulted in lower prices. When the housing market recovered, the prices recommended by algorithms were higher than those charged in units that were not using them.
As this example shows, the proper use of algorithms is not biased toward either higher or lower rents; it simply helps landlords and renters find the right apartments and prices more quickly and efficiently. A 2026 study from the University of Pennsylvania and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) confirmed that RealPage had this effect, making the discovery of market information and the setting of prices more efficient.
However, the second category of effects, algorithmic use of nonpublic information from individual landlords, has raised concerns about collusion. This data includes but is not limited to rents, leases, and occupancy rates for specific units. In effect, algorithm users could indirectly set rents informed by confidential information from their competitors.
The NBER/UPenn study found evidence that prices resulting from using an algorithm were consistent with "joint profit maximization," or collusion among landlords, because of this shared nonpublic data. Across the 4.2 million rental units observed, this resulted in an estimated $25 increase in monthly rents. Concerns about this aspect of algorithmic pricing were the prime motivator of the 2024 DOJ antitrust suit against RealPage.
DOJ and RealPage reach a settlement
In August 2024, the DOJ, along with several states, sued RealPage, alleging the company's software allowed price coordination between landlords. The suit focused on the use of nonpublic data to generate frequent price recommendations for participating landlords and algorithmic features that were designed to asymmetrically push prices up, even when they were not optimal. In November 2025, RealPage agreed to remove features that limit price decreases and to stop using current and granular competitive data to recommend rent prices.
The remedies agreed to by RealPage and the DOJ do not reject all algorithmic pricing as anticompetitive. RealPage continues to offer an algorithm that incorporates a landlord's own property data, macroeconomic data, other public information, and some aged competitor data. The settlement seeks to preserve the efficiency-enhancing information properties of rent-setting algorithms while removing data and features that might aid collusion.
Reaching this settlement is evidence that the antitrust infrastructure already in place is working. While state-level challenges remain and are being resolved, the bottom line is that the DOJ and RealPage agreed these solutions are adequate to address antitrust concerns. A further question is whether additional legislation is needed.
State-level legislative efforts
To signal action on housing affordability, many states are now introducing their own legislation to restrict algorithmic rent-setting. Three states--New York, New Jersey, and California--have already enacted such laws, and states such as Maryland and Massachusetts are currently considering them.
* * *
Table 1: Enacted legislation as of October 2026
Table 2: Examples of state-level legislation currently being considered
* * *
All the state bills overlap substantially with the terms of the antitrust settlement between RealPage and the DOJ. Nevertheless, they raise concerns. First, with federal regulators already on the case, even small variations between bills risk creating a regulatory patchwork across states that would raise compliance costs for landlords and algorithm providers without providing any additional benefit to consumers. For example, states differ on whether using nonpublic data, or any competitor data at all, constitutes coordination.
Second, by using overbroad terms and definitions, state bills risk banning algorithmic rent-setting that facilitates the efficient flow of market information but does not assist in collusion. A primary example is the use of older competitor data. During its settlement, the DOJ determined that algorithms may still use nonpublic data if it is at least 12 months old and not part of an active lease. However, all five state bills in the tables below provide no similar carve-out and ban the use of all such data. These provisions will add uncertainty and complexity to rental markets.
Each bill contains different provisions and defines terms differently. In Massachusetts, for example, "coordinate" is defined as collecting data on historic or current rent prices, supply levels, occupancy rates, or lease dates; analyzing this data through software; and recommending a rental price. This definition makes no distinction between public and nonpublic data, capturing virtually all versions of algorithmic pricing software, regardless of any connection to price collusion. This definition also deviates from most other states, which specify the non-public nature of the data they target.
The differences between laws don't end with definitions. They also vary substantially in which activities they target. Some states, like New Jersey, directly address "parallel price coordination," while Maryland, for example, targets the training of models on nonpublic data. These differing provisions across state bills range from redundant to overly broad.
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties. To complicate things further, several city governments, like Bellingham, Wash., and Montgomery County, Md., are proposing to layer their own laws over state and federal laws. Even if these local rules are well-targeted, they risk creating an even more fragmented regulatory landscape.
Instead of adding additional laws and regulations on an increasingly granular scale, focusing on the use of nonpublic data while relying on the existing legal code can achieve the same goal of market fairness directly. As the RealPage lawsuit demonstrated, a robust, nationwide legal infrastructure already exists to address antitrust concerns. Price collusion is already illegal, and the system already addresses instances when it occurs. Relying on these existing, functioning legal frameworks is a clearer path to enabling both innovation and accountability, without creating a patchwork of state-specific laws that tech companies and landlords must now navigate.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/rent-setting-algorithms-require-targeted-regulation-not-new-laws/
* * *
Rent-setting algorithms require targeted regulation, not new laws
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties.
Eliza Terziev
Housing Policy Analyst
Max Gulker
Managing Director
October 12, 2026
The use of algorithms in housing rental markets to help assess and determine market pricing has come under increased scrutiny, with both federal regulators and state assemblies taking action. While many ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Rent-setting algorithms require targeted regulation, not new laws Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties. Eliza Terziev Housing Policy Analyst Max Gulker Managing Director October 12, 2026 The use of algorithms in housing rental markets to help assess and determine market pricing has come under increased scrutiny, with both federal regulators and state assemblies taking action. While manyfear these services will inevitably lead to collusion that only raises rents, a closer look shows algorithmic pricing is not the boogeyman many have portrayed. Whether algorithms benefit or harm consumers depends on the data they use and the goals of the software.
A recent settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and RealPage, the largest firm in the rent-setting algorithm market, shows that the federal regulatory system is working to preserve the positive features of these tools while disallowing the use of certain data that may facilitate price collusion between landlords.
Several states have also acted, either passing or considering legislation with goals similar to the antitrust settlement. However, many of these bills prove irrelevant at best and harmful at worst when considered alongside the federal settlement. A better approach would be to focus on enforcing existing federal regulations instead of layering new laws that add many costs for landlords and few benefits for renters.
Algorithmic rent-setting in practice
Algorithmic pricing uses computer software to recommend a price for a product based on user data, economic variables, and other information. While the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought greater public attention to the practice, algorithmic pricing has been a part of many markets for decades, including airfare, ridesharing, and e-commerce.
In the rental market, companies like RealPage and Yardi use macroeconomic variables and property-level data to generate real-time, algorithmically recommended rents for each unit in a property. Landlords can choose to implement these prices or ignore them. Property occupancy, historical price data, and lease length are examples of data points used to understand each property's internal supply-and-demand dynamics and ultimately inform final price recommendations. Current estimates find that 10.4% of rentals in the United States use algorithmic pricing, with users skewing towards larger multifamily buildings. An estimated 30% of buildings with 20 or more residential units use algorithmic pricing. In an estimated 90% of cases, landlords accept and implement the price recommendation generated by the algorithms.
Researchers and regulators separate the potential effects of rent-setting algorithms into two categories. First, algorithms make rents more responsive to changing market conditions. More efficient price-setting benefits the market overall. Like any other product or service, markets function best when landlords can quickly learn from and act on public information. For example, in 2008, when housing markets were in a nationwide downturn, properties that used algorithms had lower rents and higher occupancy rates. Algorithms quickly updated their recommendations based on new macroeconomic information, which resulted in lower prices. When the housing market recovered, the prices recommended by algorithms were higher than those charged in units that were not using them.
As this example shows, the proper use of algorithms is not biased toward either higher or lower rents; it simply helps landlords and renters find the right apartments and prices more quickly and efficiently. A 2026 study from the University of Pennsylvania and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) confirmed that RealPage had this effect, making the discovery of market information and the setting of prices more efficient.
However, the second category of effects, algorithmic use of nonpublic information from individual landlords, has raised concerns about collusion. This data includes but is not limited to rents, leases, and occupancy rates for specific units. In effect, algorithm users could indirectly set rents informed by confidential information from their competitors.
The NBER/UPenn study found evidence that prices resulting from using an algorithm were consistent with "joint profit maximization," or collusion among landlords, because of this shared nonpublic data. Across the 4.2 million rental units observed, this resulted in an estimated $25 increase in monthly rents. Concerns about this aspect of algorithmic pricing were the prime motivator of the 2024 DOJ antitrust suit against RealPage.
DOJ and RealPage reach a settlement
In August 2024, the DOJ, along with several states, sued RealPage, alleging the company's software allowed price coordination between landlords. The suit focused on the use of nonpublic data to generate frequent price recommendations for participating landlords and algorithmic features that were designed to asymmetrically push prices up, even when they were not optimal. In November 2025, RealPage agreed to remove features that limit price decreases and to stop using current and granular competitive data to recommend rent prices.
The remedies agreed to by RealPage and the DOJ do not reject all algorithmic pricing as anticompetitive. RealPage continues to offer an algorithm that incorporates a landlord's own property data, macroeconomic data, other public information, and some aged competitor data. The settlement seeks to preserve the efficiency-enhancing information properties of rent-setting algorithms while removing data and features that might aid collusion.
Reaching this settlement is evidence that the antitrust infrastructure already in place is working. While state-level challenges remain and are being resolved, the bottom line is that the DOJ and RealPage agreed these solutions are adequate to address antitrust concerns. A further question is whether additional legislation is needed.
State-level legislative efforts
To signal action on housing affordability, many states are now introducing their own legislation to restrict algorithmic rent-setting. Three states--New York, New Jersey, and California--have already enacted such laws, and states such as Maryland and Massachusetts are currently considering them.
* * *
Table 1: Enacted legislation as of October 2026
Table 2: Examples of state-level legislation currently being considered
* * *
All the state bills overlap substantially with the terms of the antitrust settlement between RealPage and the DOJ. Nevertheless, they raise concerns. First, with federal regulators already on the case, even small variations between bills risk creating a regulatory patchwork across states that would raise compliance costs for landlords and algorithm providers without providing any additional benefit to consumers. For example, states differ on whether using nonpublic data, or any competitor data at all, constitutes coordination.
Second, by using overbroad terms and definitions, state bills risk banning algorithmic rent-setting that facilitates the efficient flow of market information but does not assist in collusion. A primary example is the use of older competitor data. During its settlement, the DOJ determined that algorithms may still use nonpublic data if it is at least 12 months old and not part of an active lease. However, all five state bills in the tables below provide no similar carve-out and ban the use of all such data. These provisions will add uncertainty and complexity to rental markets.
Each bill contains different provisions and defines terms differently. In Massachusetts, for example, "coordinate" is defined as collecting data on historic or current rent prices, supply levels, occupancy rates, or lease dates; analyzing this data through software; and recommending a rental price. This definition makes no distinction between public and nonpublic data, capturing virtually all versions of algorithmic pricing software, regardless of any connection to price collusion. This definition also deviates from most other states, which specify the non-public nature of the data they target.
The differences between laws don't end with definitions. They also vary substantially in which activities they target. Some states, like New Jersey, directly address "parallel price coordination," while Maryland, for example, targets the training of models on nonpublic data. These differing provisions across state bills range from redundant to overly broad.
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties. To complicate things further, several city governments, like Bellingham, Wash., and Montgomery County, Md., are proposing to layer their own laws over state and federal laws. Even if these local rules are well-targeted, they risk creating an even more fragmented regulatory landscape.
Instead of adding additional laws and regulations on an increasingly granular scale, focusing on the use of nonpublic data while relying on the existing legal code can achieve the same goal of market fairness directly. As the RealPage lawsuit demonstrated, a robust, nationwide legal infrastructure already exists to address antitrust concerns. Price collusion is already illegal, and the system already addresses instances when it occurs. Relying on these existing, functioning legal frameworks is a clearer path to enabling both innovation and accountability, without creating a patchwork of state-specific laws that tech companies and landlords must now navigate.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/rent-setting-algorithms-require-targeted-regulation-not-new-laws/
Reason Foundation: How Local Governments Force Short-Term Rental Platforms to Turn Over User Data
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
How local governments force short-term rental platforms to turn over user data
State lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements.
Nicole Shekhovtsova
Technology Policy Analyst
Caden Rosenbaum
Managing Director of Technology Policy
October 12, 2026
Across the country, local governments have set up a complex web of burdensome restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs), units leased to tenants for 30 ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * How local governments force short-term rental platforms to turn over user data State lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements. Nicole Shekhovtsova Technology Policy Analyst Caden Rosenbaum Managing Director of Technology Policy October 12, 2026 Across the country, local governments have set up a complex web of burdensome restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs), units leased to tenants for 30days or less. Despite their local nature, these restrictions extend well beyond county lines, affecting the online platforms that facilitate STR transactions.
At a minimum, STR restrictions center around licensing. If a person doesn't have a license to run an STR out of their home, then they are violating the law. However, in many localities, anti-STR restrictions are imposed on would-be hosts to make it nearly impossible to obtain a license. Because these requirements are so nuanced, they are impossible to enforce without spending considerable amounts of tax dollars. So instead of scaling back their requirements, local governments turn to online STR platforms that facilitate transactions, demanding they hand over data about the hosts using their platforms--creating a privacy predicament for online platforms and a honeypot for hackers.
As more localities move to impose burdensome STR restrictions that rely on the data and assistance of online platforms for enforcement, state lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements, and the data they collect on hosts should only be accessible to localities when there's a warrant involved.
The patchwork problem created by multiple different licensing requirements
In Muskegon, Mich., the number of licensed short-term rentals is capped at 25 percent in neighborhoods. In Kansas City, Mo., rentals operated by non-residents are generally prohibited in residential zones, with few exceptions. And in Louisville, Ky., STRs can be no closer than 600 feet from another STR.
These are only a few of the many differing restrictions localities impose based on who they decide can and cannot rent out a home. In their zeal, however, these localities run headlong into the costly and complicated issue of actually having to enforce their ordinances by hiring staff and implementing monitoring software. When faced with this challenge, many cities and localities instead turn to the online platforms that facilitate transactions between hosts and guests, like Airbnb, Homeaway, and Vrbo, demanding they turn over data about their users to be used to verify compliance and send a takedown request for out-of-compliance STR listings.
The cybersecurity problem hidden beneath the surface of these requirements
Complying with the demands and restrictions of hundreds of different localities is an obvious headache for online platforms and STR operators alike. But the most concerning part of the local-level compliance burden is that, in many cities and towns, online platforms are strong-armed into turning over data to government agencies rather than prioritizing protecting their users' privacy. Platforms are often required to provide local governments with detailed data that includes whatever information a locality deems necessary, such as host names, dates a property was in operation, length of guest stays, amount charged per night, and more.
Many states have data protection laws on the books, but these laws protect user data from misuse in the hands of corporations--not local governments. Once a STR platform is forced to turn over data, users are dependent on their localities to protect their data.
Unfortunately, such data transfers add to an already existing honeypot of information within local government servers, which are already a favorite target for hackers to tap into. Many local governments' cybersecurity systems are woefully underfunded, resulting in insufficient investment in the infrastructure needed to keep such data safe.
How states should approach the policy problem at hand
There are many more examples of online platforms caught in the web of local government requirements than just STR platforms. But they all face the same central issues, which break down into two key components. First, online platforms should not be part of the regulatory equation at the local level. Second, absent a full-on warrant requirement, the data that a locality can request from an online platform should be significantly limited.
Several states have already adopted workable approaches. Tennessee's 2021 law prohibits local regulation of online marketplace operations and prohibits demands for personally identifiable user information without an administrative subpoena or court order. North Carolina enacted similar restrictions in 2023, requiring a subpoena or court order for compelled disclosure. Utah's 2026 law follows the same approach.
Conclusion
A platform may provide convenience in connecting STR hosts with guests, but that convenience shouldn't be the excuse local governments use to conscript online platforms when their STR ordinances get too complex for localities to police on their own. Such convenience favors the regulator, and much of the privacy, security, business risk, and cost of compliance is ignored or passed along to the platform and its users. As more localities seek to pass burdensome STR restrictions that rely on online platform data for enforcement, more states should follow the lead of states like Tennessee, North Carolina, and Utah.
* * *
Nicole Shekhovtsova is a technology policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Caden Rosenbaum is the managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/how-local-governments-force-short-term-rental-platforms-to-turn-over-user-data/
* * *
How local governments force short-term rental platforms to turn over user data
State lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements.
Nicole Shekhovtsova
Technology Policy Analyst
Caden Rosenbaum
Managing Director of Technology Policy
October 12, 2026
Across the country, local governments have set up a complex web of burdensome restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs), units leased to tenants for 30 ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * How local governments force short-term rental platforms to turn over user data State lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements. Nicole Shekhovtsova Technology Policy Analyst Caden Rosenbaum Managing Director of Technology Policy October 12, 2026 Across the country, local governments have set up a complex web of burdensome restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs), units leased to tenants for 30days or less. Despite their local nature, these restrictions extend well beyond county lines, affecting the online platforms that facilitate STR transactions.
At a minimum, STR restrictions center around licensing. If a person doesn't have a license to run an STR out of their home, then they are violating the law. However, in many localities, anti-STR restrictions are imposed on would-be hosts to make it nearly impossible to obtain a license. Because these requirements are so nuanced, they are impossible to enforce without spending considerable amounts of tax dollars. So instead of scaling back their requirements, local governments turn to online STR platforms that facilitate transactions, demanding they hand over data about the hosts using their platforms--creating a privacy predicament for online platforms and a honeypot for hackers.
As more localities move to impose burdensome STR restrictions that rely on the data and assistance of online platforms for enforcement, state lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements, and the data they collect on hosts should only be accessible to localities when there's a warrant involved.
The patchwork problem created by multiple different licensing requirements
In Muskegon, Mich., the number of licensed short-term rentals is capped at 25 percent in neighborhoods. In Kansas City, Mo., rentals operated by non-residents are generally prohibited in residential zones, with few exceptions. And in Louisville, Ky., STRs can be no closer than 600 feet from another STR.
These are only a few of the many differing restrictions localities impose based on who they decide can and cannot rent out a home. In their zeal, however, these localities run headlong into the costly and complicated issue of actually having to enforce their ordinances by hiring staff and implementing monitoring software. When faced with this challenge, many cities and localities instead turn to the online platforms that facilitate transactions between hosts and guests, like Airbnb, Homeaway, and Vrbo, demanding they turn over data about their users to be used to verify compliance and send a takedown request for out-of-compliance STR listings.
The cybersecurity problem hidden beneath the surface of these requirements
Complying with the demands and restrictions of hundreds of different localities is an obvious headache for online platforms and STR operators alike. But the most concerning part of the local-level compliance burden is that, in many cities and towns, online platforms are strong-armed into turning over data to government agencies rather than prioritizing protecting their users' privacy. Platforms are often required to provide local governments with detailed data that includes whatever information a locality deems necessary, such as host names, dates a property was in operation, length of guest stays, amount charged per night, and more.
Many states have data protection laws on the books, but these laws protect user data from misuse in the hands of corporations--not local governments. Once a STR platform is forced to turn over data, users are dependent on their localities to protect their data.
Unfortunately, such data transfers add to an already existing honeypot of information within local government servers, which are already a favorite target for hackers to tap into. Many local governments' cybersecurity systems are woefully underfunded, resulting in insufficient investment in the infrastructure needed to keep such data safe.
How states should approach the policy problem at hand
There are many more examples of online platforms caught in the web of local government requirements than just STR platforms. But they all face the same central issues, which break down into two key components. First, online platforms should not be part of the regulatory equation at the local level. Second, absent a full-on warrant requirement, the data that a locality can request from an online platform should be significantly limited.
Several states have already adopted workable approaches. Tennessee's 2021 law prohibits local regulation of online marketplace operations and prohibits demands for personally identifiable user information without an administrative subpoena or court order. North Carolina enacted similar restrictions in 2023, requiring a subpoena or court order for compelled disclosure. Utah's 2026 law follows the same approach.
Conclusion
A platform may provide convenience in connecting STR hosts with guests, but that convenience shouldn't be the excuse local governments use to conscript online platforms when their STR ordinances get too complex for localities to police on their own. Such convenience favors the regulator, and much of the privacy, security, business risk, and cost of compliance is ignored or passed along to the platform and its users. As more localities seek to pass burdensome STR restrictions that rely on online platform data for enforcement, more states should follow the lead of states like Tennessee, North Carolina, and Utah.
* * *
Nicole Shekhovtsova is a technology policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Caden Rosenbaum is the managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/how-local-governments-force-short-term-rental-platforms-to-turn-over-user-data/
Health Foundation: Social Care Report Highlights Need for Workforce Plan to Help Lay the Foundations for a National Care Service
LONDON, England, Oct. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Social care report highlights need for workforce plan to help lay the foundations for a National Care Service
14 October 2026
Responding to the annual Skills for Care State of the adult social care sector and workforce in England report, Lucinda Allen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'Today's report lands at a pivotal moment, with the prime minister prioritising social care reform and promising change for care workers. Vacancies have dropped but longer-term workforce pressures ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Oct. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Social care report highlights need for workforce plan to help lay the foundations for a National Care Service 14 October 2026 Responding to the annual Skills for Care State of the adult social care sector and workforce in England report, Lucinda Allen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said: 'Today's report lands at a pivotal moment, with the prime minister prioritising social care reform and promising change for care workers. Vacancies have dropped but longer-term workforce pressuresremain, with growth slowing as numbers of both British staff and new international recruits fall.
'The number of internationally recruited workers in social care dropped by 40% from 2024 to 2025. This is partly down to the closure of the care worker visa route, showing how policies focused narrowly on reducing immigration can negatively impact people's health and care services. Current proposals to make migrant care workers wait much longer to qualify for UK settlement could exacerbate recruitment challenges.
'Social care pay remains stubbornly low, with a quarter of care and support workers paid around the minimum wage. Government plans for new Fair Pay Agreements in social care are an important part of tackling this issue. The policy's success will rely on having the right incentives in place, including for providers to comply with new rules and staff to stay and progress in the sector.
'Evidence suggests pay policies work best as part of a wider strategy for recruiting and retaining enough staff, including measures to support training, oversight of workers and ethical international recruitment. So, it is welcome that the Secretary of State recently promised a government-led workforce plan for social care, which would be the first since 2009. While the prime minister's ambition for care to be free at the point of use is unlikely to be realised in this parliament alone, government should begin laying the foundations for a National Care Service now to show progress. A strong and supported workforce is one of the cornerstones on which those reforms will be built.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Adult-Social-Care-Workforce-Data/workforceintelligence/resources/Reports/National/The-state-of-the-adult-social-care-sector-and-workforce-in-England-2026.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/social-care-report-highlights-need-for-workforce-plan-to-help-lay-the-foundations-for-a-national-care-service
* * *
Social care report highlights need for workforce plan to help lay the foundations for a National Care Service
14 October 2026
Responding to the annual Skills for Care State of the adult social care sector and workforce in England report, Lucinda Allen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'Today's report lands at a pivotal moment, with the prime minister prioritising social care reform and promising change for care workers. Vacancies have dropped but longer-term workforce pressures ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Oct. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Social care report highlights need for workforce plan to help lay the foundations for a National Care Service 14 October 2026 Responding to the annual Skills for Care State of the adult social care sector and workforce in England report, Lucinda Allen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said: 'Today's report lands at a pivotal moment, with the prime minister prioritising social care reform and promising change for care workers. Vacancies have dropped but longer-term workforce pressuresremain, with growth slowing as numbers of both British staff and new international recruits fall.
'The number of internationally recruited workers in social care dropped by 40% from 2024 to 2025. This is partly down to the closure of the care worker visa route, showing how policies focused narrowly on reducing immigration can negatively impact people's health and care services. Current proposals to make migrant care workers wait much longer to qualify for UK settlement could exacerbate recruitment challenges.
'Social care pay remains stubbornly low, with a quarter of care and support workers paid around the minimum wage. Government plans for new Fair Pay Agreements in social care are an important part of tackling this issue. The policy's success will rely on having the right incentives in place, including for providers to comply with new rules and staff to stay and progress in the sector.
'Evidence suggests pay policies work best as part of a wider strategy for recruiting and retaining enough staff, including measures to support training, oversight of workers and ethical international recruitment. So, it is welcome that the Secretary of State recently promised a government-led workforce plan for social care, which would be the first since 2009. While the prime minister's ambition for care to be free at the point of use is unlikely to be realised in this parliament alone, government should begin laying the foundations for a National Care Service now to show progress. A strong and supported workforce is one of the cornerstones on which those reforms will be built.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Adult-Social-Care-Workforce-Data/workforceintelligence/resources/Reports/National/The-state-of-the-adult-social-care-sector-and-workforce-in-England-2026.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/social-care-report-highlights-need-for-workforce-plan-to-help-lay-the-foundations-for-a-national-care-service
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Spain's Socialist Prime Minister Calls Long-Overdue Election
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Going, Going... Gone?
Mark Nayler
Spain's Socialist prime minister calls a long-overdue election.
-
Over the next couple of months, you'll hear a lot about Pedro Sanchez. On October 5, prompted by his failure to secure parliamentary support for measures addressing Spain's housing crisis, the country's Socialist prime minister called a general election for November 29, several months ahead of schedule. Sanchez seeks a proper mandate for his minority coalition ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * Tuesday, October 13, 2026 Going, Going... Gone? Mark Nayler Spain's Socialist prime minister calls a long-overdue election. - Over the next couple of months, you'll hear a lot about Pedro Sanchez. On October 5, prompted by his failure to secure parliamentary support for measures addressing Spain's housing crisis, the country's Socialist prime minister called a general election for November 29, several months ahead of schedule. Sanchez seeks a proper mandate for his minority coalitionand hopes to get more Socialists elected by capitalizing on public anger over the housing situation. But polls currently put the Conservative Popular Party (PP) first with 34% of the vote, followed by the Socialists with 26%. To govern, the PP would need the support of Vox (a center-right party that has already partnered with the Conservatives in several regional administrations), which is expected to come in third with around 18%.
Public anger over Spain's housing crisis flared up last month, when an 87-year-old woman was evicted from her Madrid flat because she couldn't afford a rent increase (she has since died). The Spanish right's rejection of the measures Sanchez hastily prepared in response--including a ban on evictions until 2030, higher taxes on tourist flats, and restrictions on private investment firms active in the residential sector--fueled this outrage. Sanchez hopes to pass a modified version of the emergency package through a reduced parliament before the election; but even if he does, he won't solve Spain's housing problems.
The emergency measures are exactly that: short-term holdovers that fail to address the fundamental structural issues. Spain is running a deficit of around 700,000 homes, which has caused rental rates to double and house prices to rise by 44% since 2020. In a report published last November, the Bank of Spain identified historically sluggish construction as a key factor in the deficit. One conclusion to draw is that Sanchez has not done enough to stimulate activity in the construction industry. As one PP minister said: "Housing doesn't become more affordable through decrees; it becomes more affordable by building more homes."
This snap election seems premised on the belief that voters have extremely selective or short-term memories (which might well be true). Sanchez has had almost a decade to tackle the housing situation, during which period it has only worsened. But now he's hoping that the only thing voters will remember is the Spanish right (in conjunction with the Vox, labeled by the Socialists as "far right") blocking his last-ditch attempt at a solution. It's a risky move, but Sanchez is often described as a consummate political gambler. This is the third snap election he's called since coming to power in 2018. (The others were in April 2019 and July 2023. The repeat vote held in November 2019 was triggered automatically by parliamentary deadlock.)
Between now and November 29, there will be widespread speculation about whether the "Houdini" of Spanish politics, as Sanchez is sometimes called, can extricate himself from another tight spot; and there will be hand-wringing editorials in the center-left press about the potential demise of Europe's only "progressive" leader and the deterioration of European democracy. All of which misses the point--because Sanchez himself has done a lot to damage Spain's democracy. The key question posed by the snap election is "Why didn't Sanchez call one sooner?" Or, to put it the other way around: "Why is he still in power?"
Sanchez took office in June 2018 by winning a no-confidence vote against his Conservative predecessor, Mariano Rajoy. In the run-up to the vote, Sanchez applied relentless pressure on Rajoy to step down. His criticism focused on two key issues: legislative impotence, as manifested by Rajoy's inability to pass a budget, and corruption within the PP.
But since regaining power for the third time in 2023, after a snap election in which he narrowly lost to the Conservatives, Sanchez has not been able to pass a national spending plan. During the same period, some of his closest political allies have been charged with or suspected of corruption. None of this has prompted him to act on the same principles which he demanded of Rajoy eight years ago. The opposition also deserves criticism for its baffling failure to table a no-confidence vote against the Spanish premier.
"Approving a state budget," declared Sanchez while in opposition, "is the first and principal obligation of a government." On 10 separate occasions between February 17 and March 6, 2018, he demanded that Rajoy call elections. A government unable to pass a national spending plan, he said, was "as useful as a car without gas." Clearly, for Sanchez, that only applies to center-right governments.
It's now been more than 1,000 days since Spain had a new state budget. Due to his coalition's lack of support in parliament, Sanchez has rolled over the 2023 spending plan three times, over-extending a Constitutional mechanism designed to apply for a year at most. His government has been out of gas since squeezing back into power three years ago (via a deal with Catalan separatists that caused nationwide protests); yet were it not for the PP and Vox voting down his housing measures on October 2, Sanchez would likely have remained in office until next August, rolling over the 2023 budget a fourth time. If it takes power after the November vote, the PP has promised to tweak the law so that such prolonged abuse of democracy is not possible.
Sanchez is now also unable to criticize the Conservatives for corruption without being charged with hypocrisy (although so far that hasn't stopped him). In the debate preceding the no-confidence vote against Rajoy in 2018, Jose Luis Abalos, at the time the Socialists' organizational secretary, took aim at the Conservatives over the so-called Gurtel case, a huge cash-for-contracts scandal which saw one former party treasurer receive a 33-year jail sentence: "Through your use of power," Abalos told Rajoy, "you created a veritable circle of corruption... We have long lived in the universe of 'presumed innocent,' but that period is over."
Abalos became transport minister when Sanchez took over from Rajoy. Now he too is in jail. In June, Spain's Supreme Court sentenced him to 24 years for taking bribes on face-mask contracts during the pandemic. His former aide Koldo Garcia was given a 19-year sentence in the same case. The court said that "the seriousness of the charges derives from the fact that they erode the fundamentals of a democratic state and distort the purpose of public power into an instrument at the service of individual interests"--precisely the accusation Abalos leveled at Rajoy eight years ago.
Santos Cerdan--another member of Sanchez's inner circle, who succeeded Abalos as the Socialists' organizational secretary--is also under investigation for bribery, influence-peddling, and participation in a cash-for-contracts scheme. When Cerdan was arrested in June 2025, Sanchez publicly apologized for trusting him; but he refused the opposition's call for early elections, claiming that "this isn't a crisis of government; it's only affecting the Socialist party, not the government." A double-standard is disguised by this perplexing identity riddle: the Gurtel scandal "only" affected the PP, and was largely concentrated on activities that occurred years before Rajoy became prime minister. When, then, did Sanchez insist on his resignation?
Hopefully, a different government will have the opportunity to tackle Spain's housing crisis after November 29. Because according to his own principles (or at least those he had when in opposition), Sanchez should have gone a long time ago.
* * *
Mark Nayler
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-going-gone/
* * *
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Going, Going... Gone?
Mark Nayler
Spain's Socialist prime minister calls a long-overdue election.
-
Over the next couple of months, you'll hear a lot about Pedro Sanchez. On October 5, prompted by his failure to secure parliamentary support for measures addressing Spain's housing crisis, the country's Socialist prime minister called a general election for November 29, several months ahead of schedule. Sanchez seeks a proper mandate for his minority coalition ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * Tuesday, October 13, 2026 Going, Going... Gone? Mark Nayler Spain's Socialist prime minister calls a long-overdue election. - Over the next couple of months, you'll hear a lot about Pedro Sanchez. On October 5, prompted by his failure to secure parliamentary support for measures addressing Spain's housing crisis, the country's Socialist prime minister called a general election for November 29, several months ahead of schedule. Sanchez seeks a proper mandate for his minority coalitionand hopes to get more Socialists elected by capitalizing on public anger over the housing situation. But polls currently put the Conservative Popular Party (PP) first with 34% of the vote, followed by the Socialists with 26%. To govern, the PP would need the support of Vox (a center-right party that has already partnered with the Conservatives in several regional administrations), which is expected to come in third with around 18%.
Public anger over Spain's housing crisis flared up last month, when an 87-year-old woman was evicted from her Madrid flat because she couldn't afford a rent increase (she has since died). The Spanish right's rejection of the measures Sanchez hastily prepared in response--including a ban on evictions until 2030, higher taxes on tourist flats, and restrictions on private investment firms active in the residential sector--fueled this outrage. Sanchez hopes to pass a modified version of the emergency package through a reduced parliament before the election; but even if he does, he won't solve Spain's housing problems.
The emergency measures are exactly that: short-term holdovers that fail to address the fundamental structural issues. Spain is running a deficit of around 700,000 homes, which has caused rental rates to double and house prices to rise by 44% since 2020. In a report published last November, the Bank of Spain identified historically sluggish construction as a key factor in the deficit. One conclusion to draw is that Sanchez has not done enough to stimulate activity in the construction industry. As one PP minister said: "Housing doesn't become more affordable through decrees; it becomes more affordable by building more homes."
This snap election seems premised on the belief that voters have extremely selective or short-term memories (which might well be true). Sanchez has had almost a decade to tackle the housing situation, during which period it has only worsened. But now he's hoping that the only thing voters will remember is the Spanish right (in conjunction with the Vox, labeled by the Socialists as "far right") blocking his last-ditch attempt at a solution. It's a risky move, but Sanchez is often described as a consummate political gambler. This is the third snap election he's called since coming to power in 2018. (The others were in April 2019 and July 2023. The repeat vote held in November 2019 was triggered automatically by parliamentary deadlock.)
Between now and November 29, there will be widespread speculation about whether the "Houdini" of Spanish politics, as Sanchez is sometimes called, can extricate himself from another tight spot; and there will be hand-wringing editorials in the center-left press about the potential demise of Europe's only "progressive" leader and the deterioration of European democracy. All of which misses the point--because Sanchez himself has done a lot to damage Spain's democracy. The key question posed by the snap election is "Why didn't Sanchez call one sooner?" Or, to put it the other way around: "Why is he still in power?"
Sanchez took office in June 2018 by winning a no-confidence vote against his Conservative predecessor, Mariano Rajoy. In the run-up to the vote, Sanchez applied relentless pressure on Rajoy to step down. His criticism focused on two key issues: legislative impotence, as manifested by Rajoy's inability to pass a budget, and corruption within the PP.
But since regaining power for the third time in 2023, after a snap election in which he narrowly lost to the Conservatives, Sanchez has not been able to pass a national spending plan. During the same period, some of his closest political allies have been charged with or suspected of corruption. None of this has prompted him to act on the same principles which he demanded of Rajoy eight years ago. The opposition also deserves criticism for its baffling failure to table a no-confidence vote against the Spanish premier.
"Approving a state budget," declared Sanchez while in opposition, "is the first and principal obligation of a government." On 10 separate occasions between February 17 and March 6, 2018, he demanded that Rajoy call elections. A government unable to pass a national spending plan, he said, was "as useful as a car without gas." Clearly, for Sanchez, that only applies to center-right governments.
It's now been more than 1,000 days since Spain had a new state budget. Due to his coalition's lack of support in parliament, Sanchez has rolled over the 2023 spending plan three times, over-extending a Constitutional mechanism designed to apply for a year at most. His government has been out of gas since squeezing back into power three years ago (via a deal with Catalan separatists that caused nationwide protests); yet were it not for the PP and Vox voting down his housing measures on October 2, Sanchez would likely have remained in office until next August, rolling over the 2023 budget a fourth time. If it takes power after the November vote, the PP has promised to tweak the law so that such prolonged abuse of democracy is not possible.
Sanchez is now also unable to criticize the Conservatives for corruption without being charged with hypocrisy (although so far that hasn't stopped him). In the debate preceding the no-confidence vote against Rajoy in 2018, Jose Luis Abalos, at the time the Socialists' organizational secretary, took aim at the Conservatives over the so-called Gurtel case, a huge cash-for-contracts scandal which saw one former party treasurer receive a 33-year jail sentence: "Through your use of power," Abalos told Rajoy, "you created a veritable circle of corruption... We have long lived in the universe of 'presumed innocent,' but that period is over."
Abalos became transport minister when Sanchez took over from Rajoy. Now he too is in jail. In June, Spain's Supreme Court sentenced him to 24 years for taking bribes on face-mask contracts during the pandemic. His former aide Koldo Garcia was given a 19-year sentence in the same case. The court said that "the seriousness of the charges derives from the fact that they erode the fundamentals of a democratic state and distort the purpose of public power into an instrument at the service of individual interests"--precisely the accusation Abalos leveled at Rajoy eight years ago.
Santos Cerdan--another member of Sanchez's inner circle, who succeeded Abalos as the Socialists' organizational secretary--is also under investigation for bribery, influence-peddling, and participation in a cash-for-contracts scheme. When Cerdan was arrested in June 2025, Sanchez publicly apologized for trusting him; but he refused the opposition's call for early elections, claiming that "this isn't a crisis of government; it's only affecting the Socialist party, not the government." A double-standard is disguised by this perplexing identity riddle: the Gurtel scandal "only" affected the PP, and was largely concentrated on activities that occurred years before Rajoy became prime minister. When, then, did Sanchez insist on his resignation?
Hopefully, a different government will have the opportunity to tackle Spain's housing crisis after November 29. Because according to his own principles (or at least those he had when in opposition), Sanchez should have gone a long time ago.
* * *
Mark Nayler
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-going-gone/
FFRF and SSA Announce Recipients of Secular Student Activism Awards
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 13, 2026
FFRF and SSA announce recipients of secular student activism awards
The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its donor members have collaborated with the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) to select, fund and distribute major secular student activism awards for 2026.
FFRF is pleased to announce three winners of a $1,000 student activist award endowed by FFRF member Al Luneman. Additionally, two students have been selected for $1,000 Cliff Richards Memorial Student Scholarships ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 13, 2026 FFRF and SSA announce recipients of secular student activism awards The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its donor members have collaborated with the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) to select, fund and distribute major secular student activism awards for 2026. FFRF is pleased to announce three winners of a $1,000 student activist award endowed by FFRF member Al Luneman. Additionally, two students have been selected for $1,000 Cliff Richards Memorial Student Scholarshipsreserved specifically for freethinking students going to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Finally, $1,000 has been awarded to a student activist receiving FFRF's Strong Backbone award.
The Secular Student Alliance annually publicizes some of FFRF's specific student scholarships, along with those of other groups and individuals, provides applicant information, and vets the chosen students, which FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor praises as a "wonderful service to FFRF, other donors and students." As per alliance policy, only students' first names are used to protect their identities.
Al Luneman Student Activist Awards
Isaiah
Isaiah is a student activist at Paradise Valley Community College in Arizona with a long-standing passion for political affairs, constitutional law and academic excellence. Isaiah is studying to earn a law degree and become an attorney. Their academic and career focus is centered around the legal and political field, such as constitutional, antitrust, regulatory affairs and criminal justice.
Isaiah has led activism across Arizona as a political canvasser, engaging everyday voters and citizens on economic and political issues, including collecting petition signatures for ballot measures, voter registration and educating the public.
Isaiah is a member of the LGBTQ community, which radicalized them to continue achieving equality under the law, on a platform of secularism and religious nonaffiliation.
Isaiah has fought against Arizona's ESA voucher program, which has instituted a disastrous burden on public education funding, disintegrating a secular education system that instead chooses to subsidize private school tuition, including private religious schools and multimillionaire families.
Karina
Karina is a student at Longmont High School in Colorado. Her passion is medicine, research and activism through compassionately understanding people's belief systems.
Growing up, she never believed in God. Her parents were raised religious -- her Dad was born into a Protestant family, her mother into a Muslim -- but had become atheists as adults. Throughout her childhood, she learned about religions, sacred texts and how teachings are interpreted into daily life. Through a desire to understand the way people interpret the world, she has become a safe person for her peers to discuss their beliefs while questioning religious activities in school and proposing alternatives.
Karina's plans involve a lot of schooling: majors in evolutionary biology and bioengineering, a master's and Ph.D. in evolutionary biology focusing on epidemiology. Then she plans to attend medical school to become a neurosurgeon.
Vitha
Vitha is a junior at Duke University. She is studying psychology and global health. Her interests include clinical and moral psychology and ethical inquiry, especially questions of atheism, humanism and how people construct meaning, values and resilience outside of imposed belief systems.
Vitha identifies as an ex-Muslim, humanist and atheist and leads Duke's chapter of the Secular Student Alliance. Her secular identity inspired her activism for ex-religious and nonreligious people to have a safe space where they can find like-minded individuals.
As an ex-Muslim, Vitha has seen how barriers to safe spaces can prevent people from speaking up about challenges. She has worked with the Secular Student Alliance to build community and support for students who want to talk about religion's impact on their life and on the world; she wants students to know they are not alone.
Vitha hopes to become a psychologist to conduct research and treatments for people who have left high-control religion and/or deal with depression and trauma.
FFRF thanks member Al Luneman for making these scholarships possible.
Cliff Richards Memorial Student Activist Awards
Kaleb
Kaleb is a sophomore animal science student at Prairie View A&M University in Texas with a passion for veterinary medicine and animal welfare. His activism focuses on advocating for animals and promoting compassionate, responsible animal care in his community. He would love to be able to give back to those pet owners who have a financial need.
His secular identity is rooted in respecting people with different beliefs and perspectives while valuing critical thinking, openness and freedom of thought. He believes people can have different beliefs while still treating one another with dignity, compassion and respect.
Kaleb began volunteering in middle school and gained hands-on experience in animal care, strengthening his commitment to animal advocacy. He hopes to become a veterinarian and use his career to advocate for animals, educate others about responsible care and serve his community. His secular values will help him approach that work with compassion, respect and an open mind.
Leila
Leila is an activist and high school graduate from Minneapolis with a passion for writing. She dreams of becoming a doctor who can make a meaningful change in her community. She is attending Tennessee State University as a biology major, hoping to follow a premed pathway.
She identifies as a humanist. Growing up mostly in her grandparents' home, she saw firsthand how systemic racism deemed Black and Brown people as useless or undesired. Working in a rehab center, she saw people who were tossed off to the side or outcast for their perceived lack of value. These experiences led her to her humanist identity.
Leila plans to go to medical school to become a physician or medical researcher so she can help give back to her community and become an inspiring story for others in her community to follow and look up to.
FFRF is deeply grateful to Cliff Richards, who phoned FFRF shortly before his death to set up the Cliff Richards Memorial Scholarships to aid freethinking students, expressing special interest in aiding marginalized students.
Strong Backbone
Dustin
Dustin is a high school student, volunteer and avid activist attending Hightower High School in Houston, Texas. He has a passion for animal care and conservation and is committed to standing up for the justice of all through outreach, protest and charity.
Dustin believes that his secular identity is foundational to who he is, having been raised on humanist values by ex-Mormon parents. It is as a humanist that he finds the propagation of hatred and bigotry in America to be deeply unacceptable. Striving to be the change he wants in the world, Dustin leads his peers in improving their community, has confronted both his school board and city council on their injustices, hosted charity drives and pollinator plant giveaways, presented his work to Houston secular organizations, and much more.
In the future, Dustin hopes to become a wildlife veterinarian while maintaining his strong presence as an activist in his community, putting action and change into the world, not thoughts and prayers.
This award is underwritten by a generous octogenarian FFRF member.
FFRF has a variety of scholarships available to give directly for exceptional student activism, as well. If you know of any student who is actively helping to uphold state/church separation or fighting for the rights of nonbelievers, please use the form at ffrf.us/nominate.
For more information about this year's scholarships and student recipients, go to: secularstudents.org/scholarships/2026-recipients.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With over 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-and-ssa-announce-recipients-of-secular-student-activism-awards-2/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
October 13, 2026
FFRF and SSA announce recipients of secular student activism awards
The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its donor members have collaborated with the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) to select, fund and distribute major secular student activism awards for 2026.
FFRF is pleased to announce three winners of a $1,000 student activist award endowed by FFRF member Al Luneman. Additionally, two students have been selected for $1,000 Cliff Richards Memorial Student Scholarships ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 13, 2026 FFRF and SSA announce recipients of secular student activism awards The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its donor members have collaborated with the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) to select, fund and distribute major secular student activism awards for 2026. FFRF is pleased to announce three winners of a $1,000 student activist award endowed by FFRF member Al Luneman. Additionally, two students have been selected for $1,000 Cliff Richards Memorial Student Scholarshipsreserved specifically for freethinking students going to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Finally, $1,000 has been awarded to a student activist receiving FFRF's Strong Backbone award.
The Secular Student Alliance annually publicizes some of FFRF's specific student scholarships, along with those of other groups and individuals, provides applicant information, and vets the chosen students, which FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor praises as a "wonderful service to FFRF, other donors and students." As per alliance policy, only students' first names are used to protect their identities.
Al Luneman Student Activist Awards
Isaiah
Isaiah is a student activist at Paradise Valley Community College in Arizona with a long-standing passion for political affairs, constitutional law and academic excellence. Isaiah is studying to earn a law degree and become an attorney. Their academic and career focus is centered around the legal and political field, such as constitutional, antitrust, regulatory affairs and criminal justice.
Isaiah has led activism across Arizona as a political canvasser, engaging everyday voters and citizens on economic and political issues, including collecting petition signatures for ballot measures, voter registration and educating the public.
Isaiah is a member of the LGBTQ community, which radicalized them to continue achieving equality under the law, on a platform of secularism and religious nonaffiliation.
Isaiah has fought against Arizona's ESA voucher program, which has instituted a disastrous burden on public education funding, disintegrating a secular education system that instead chooses to subsidize private school tuition, including private religious schools and multimillionaire families.
Karina
Karina is a student at Longmont High School in Colorado. Her passion is medicine, research and activism through compassionately understanding people's belief systems.
Growing up, she never believed in God. Her parents were raised religious -- her Dad was born into a Protestant family, her mother into a Muslim -- but had become atheists as adults. Throughout her childhood, she learned about religions, sacred texts and how teachings are interpreted into daily life. Through a desire to understand the way people interpret the world, she has become a safe person for her peers to discuss their beliefs while questioning religious activities in school and proposing alternatives.
Karina's plans involve a lot of schooling: majors in evolutionary biology and bioengineering, a master's and Ph.D. in evolutionary biology focusing on epidemiology. Then she plans to attend medical school to become a neurosurgeon.
Vitha
Vitha is a junior at Duke University. She is studying psychology and global health. Her interests include clinical and moral psychology and ethical inquiry, especially questions of atheism, humanism and how people construct meaning, values and resilience outside of imposed belief systems.
Vitha identifies as an ex-Muslim, humanist and atheist and leads Duke's chapter of the Secular Student Alliance. Her secular identity inspired her activism for ex-religious and nonreligious people to have a safe space where they can find like-minded individuals.
As an ex-Muslim, Vitha has seen how barriers to safe spaces can prevent people from speaking up about challenges. She has worked with the Secular Student Alliance to build community and support for students who want to talk about religion's impact on their life and on the world; she wants students to know they are not alone.
Vitha hopes to become a psychologist to conduct research and treatments for people who have left high-control religion and/or deal with depression and trauma.
FFRF thanks member Al Luneman for making these scholarships possible.
Cliff Richards Memorial Student Activist Awards
Kaleb
Kaleb is a sophomore animal science student at Prairie View A&M University in Texas with a passion for veterinary medicine and animal welfare. His activism focuses on advocating for animals and promoting compassionate, responsible animal care in his community. He would love to be able to give back to those pet owners who have a financial need.
His secular identity is rooted in respecting people with different beliefs and perspectives while valuing critical thinking, openness and freedom of thought. He believes people can have different beliefs while still treating one another with dignity, compassion and respect.
Kaleb began volunteering in middle school and gained hands-on experience in animal care, strengthening his commitment to animal advocacy. He hopes to become a veterinarian and use his career to advocate for animals, educate others about responsible care and serve his community. His secular values will help him approach that work with compassion, respect and an open mind.
Leila
Leila is an activist and high school graduate from Minneapolis with a passion for writing. She dreams of becoming a doctor who can make a meaningful change in her community. She is attending Tennessee State University as a biology major, hoping to follow a premed pathway.
She identifies as a humanist. Growing up mostly in her grandparents' home, she saw firsthand how systemic racism deemed Black and Brown people as useless or undesired. Working in a rehab center, she saw people who were tossed off to the side or outcast for their perceived lack of value. These experiences led her to her humanist identity.
Leila plans to go to medical school to become a physician or medical researcher so she can help give back to her community and become an inspiring story for others in her community to follow and look up to.
FFRF is deeply grateful to Cliff Richards, who phoned FFRF shortly before his death to set up the Cliff Richards Memorial Scholarships to aid freethinking students, expressing special interest in aiding marginalized students.
Strong Backbone
Dustin
Dustin is a high school student, volunteer and avid activist attending Hightower High School in Houston, Texas. He has a passion for animal care and conservation and is committed to standing up for the justice of all through outreach, protest and charity.
Dustin believes that his secular identity is foundational to who he is, having been raised on humanist values by ex-Mormon parents. It is as a humanist that he finds the propagation of hatred and bigotry in America to be deeply unacceptable. Striving to be the change he wants in the world, Dustin leads his peers in improving their community, has confronted both his school board and city council on their injustices, hosted charity drives and pollinator plant giveaways, presented his work to Houston secular organizations, and much more.
In the future, Dustin hopes to become a wildlife veterinarian while maintaining his strong presence as an activist in his community, putting action and change into the world, not thoughts and prayers.
This award is underwritten by a generous octogenarian FFRF member.
FFRF has a variety of scholarships available to give directly for exceptional student activism, as well. If you know of any student who is actively helping to uphold state/church separation or fighting for the rights of nonbelievers, please use the form at ffrf.us/nominate.
For more information about this year's scholarships and student recipients, go to: secularstudents.org/scholarships/2026-recipients.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With over 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-and-ssa-announce-recipients-of-secular-student-activism-awards-2/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Sues Trump Administration Over Taxpayer Funding of Religious America 250 Events
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 13, 2026
FFRF sues Trump administration over taxpayer funding of religious America 250 events
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the Trump administration in federal court for refusing to release records on the use of taxpayer funds for religious events tied to the 250th anniversary celebrations.
The national state/church watchdog, which is also the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 13, 2026 FFRF sues Trump administration over taxpayer funding of religious America 250 events The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the Trump administration in federal court for refusing to release records on the use of taxpayer funds for religious events tied to the 250th anniversary celebrations. The national state/church watchdog, which is also the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), filed suit today in the U.S. District Court forthe District of Columbia against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service under the Freedom of Information Act after the agencies failed to produce records requested months ago. The lawsuit seeks to compel the release of documents detailing federal involvement in religious programming associated with the administration's "Freedom 250" initiative, including an all-day Christian prayer rally called by President Trump and held on the National Mall.
Trump promoted the all-day prayer fest during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast: "On May 17, 2026, we are inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to rededicate America as one nation under God."
Says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Americans deserve to know how much of our tax dollars were misused to promote a Christian nationalist worship service."
"The 250th anniversary of our nation's founding should have celebrated the constitutional principles that unite us all, including the all-American principle of separation between state and church that ensures true religious freedom," Gaylor adds. "It should never have been used to promote an extremist brand of Christianity or to falsely portray the United States as 'a Christian nation.'"
At the center of FFRF's investigation is "Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving," a May 17 event that featured videos from Trump (reading from a chapter of the bible), Vice President JD Vance ("We've always been and still are a nation of prayer, and thank God for that"), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (who urged attendees to pray "on bended knee" to Jesus) and an in-person appearance from House Speaker Mike Johnson ("We hereby rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God"). Numerous religious leaders also spoke; every speaker but one ultraorthodox rabbi was a Christian.
FFRF is seeking to determine to what extent federal resources and taxpayer dollars were used to organize, promote or subsidize this pervasively sectarian and exclusionary religious celebration.
Congress voted in 2016 to appropriate $150 million to the Department of the Interior for semiquincentennial activities billed as America 250. But most of the congressional funding has gone to Freedom 250, which Trump announced in December 2025 as a separate entity. FFRF is seeking to discover how much public money was directed toward religious worship and proselytizing under the guise of commemorating (and whitewashing) American history.
Congressional Freethought Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., released a report in July charging, "Donald Trump's hijacking of America's 250th birthday will go down as one of the most corrupt, brazen abuses of public trust in presidential history, even by the dubious standards of this administration." One use was $10 million for "Freedom Trucks" that promoted Christianity and included an AI rendering falsely claiming that George Washington said, "Our rights are a gift from God."
FFRF first submitted a FOIA request to the National Park Service on March 5 seeking all permit applications, issued permits, memoranda, schedules and communications relating to the Rededicate 250 event. Despite repeated attempts by FFRF's legal counsel to obtain the records, the agencies have produced nothing.
FFRF submitted a second FOIA request on May 13, expanding its investigation to the broader Freedom 250 initiative and its relationship with religious organizations. That request sought contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, payment records and communications involving Freedom 250, particularly those connected to religious worship and prayer. The request also sought information about "America Prays," a faith-based initiative Trump announced promoting nationwide prayer activities, including events associated with the anniversary celebrations.
The Department of the Interior acknowledged the second request but has not made a substantive determination or released any responsive documents. As of this month, the request remained listed as "in process."
The Freedom of Information Act generally requires federal agencies to make determinations on requests within 20 business days, subject to limited extensions. FFRF contends that the agencies have violated federal law by failing to meet those deadlines, withholding responsive records and failing to provide estimated completion dates.
FFRF's lawsuit asks the court to order the agencies to conduct reasonable searches, produce all nonexempt responsive records, justify any lawful withholdings and comply with their obligations under FOIA.
"This administration cannot use taxpayer money to promote religious events and then keep the public in the dark about how that money was spent," says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. "The Freedom of Information Act exists precisely so Americans can hold their government accountable. Federal agencies do not get to ignore transparency laws simply because the records might invite scrutiny."
FFRF calls the records essential to determining the extent of federal involvement in these religious activities and how they violated the Constitution.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-sues-trump-administration-over-taxpayer-funding-of-religious-america-250-events/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
October 13, 2026
FFRF sues Trump administration over taxpayer funding of religious America 250 events
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the Trump administration in federal court for refusing to release records on the use of taxpayer funds for religious events tied to the 250th anniversary celebrations.
The national state/church watchdog, which is also the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 13, 2026 FFRF sues Trump administration over taxpayer funding of religious America 250 events The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the Trump administration in federal court for refusing to release records on the use of taxpayer funds for religious events tied to the 250th anniversary celebrations. The national state/church watchdog, which is also the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), filed suit today in the U.S. District Court forthe District of Columbia against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service under the Freedom of Information Act after the agencies failed to produce records requested months ago. The lawsuit seeks to compel the release of documents detailing federal involvement in religious programming associated with the administration's "Freedom 250" initiative, including an all-day Christian prayer rally called by President Trump and held on the National Mall.
Trump promoted the all-day prayer fest during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast: "On May 17, 2026, we are inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to rededicate America as one nation under God."
Says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Americans deserve to know how much of our tax dollars were misused to promote a Christian nationalist worship service."
"The 250th anniversary of our nation's founding should have celebrated the constitutional principles that unite us all, including the all-American principle of separation between state and church that ensures true religious freedom," Gaylor adds. "It should never have been used to promote an extremist brand of Christianity or to falsely portray the United States as 'a Christian nation.'"
At the center of FFRF's investigation is "Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving," a May 17 event that featured videos from Trump (reading from a chapter of the bible), Vice President JD Vance ("We've always been and still are a nation of prayer, and thank God for that"), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (who urged attendees to pray "on bended knee" to Jesus) and an in-person appearance from House Speaker Mike Johnson ("We hereby rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God"). Numerous religious leaders also spoke; every speaker but one ultraorthodox rabbi was a Christian.
FFRF is seeking to determine to what extent federal resources and taxpayer dollars were used to organize, promote or subsidize this pervasively sectarian and exclusionary religious celebration.
Congress voted in 2016 to appropriate $150 million to the Department of the Interior for semiquincentennial activities billed as America 250. But most of the congressional funding has gone to Freedom 250, which Trump announced in December 2025 as a separate entity. FFRF is seeking to discover how much public money was directed toward religious worship and proselytizing under the guise of commemorating (and whitewashing) American history.
Congressional Freethought Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., released a report in July charging, "Donald Trump's hijacking of America's 250th birthday will go down as one of the most corrupt, brazen abuses of public trust in presidential history, even by the dubious standards of this administration." One use was $10 million for "Freedom Trucks" that promoted Christianity and included an AI rendering falsely claiming that George Washington said, "Our rights are a gift from God."
FFRF first submitted a FOIA request to the National Park Service on March 5 seeking all permit applications, issued permits, memoranda, schedules and communications relating to the Rededicate 250 event. Despite repeated attempts by FFRF's legal counsel to obtain the records, the agencies have produced nothing.
FFRF submitted a second FOIA request on May 13, expanding its investigation to the broader Freedom 250 initiative and its relationship with religious organizations. That request sought contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, payment records and communications involving Freedom 250, particularly those connected to religious worship and prayer. The request also sought information about "America Prays," a faith-based initiative Trump announced promoting nationwide prayer activities, including events associated with the anniversary celebrations.
The Department of the Interior acknowledged the second request but has not made a substantive determination or released any responsive documents. As of this month, the request remained listed as "in process."
The Freedom of Information Act generally requires federal agencies to make determinations on requests within 20 business days, subject to limited extensions. FFRF contends that the agencies have violated federal law by failing to meet those deadlines, withholding responsive records and failing to provide estimated completion dates.
FFRF's lawsuit asks the court to order the agencies to conduct reasonable searches, produce all nonexempt responsive records, justify any lawful withholdings and comply with their obligations under FOIA.
"This administration cannot use taxpayer money to promote religious events and then keep the public in the dark about how that money was spent," says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. "The Freedom of Information Act exists precisely so Americans can hold their government accountable. Federal agencies do not get to ignore transparency laws simply because the records might invite scrutiny."
FFRF calls the records essential to determining the extent of federal involvement in these religious activities and how they violated the Constitution.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-sues-trump-administration-over-taxpayer-funding-of-religious-america-250-events/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Helps Arkansas Parent Secure Inclusive Field Trip for Kindergartners
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 12, 2026
FFRF helps Arkansas parent secure inclusive field trip for kindergartners
A concerned Arkansas parent no longer has to choose between protecting their 5-year-old from school-sponsored religious activity and letting the child share a special field trip with classmates.
Lakeside Primary School, located in Hot Springs, had planned an Oct. 1 kindergarten field trip to Family Farm Christian Day Camp. The parent complainant personally visited Family Farm last year and witnessed ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 12, 2026 FFRF helps Arkansas parent secure inclusive field trip for kindergartners A concerned Arkansas parent no longer has to choose between protecting their 5-year-old from school-sponsored religious activity and letting the child share a special field trip with classmates. Lakeside Primary School, located in Hot Springs, had planned an Oct. 1 kindergarten field trip to Family Farm Christian Day Camp. The parent complainant personally visited Family Farm last year and witnessedreligious activity there. When the school sent home permission slips in early September, the parent objected to an official public school trip to camp with a pervasively sectarian mission.
The parent first raised the issue directly with the school. Principal Amanda Sarver confirmed that previous school visits to Family Farm had included "a brief prayer in the morning after the pledge" and that there could also be "brief comments that reference being thankful to God." Students were not required to participate, the principal said.
But having to opt their child out of the field trip because it was inappropriate did not feel like a real solution to the parent. They wanted their kindergartner to enjoy the same educational and social experience as classmates without first needing a lesson in how to navigate religious activity at a public school event.
"I don't want to exclude [my child] from fun school experiences with [their] classmates because of this," the parent told the school.
"I don't think it's fair that a 5-year-old should have to grapple with this distinction in the context of a public-school field trip," the parent wrote. "I would much rather be able to send [them] on a school field trip without having to prepare [them] for the possibility of religious activity."
That is when the parent turned to FFRF.
"My concern is not that a private Christian organization exists or that individual students or staff members hold religious beliefs," the parent explained to FFRF. "My concern is that a public elementary school is sponsoring and organizing a kindergarten field trip to a location identified as a Christian day camp, where religious activity has occurred as part of the experience."
FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to Lakeside School District Superintendent Bruce Orr on Sept. 22, explaining that public schools cannot place families in the position of choosing between an important school experience and avoiding unconstitutional school-sponsored religious events.
The district acted immediately.
The very next morning, Orr informed FFRF that Lakeside would not proceed with the trip to the Family Farm Christian Day Camp. Instead, the district is planning an alternative kindergarten outing and is considering the Mid-America Science Museum and a local botanical garden.
"We intend to preserve the opportunity for our kindergarten students and their families to enjoy this special experience together while ensuring the school-sponsored activity is appropriate for all students," Orr wrote in an email.
Orr also acknowledged the district's constitutional responsibility: "Lakeside respects the individual religious beliefs of all of our students, families, and staff. We also recognize our responsibility as a public school district to ensure that school-sponsored educational opportunities do not promote or favor particular religious beliefs or practices."
FFRF commends Orr and the Lakeside School District for taking the parent's concerns seriously and responding promptly.
"This is exactly how public schools should respond when it becomes aware of a First Amendment violation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every activity in a public school should be educational, inclusive and welcoming to all. Young and impressionable students should never be taken on a religious field trip as part of a public school activity."
FFRF is pleased that Lakeside students will still get their field trip, with the educational experience and childhood memories that come with it, while leaving religious instruction where it belongs: with families and religious organizations, not public schools.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With nearly 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including hundreds of members and a chapter in Arkansas, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-helps-arkansas-parent-secure-inclusive-field-trip-for-kindergartners/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
October 12, 2026
FFRF helps Arkansas parent secure inclusive field trip for kindergartners
A concerned Arkansas parent no longer has to choose between protecting their 5-year-old from school-sponsored religious activity and letting the child share a special field trip with classmates.
Lakeside Primary School, located in Hot Springs, had planned an Oct. 1 kindergarten field trip to Family Farm Christian Day Camp. The parent complainant personally visited Family Farm last year and witnessed ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 12, 2026 FFRF helps Arkansas parent secure inclusive field trip for kindergartners A concerned Arkansas parent no longer has to choose between protecting their 5-year-old from school-sponsored religious activity and letting the child share a special field trip with classmates. Lakeside Primary School, located in Hot Springs, had planned an Oct. 1 kindergarten field trip to Family Farm Christian Day Camp. The parent complainant personally visited Family Farm last year and witnessedreligious activity there. When the school sent home permission slips in early September, the parent objected to an official public school trip to camp with a pervasively sectarian mission.
The parent first raised the issue directly with the school. Principal Amanda Sarver confirmed that previous school visits to Family Farm had included "a brief prayer in the morning after the pledge" and that there could also be "brief comments that reference being thankful to God." Students were not required to participate, the principal said.
But having to opt their child out of the field trip because it was inappropriate did not feel like a real solution to the parent. They wanted their kindergartner to enjoy the same educational and social experience as classmates without first needing a lesson in how to navigate religious activity at a public school event.
"I don't want to exclude [my child] from fun school experiences with [their] classmates because of this," the parent told the school.
"I don't think it's fair that a 5-year-old should have to grapple with this distinction in the context of a public-school field trip," the parent wrote. "I would much rather be able to send [them] on a school field trip without having to prepare [them] for the possibility of religious activity."
That is when the parent turned to FFRF.
"My concern is not that a private Christian organization exists or that individual students or staff members hold religious beliefs," the parent explained to FFRF. "My concern is that a public elementary school is sponsoring and organizing a kindergarten field trip to a location identified as a Christian day camp, where religious activity has occurred as part of the experience."
FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to Lakeside School District Superintendent Bruce Orr on Sept. 22, explaining that public schools cannot place families in the position of choosing between an important school experience and avoiding unconstitutional school-sponsored religious events.
The district acted immediately.
The very next morning, Orr informed FFRF that Lakeside would not proceed with the trip to the Family Farm Christian Day Camp. Instead, the district is planning an alternative kindergarten outing and is considering the Mid-America Science Museum and a local botanical garden.
"We intend to preserve the opportunity for our kindergarten students and their families to enjoy this special experience together while ensuring the school-sponsored activity is appropriate for all students," Orr wrote in an email.
Orr also acknowledged the district's constitutional responsibility: "Lakeside respects the individual religious beliefs of all of our students, families, and staff. We also recognize our responsibility as a public school district to ensure that school-sponsored educational opportunities do not promote or favor particular religious beliefs or practices."
FFRF commends Orr and the Lakeside School District for taking the parent's concerns seriously and responding promptly.
"This is exactly how public schools should respond when it becomes aware of a First Amendment violation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every activity in a public school should be educational, inclusive and welcoming to all. Young and impressionable students should never be taken on a religious field trip as part of a public school activity."
FFRF is pleased that Lakeside students will still get their field trip, with the educational experience and childhood memories that come with it, while leaving religious instruction where it belongs: with families and religious organizations, not public schools.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With nearly 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including hundreds of members and a chapter in Arkansas, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-helps-arkansas-parent-secure-inclusive-field-trip-for-kindergartners/
[Category: Religion]