Featured Stories
Statement From Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation, on New Public Opinion Research on Foreign Aid Programs
NEW YORK, July 1 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following statement by President Rajiv J. Shah on the public opinion research on foreign aid programs:
* * *
Statement From Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation, on New Public Opinion Research on Foreign Aid Programs
As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, new polling shows that the American people want an active, engaged relationship with the world. They recognize that helping vulnerable people and building a safer, healthier, and more prosperous world is an investment in America's own security and
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 1 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following statement by President Rajiv J. Shah on the public opinion research on foreign aid programs:
* * *
Statement From Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation, on New Public Opinion Research on Foreign Aid Programs
As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, new polling shows that the American people want an active, engaged relationship with the world. They recognize that helping vulnerable people and building a safer, healthier, and more prosperous world is an investment in America's own security andprosperity.
At a moment when many U.S. and world leaders are pulling back from global engagement, a report published today by Echelon Insights, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, finds that Americans across political parties back efforts that prevent disease outbreaks, feed hungry children, reduce suffering, and create opportunity. The polling shows that 72% of Americans believe foreign aid keeps the U.S. safer from threats. Support is even stronger for specific types of aid: preventing disease outbreaks (90%), humanitarian and disaster relief (90%) and global health (84%).
As an example, after receiving information about the current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo respondents overwhelmingly (3 in 4) supported restoring U.S. foreign aid funding to fight the disease. When presented with a real-world example of a fast-moving threat that can easily cross borders and where U.S. foreign aid can save lives, most Americans want their government to help.
The findings also point to a path forward. Americans support foreign aid when they understand its purpose, its cost, and its impact. They overwhelmingly favor strengthening and modernizing effective programs rather than eliminating them, and they want resources focused where they can save the most lives and deliver the greatest results.
Americans' support for foreign aid and global engagement remains strong. The opportunity before us is to answer that call by building a more modern model of development -- one that is country-led, results-driven, and capable of meeting today's challenges through innovation, partnership, and impact. In the 21st century, foreign aid should deliver better outcomes for vulnerable communities while continuing to advance America's long-term interests.
Americans are ready to help build what comes next. Their leaders should listen.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/statement-from-dr-rajiv-j-shah-president-of-the-rockefeller-foundation-public-opinion-research-foreign-aid-programs/
Southeastern Legal Foundation Issues Statement Following U.S. Supreme Court's Rulings on Whether States Can Ban Biological Males From Female Sports
ROSWELL, Georgia, July 1 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following statement on June 30, 2026:
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation issues statement following U.S. Supreme Court's Rulings on whether states can ban biological males from female sports
The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) issues the following statement on U.S. Supreme Court's historic rulings protecting women and girls in school sports: Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for women and girls, reaffirming that states have both the authority and the responsibility to protect the integrity
... Show Full Article
ROSWELL, Georgia, July 1 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following statement on June 30, 2026:
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation issues statement following U.S. Supreme Court's Rulings on whether states can ban biological males from female sports
The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) issues the following statement on U.S. Supreme Court's historic rulings protecting women and girls in school sports: Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for women and girls, reaffirming that states have both the authority and the responsibility to protect the integrityof female athletes.
In its decision in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Court rejected attempts to redefine longstanding legal protection for women and upheld the principle that sexseparated sports teams serve important and legitimate purposes.
Today, just a week after the 54th anniversary of Title IX, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a simple truth: women's sports exist to provide women and girls with equal opportunities to compete, succeed, and excel. This ruling is a tremendous victory for girls, parents, and common sense, ensuring that the protections Congress enacted in Title IX remain rooted in biological reality and continue to serve the students they were designed to protect.
SLF applauds the Court for recognizing that constitutional guarantees of equal protection do not require states to ignore biological reality. The Constitution does not compel policymakers to sacrifice fairness for female athletes, nor does Title IX require schools to dismantle the protections that generations of women fought to achieve.
As debates over sex-based protections continue across the country, SLF will remain committed to defending constitutional principles and ensuring that the rights of women and girls are not erased by political ideology.
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation is a national, nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending liberty and Rebuilding the American Republic(R). Since 1976, SLF has been going to court for the American people when the government overreaches and violates your constitutional rights.
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/20260630-SLF-Statement-on-BPJ-and-Hecox.pdf
New Echelon Insights Survey Commissioned by Rockefeller Foundation: Most Americans Back Foreign Aid a Year After USAID's End
NEW YORK, July 1 (TNSxrep) -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on June 30, 2026:
* * *
New Echelon Insights Survey Commissioned by Rockefeller Foundation: Most Americans Back Foreign Aid a Year After USAID's End
* A majority (54%) across the political spectrum remains favorable toward foreign aid a year after USAID's dismantlement, and 8 in 10 say the path forward is to reform and strengthen foreign aid -- not eliminate it.
-
Echelon Insights and The Rockefeller Foundation today released findings from a new public opinion survey evaluating Americans' opinions on
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 1 (TNSxrep) -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on June 30, 2026:
* * *
New Echelon Insights Survey Commissioned by Rockefeller Foundation: Most Americans Back Foreign Aid a Year After USAID's End
* A majority (54%) across the political spectrum remains favorable toward foreign aid a year after USAID's dismantlement, and 8 in 10 say the path forward is to reform and strengthen foreign aid -- not eliminate it.
-
Echelon Insights and The Rockefeller Foundation today released findings from a new public opinion survey evaluating Americans' opinions onglobal aid as the nation marks one year since the official closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and looks ahead to America's 250th birthday. Coming on the heels of the dismantling of traditional U.S. humanitarian and development structures and historic declines in Official Development Assistance (ODA) by the world's main donors, An American Perspective on Foreign Aid shows that Americans of all ages, education levels, and political and religious affiliations support a broad range of global development programs and believe these programs are in the best interest of the United States.
The survey found that a majority of Americans (54%) have a favorable view of U.S. foreign aid, and despite differing levels of support across the political spectrum, overwhelming majorities support specific types of foreign aid work when described more specifically like humanitarian relief (90%), preventing disease outbreaks (90%), and peacekeeping and conflict resolution (78%). A significant majority of Americans (81%) favor strengthening U.S. foreign aid programs with stricter safeguards over eliminating them entirely.
"Our country's global leadership was built on the American people's conviction that building a safer, healthier, and more stable world is an investment in our own security and prosperity," said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. "Despite recent decisions by leaders around the world, Americans of all political persuasions have remained consistent in supporting effective, results-driven work to prevent diseases, end conflicts, and provide lifesaving food and medicine to the suffering. This data should encourage all of us to commit to a modern, accountable approach to foreign aid that can deliver real results for the world's vulnerable in the face of 21st century challenges."
Key Findings:
The Rockefeller Foundation, in association with its affiliated public charity, RF Catalytic Capital, commissioned U.S.-based Echelon Insights to conduct the survey to establish a baseline of public attitudes toward specific foreign aid programs, identify areas of shared alignment, and measure how Americans weigh the practical outcomes of U.S. engagement abroad. The comprehensive sample comprised 2,000 adults surveyed from June 12-16, 2026 across all 50 states, balanced across party, region, age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
"Americans who are most aligned with President Trump support aid that is accountable, rooted in U.S. interests, and focused on concrete humanitarian outcomes, from preventing disease to responding to disasters to saving lives in moments of crisis," said Patrick Ruffini, founding partner at Echelon Insights. "The data show a path forward for rebuilding foreign aid programs with strong support across party lines."
Beyond the clear humanitarian mandate, the survey underscores that while there are differences in perspectives across the political spectrum, Americans view international assistance as a tangible driver of domestic security, economic growth, and global stability, and key themes emerged:
1. Broad Support That Has Held -- and the "What" Matters Most. A full year after USAID was officially dismantled, a majority of Americans remain favorable toward foreign aid, and most want it strengthened and reformed rather than ended. Support climbs higher still when aid is described not as an umbrella term but as the specific work it funds. Across every program area tested -- and across party lines -- Americans favor the work, often overwhelmingly. Additional findings include, but are not limited to:
* 54% remain favorable toward foreign aid a year after the cuts -- a net rating of +19 points. By the end of the survey once respondents had been presented with greater information on the details and impact of foreign aid programs, that number went up by +16 points to 70%.
* 8 in 10 say the right path is to reform and strengthen foreign aid with better safeguards, not eliminate it -- including 83% of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents.
* 41% said the world is worse off while 20% said it is better off when asked to assess the impact of 2025's foreign aid reductions
* Humanitarian and disaster relief: 90% support (86% Republican and Republican-leaning, 95% Democrat and Democrat-leaning)
* Preventing disease outbreaks: 90% support (85% Republican and Republican leaning / 94% Democrat and Democrat leaning)
* Global health: 84% support (74% Republican and Republican leaning / 93% Democrat and Democrat leaning)
* Economic development: 81% support (71% Republican and Republican leaning / 91% Democrat and Democrat leaning)
* Peacekeeping and conflict resolution: 78% support (73% Republican and Republican leaning / 84% Democrat and Democrat leaning)
* Democracy promotion: 72% support (64% Republican and Republican leaning / 82% Democrat and Democrat leaning)
2. Americans Would Spend Double. Foreign aid made up roughly 1% of the federal budget before the 2025 cuts -- far less than most Americans polled believe. Yet a strong majority would fund it well above its historical level. Seven in ten support setting foreign aid at 2% of the annual budget, which would double its pre-2025 level, and that willingness extends across party lines. When respondents were finally shown the real figure, more than three-quarters said it was about right or too low -- a point of consensus among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike. Additional findings include, but are not limited to:
* 70% support setting foreign aid at 2% of the federal budget -- double its historical level -- including 49% of those who say they primarily support President Trump (vs. 36% opposed).
* 78% said the actual ~1% cost was either "about right" (41%) or "too low" (37%) once it was revealed to them -- meaning fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) called it too high.
* Consensus across the spectrum: 71% of Republicans, 80% of Independents, and 86% of Democrats agreed the ~1% allocation was "about right" or "too low," as did 64% of those who say they primarily support President Trump.
* 31% of Americans correctly guessed foreign aid was under 5% of the budget, while 35% thought it was 20% or more, and 8% believed it exceeded half the federal budget.
3. Every Argument Lands Across the Aisle. When the case for foreign aid is spelled out, no single rationale stands alone -- Americans find the full range of arguments persuasive, from principled to practical, and majorities of both parties agree on each. Key findings include, but are not limited to:
* Foreign policy: 79% agree foreign aid can be a good and effective part of U.S. foreign policy (71% Republican and Republican-leaning, 89% Democrat and Democrat-leaning).
* National security: 72% say it keeps the U.S. safer and more secure from threats (63% Republican and Republican leaning, 81% Democrat and Democrat leaning).
* Saving money: 68% found convincing the argument that aid saves the U.S. money by preventing conflicts and crises before they require costlier intervention (54% Republican and Republican leaning / 81% Democrat and Democrat leaning).
* Global competition: 68% found convincing the case that aid is an important tool in U.S. competition with Russia and China for global influence (62% Republican and Republican leaning / 75% Democrat and Democrat leaning).
4. Spotlight: The 2026 Ebola Outbreak. The survey was fielded against the backdrop of an active Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- a real-time test of how a current threat shapes views on aid. A majority of Americans (54%) say they are very or somewhat concerned about its potential spread to the United States. That concern translates into policy preference: 72% say the outbreak has led them to support restoring some or all U.S. global health aid worldwide -- a result that holds across party lines and links the immediate crisis to broader aid policy. When shown expert estimates that foreign aid cuts could lead to more than 9 million deaths by 2030, 70% said they would support restoring aid funding.
"This data is a direct rebuttal to anyone who claims Americans have lost their appetite for the world. Americans never stopped being generous; Washington just stopped delivering on it," said Dr. John A. Gans, former Chief Speechwriter at the Pentagon, author of White House Warriors, and current Senior Vice President and project lead at The Rockefeller Foundation. "250 years after America's revolution and 1 year after USAID's razing, a majority of Americans don't just want to ensure federal funding to feed the hungry, cure the sick, and respond to crisis around the world--they see good reason to increase it. The lesson for Washington is clear: don't doubt the generosity of Americans; deliver on it."
An American Perspective on Foreign Aid is the latest research to be commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation's Build the Shared Future Initiative, through which the 113-year-old philanthropic organization aims to inspire and inform global cooperation and international development work that matches the challenges of the 21st century, including efforts to align with governments around the world to identify country-led solutions to maximize every dollar of remaining aid and to stimulate new investments.
* * *
Note to Editors: Methodology
Echelon Insights conducted a survey on behalf of The Rockefeller Foundation to better understand voters' attitudes on foreign aid. The survey was fielded online from June 12-16, 2026 in English among a sample of 2,022 voters in the likely electorate nationwide using non-probability sampling, with a base sample of N=1,512 Registered Voters in the Likely Electorate Nationwide and an oversample of N=510 Republican Voters, achieving a total of 1,080 Republican voters in the sample. This oversample was included in order to be able to more closely examine opinions within this cohort of respondents. The sample was drawn from the Lucid sample exchange based on demographic quota targets for registered voters in the likely electorate nationwide, and matched to the L2 voter file to verify respondents' voter registration status. Measures taken to ensure data quality included measures to prevent duplicate responses, questions designed to disqualify inattentive respondents, and the removal of respondents from the data file who answered more than one-third of the questions they were asked in less than one-third of the median response time per question. The sample was weighted to reflect modeled turnout and demographic characteristics of the population of voters in the 2026 likely electorate nationwide based on a probabilistic model that incorporates data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey and Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, as well as L2 voter file data. Weighting dimensions included gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, region, and turnout probability, as well as gender by age, education by gender, race by age, race by education, and age by education. The sample was also weighted on party affiliation to reflect an even balance between Republican/Republican-leaning and Democratic/Democratic-leaning voters. Calculated the way it would be for a random sample and adjusted to incorporate the effect of weighting, the margin of sampling error is +- 2.5 percentage points.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance with our partners and our affiliated public charity, RFCC. For more information, follow us on LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation, X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/echelon-survey-rockefeller-foundation-americans-back-foreign-aid-year-after-usaids-end/
Latino Equity Fund at the Boston Foundation Launches Mass. United for Venezuela Fund
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 1 -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on June 30, 2026:
* * *
Latino Equity Fund at the Boston Foundation launches Mass. United for Venezuela Fund
New effort will support relief and recovery efforts following devastating earthquakes
-
The Latino Equity Fund at the Boston Foundation, the first Latino-focused fund in Massachusetts, today announced that it is coordinating a statewide effort to support organizations that are working to help thousands of people in Venezuela in the aftermath of the earthquakes that devastated the country last week.
More
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 1 -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on June 30, 2026:
* * *
Latino Equity Fund at the Boston Foundation launches Mass. United for Venezuela Fund
New effort will support relief and recovery efforts following devastating earthquakes
-
The Latino Equity Fund at the Boston Foundation, the first Latino-focused fund in Massachusetts, today announced that it is coordinating a statewide effort to support organizations that are working to help thousands of people in Venezuela in the aftermath of the earthquakes that devastated the country last week.
Morethan 1,700 people died and thousands more people have been displaced by earthquake damage in northern Venezuela after two magnitude 7 quakes struck within 39 seconds of each other last week. The quakes are estimated to have caused as much as $6.7 billion in damage.
The new fund, Massachusetts United for Venezuela, will have a similar structure to efforts to support Puerto Rico after the devastation of Hurricane Maria in 2017. Initial funds are being raised to support immediate relief efforts on the ground in Venezuela, with a longer-term focus on supporting organizations that can help rebuild and support the affected region in the months and years ahead.
The fund is launching with an initial commitment of $100,000 from Boston Foundation and Latino Equity Fund donors. The Fund is also developing a curated giving guide to connect donors to trusted organizations on the ground in Venezuela. In partnership with Venezuelan community leaders, local organizations, and Venezuelan-owned small businesses, this effort will ensure resources are directed where they are needed most and guided by the people closest to the crisis.
"The immediate need in communities across Venezuela cannot be overstated, and the devastation to homes, buildings and infrastructure across a wide swath of Venezuela will take months to years to rebuild." said Javier Juarez, Executive Director of the Latino Equity Fund. "Just as we were able to do after Maria, the Latino Equity Fund is uniquely positioned to mobilize philanthropy for Latino communities during moments that matter most. We hope that with our partnerships across philanthropy, business, government, and the Venezuelan community, we can coordinate a response that no single organization could accomplish alone."
Initial community partners in the Fund include the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, Casa VZL New England, small business partners Carolicious, Peka Restaurant, Viva Mi Arepa, Don Tequeno y Dona Arepa (Dorchester & Jamaica Plain), and several individuals, including artist Franklin Marval, who designed the effort's logo.
To learn more about the Fund and to make a donation, visit TBF.org/Venezuela. The fund is currently accepting donations by check, credit card and through donor advised funds at the Boston Foundation and other fund providers.
More than 25,000 Venezuelans live in New England, with an estimated 12,000 living in Massachusetts, primarily in Greater Boston, Framingham, Chelsea, Everett, Lynn and Revere.
The Venezuelan population has been one of the fastest-growing Latino communities in New England over the past five years, driven largely by humanitarian migration.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/june/mass-united-for-venezuela-launch
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Hidden Impact of Government Delays
DETROIT, Michigan, July 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Washington-based economist Daniel J. Mitchell:
* * *
The Hidden Impact of Government Delays
We don't see how much it costs us.
-
Recently, members of the Trump administration found themselves in a tug of war between two groups of people who have opposing views about how or whether the federal government should regulate artificial intelligence.
Critics say that moving too fast on AI could create risks. Others say that America can't compete against China under a tight regulatory regime. We
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, July 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Washington-based economist Daniel J. Mitchell:
* * *
The Hidden Impact of Government Delays
We don't see how much it costs us.
-
Recently, members of the Trump administration found themselves in a tug of war between two groups of people who have opposing views about how or whether the federal government should regulate artificial intelligence.
Critics say that moving too fast on AI could create risks. Others say that America can't compete against China under a tight regulatory regime. Weare, after all, competing in one of the most important technological races of the 21st century.
But the fundamental question is much bigger than AI. Whether it is regulatory debates centered around tech, housing, energy, or healthcare, American policymakers should start each policy debate by asking themselves one important question: How much progress must we sacrifice for the sake of caution?
For decades, DC politicians and bureaucrats devoted enormous attention to the supposed dangers of approving a new technology, project, or product too quickly. Far less attention gets paid to the consequences of government delays.
Flawed as its economic thinking sometimes is, the Trump administration still deserves credit for challenging a regulatory culture that often treats delay as cost-free.
Medical innovation, where the administration is routinely trying to cut down on FDA approval times, provides perhaps the clearest example.
In late May, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity Senior Research Fellow and former Trump White House Council of Economic Advisers Acting Chair Tomas Philipson published a study that addressed this very topic.
The study said that speeding up FDA development and approval timelines for drugs, biologics, and medical devices by one to six years could generate up to $61 trillion in combined value to consumers and producers. Patients would receive help faster, and it would encourage more research and investment.
What about housing?
Too many Americans say that they can't afford to have a home. Polls consistently show that they want the government to enact policies that increase the number of available homes.
Yet local, state, and federal regulations add years to development timelines and inflate construction costs. What's left is a shortage of houses. Families must pay higher prices to try to buy or even rent.
The Trump administration pushed to streamline permitting and environmental reviews. Critics then cried foul about insufficient oversight. But every year that a housing project spends trapped in regulatory limbo is another year that families pay higher rents, higher home prices, and have fewer housing options.
Energy projects have challenges of their own. AI, advanced manufacturing, and population growth are continually increasing energy demands. And yet, critical infrastructure projects spend years undergoing regulatory reviews before construction even begins.
Delayed projects mean delayed supply--and delayed supply often means higher costs.
As expected, Trump's efforts to speed up approvals for pipelines, transmission lines, power plants, and other types of energy infrastructure created fierce opposition. Critics claim environmental risks. Supporters, however, see a permitting system that can delay vital projects for 4.5 years on average for major energy infrastructure and 6.5 years or more for transmission lines. This, while Americans pay higher utility bills and businesses struggle just to have reliable power.
The debate over deregulation is frequently portrayed as a choice between caution and recklessness. In reality, the choice is more complicated. Moving too quickly creates court costs. But moving too slowly creates costs as well.
Trump's efforts to streamline approvals and reduce bureaucratic obstacles will no doubt go on to attract criticism, with perhaps some of that criticism warranted. But before Americans dismiss these reforms outright, they should ask and answer one simple question.
What is the cost of doing nothing?
Increasingly, the answer appears to be one the country can no longer afford.
* * *
Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-hidden-impact-of-government-delays/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: EU's Next Seven-Year Budget Will Be Most Contentious to Date
DETROIT, Michigan, July 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mark Nayler, freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain:
* * *
How to Spend It
The EU's next seven-year budget will be the most contentious to date.
-
Every seven years, the EU approves a new budget, known as a Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The next MFF will cover the period 2028-34, and has been described by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen as "the most ambitious ever proposed." It has to be approved unanimously by the end of 2027, but with general elections
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, July 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mark Nayler, freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain:
* * *
How to Spend It
The EU's next seven-year budget will be the most contentious to date.
-
Every seven years, the EU approves a new budget, known as a Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The next MFF will cover the period 2028-34, and has been described by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen as "the most ambitious ever proposed." It has to be approved unanimously by the end of 2027, but with general electionsdue in almost a third of the bloc's 27 countries next year (France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Greece, Estonia, Finland, and Slovakia), the pressure is on to have negotiations wrapped up by Christmas. After a two-day summit in Brussels on June 18 and 19, however, only one point of agreement had been reached: to bring new funding ideas to the next brainstorming session in October.
This task will mainly fall to Ireland, which takes over the six-month presidency of the Council of the European Union from Cyprus at the end of this month (usually a meaningless administrative position). Dublin's challenge? To put some substance behind the hot new phrase in Brussels: "new own resources." These are proposed new funding streams to help finance an MFF of Euros2 trillion ($2.27 trillion)--equivalent to 1.26% of the bloc's combined gross national income--without further raiding capitals' coffers. The ideas on the table so far include sharing cash generated by the sale of CO2 emissions permits, a cluster of green taxes, and a windfall levy on the bloc's biggest companies. Whatever they are, these new resources have to bring in around Euros66 billion ($74.94 billion).
It will take more than Irish ingenuity to resolve other major difficulties, which threaten to make this MFF--described by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as "unacceptable and unbalanced"--the most contentious in the EU's history. As usual with economic disputes, the bloc is split into two main camps--the so-called "Frugal Five" in one, formed following the Brexit vote of 2016, and sixteen other countries, known as the "Friends of Cohesion," in another. But the divisions aren't as neat as that, nor is the debate focused exclusively on the size of the budget. Another crucial question is whether the MFF needs structural overhaul if the EU is to deal with a geopolitical situation that has changed significantly since 2021.
The "Frugal Five," four of which are led by center-right governments, are amongst the EU's nine net contributors--that is, countries that pay more into the MFF than they receive. The group is made up of Germany, which in the last EU budget contributed Euros25.5 billion ($28.95 billion) more than it got back, the Netherlands (Euros7 billion more than received), Austria (Euros1.5 billion, $1.7 billion), Finland (Euros1.1 billion, $1.25 billion), and Sweden (Euros2.8 billion, $3.18 billion). It supports the substantial hikes in competitiveness and defense spending proposed for the next MFF, which will take the total allocations in those areas to Euros400 billion and Euros130 billion ($454.18 billion and $147.61 billion), respectively. The group also opposes common debt financing and the deferment of Next Generation EU (NGEU) repayments. Introduced in 2021 to help countries recover from the Covid pandemic, the NGEU scheme was financed by bonds issued on international markets; these begin to mature in 2028, so Euros170 billion ($193 billion) has been set aside in the next MFF to fund repayments.
The Frugals also favor the biggest proposed structural change to the next EU budget. This affects the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and "cohesion" funding for the bloc's poorest regions and members, which jointly accounted for almost two thirds of the previous MFF. The EU Commission proposes that these two funds be merged into one, which would streamline funding plans from over 500 to just 27--one for each member state. This is effectively a nationalization proposal, designed to give EU capitals more flexibility in the deployment of agricultural and cohesion funds. It is in line with the bloc's massive deregulation drive, which aims to cut administrative costs by almost Euros40 billion by 2029 ($45.42 billion). As von der Leyen said last year: "[A] lot of redundancy and overlapping is basically wasting potential that we cannot unlock."
Some countries that one might have expected to be members of this camp remain outside it. Italy has criticized what it calls an "anachronistic" rebate system which sees Denmark (another net contributor, although it quit the original "Frugal Four" last year), Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden receive discounts to their outsized contributions. Italian premier Giorgia Meloni claims that unless the scheme is scrapped, she will start requesting rebates for Italy, too (in 2021, Rome paid Euros3.3 billion, or $3.75 billion, more into the MFF than it received). France is also hard to pin down: although it was the bloc's second largest net contributor after Germany in 2021, paying in Euros12.4 billion more than it received ($14 billion), it too remains apart from the Frugals. French president Emmanuel Macron's stance that it is "idiotic" to start repaying NGEU loans in 2028 pits him firmly against the group--as does his call for permanent mutual debt schemes.
Against the "Frugal Five" are the "Friends of Cohesion"--sixteen countries from Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe. Politically, it's a mixed group: ten of its national governments are center-right, three center-left, two centrist or cross-party coalitions, while Romania has no functioning government at all. All except Italy are net beneficiaries of the MFF, meaning that they receive more--Euros10 billion more ($11.35 billion), in Poland's case--than they pay in. They want more mutual debt, a deferral of NGEU repayments, and less spent on defense and competitiveness, on the grounds that all these will draw money away from the CAP and cohesion schemes. France, while not a formal member, also opposes CAP cuts, because it is the biggest recipient of agricultural funding in the EU (some might find it surprising that Germany, despite being the third largest CAP recipient, is the unofficial leader of the Frugal Five).
This group is dismayed by the EU's proposal to combine the CAP and cohesion funds. It points to the fact that the EU is ringfencing just Euros300 billion ($340 billion) for agriculture, down from Euros386 billion ($438 billion) in the last MFF--a cut of 30% that is unmatched in the new budget (although a safety net specifically aimed at farmers has been doubled to Euros6 billion, $6.81 billion). The Euros220 billion ($250 billion) of cohesion funds set aside specifically for poor regions, they say, is also insufficient. The interconnectedness of EU financing, however, ensures that there are ways to compensate for reduced handouts. If less is available in direct grants, perhaps the entrepreneurship and competitiveness encouraged by streamlined funding will play a bigger role in boosting disadvantaged regions.
That said, the group's objection that it is unfair to slash or reorganize just these funds is not without foundation. Brussels still plans to spend Euros100 billion ($113.5 billion) on administration over the next seven years, and create 2,500 more jobs at the EU Commission, which already has a staff of 35,000. So much for deregulation.
What strikes one most about these negotiations is how conservative the Friends of Cohesion are, and how change-minded the so-called conservative nations are. The point on which they all agree is that the world is a very different place now compared to seven years ago. But more money, or the same amount of money going to the same places, is not the answer. Ways of thinking need to change, to enable experimentation with the financial structures that underpin the MFF. It is those that determine effective spending. Hopefully, when EU leaders next convene in October, there is more consensus on that point, too.
* * *
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/how-to-spend-it/
FFRF Condemns Trump's "Godless" Rhetoric Targeting Millions of Patriotic Americans
MADISON, Wisconsin, July 1 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF condemns Trump's "godless" rhetoric targeting millions of patriotic Americans
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is condemning President Trump's inflammatory remarks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's annual Road to Majority Conference, where he smeared political opponents as "godless communists," falsely cast Christianity as the foundation of American identity and warned supporters that Democrats "will close your churches."
"The president of the United States has no business telling
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, July 1 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF condemns Trump's "godless" rhetoric targeting millions of patriotic Americans
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is condemning President Trump's inflammatory remarks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's annual Road to Majority Conference, where he smeared political opponents as "godless communists," falsely cast Christianity as the foundation of American identity and warned supporters that Democrats "will close your churches."
"The president of the United States has no business tellingAmericans that patriotism depends on belief in God, much less demonizing millions of nonreligious citizens as threats to the country," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.
Speaking to religious-right activists in Washington, D.C., Trump repeatedly portrayed Christianity as the defining force behind the United States. "Our founders invoked the Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence. Four times. I wasn't mentioned once, I'm very upset," he joked before asserting that "faith built this country into the most exceptional nation in the history of the world." He also claimed that "Americans have always deeply believed in the promise of Christ's words in the Gospel of Matthew. With God, all things are possible." Trump went on to declare that America has "always" been and "always will" be "one nation under God," while touting his administration's White House Faith Office, Religious Liberty Commission and Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.
"The United States was not founded as a Christian nation," Gaylor explains. "The Declaration of Independence reflects the deistic beliefs of its principal author, Thomas Jefferson, but it is the Constitution, our governing document, that establishes our system of government. It is intentionally secular, contains no reference to Christianity and explicitly bars religious tests for public office. America's strength comes from protecting every citizen's freedom of conscience, not elevating one religion above all others."
Most disturbingly, Trump described his political opponents as "hardcore godless communists," called them the "most serious threat" to the country since its founding and warned that they "want to end religion." This rhetoric is reckless, divisive and deeply hostile to the constitutional promise that Americans are equal citizens regardless of religious belief or disbelief.
FFRF notes that atheists, agnostics, humanists and other nonreligious Americans serve in the military, teach in public schools, hold public office, pay taxes, raise families and contribute to their communities. They are not enemies of the nation. They are part of its fabric.
Trump's attempt to merge Christianity with national identity also rewrites American history. The United States was founded on a secular Constitution that contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. Its genius lies in preventing the government from taking sides in religious matters, ensuring that religion remains voluntary rather than state-sponsored.
The danger is not a secular government. The danger is a president using government power to privilege one religious viewpoint, vilify dissenters and turn religious identity into a partisan weapon.
FFRF urges Americans to reject this dangerous rhetoric and recommit to the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. No president or religious faction owns the United States. It belongs equally to all of us.
* * *
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 41,000 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-condemns-trumps-godless-rhetoric-targeting-millions-of-patriotic-americans/
[Category: Religion]
