Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Ranking the States Most and Least Dependent on the Federal Government
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Directors of Government Finance Mariana Trujillo and Jordan Campbell:
* * *
Ranking the states most and least dependent on the federal government
In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
-
Federal aid accounts for about a quarter of state and local government revenues, helping fund everything from disaster recovery and food assistance to healthcare and transportation. But these grants are not
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Directors of Government Finance Mariana Trujillo and Jordan Campbell:
* * *
Ranking the states most and least dependent on the federal government
In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
-
Federal aid accounts for about a quarter of state and local government revenues, helping fund everything from disaster recovery and food assistance to healthcare and transportation. But these grants are notguaranteed: Washington retains full discretion over federal transfers and has often used them as leverage to sway state policy.
This practice has received more attention recently as President Donald Trump has sought to withhold funds from states that fail to comply with certain priorities. While the scale and breadth of the Trump administration's use of federal funding to pressure states are unusual, the federal government has long used the promise of new funding and the threat of losing existing grants to influence state policy. The nationwide adoption of the 21-year drinking age and mandatory seatbelt laws, for example, came only after Congress tied both to eligibility for federal highway funding.
Not all states feel this federal pressure equally. While all states receive federal aid, reliance varies. In some states, federal funds make up a modest share of government revenue, while in others they represent 40% of state and local budgets.
A brief history of federal aid
In absolute terms, federal aid to state and local governments has grown substantially over the past few decades, even after adjusting for inflation. In 2025 dollars, federal transfers in 1980 amounted to about $300 billion, while in 2023, they amounted to $1.1 trillion.
Though the dollar value of federal aid has grown, its share of state and local revenue has held steady. That is because overall state and local revenues have grown alongside the broader U.S. economy. As economic output grew, so did state and local government spending and taxation. On average, federal aid has represented 19% of state and local revenues from 2000-2022.
* * *
Chart: Federal grants represent ~20% of state and local revenue
* * *
The relative consistency in federal aid's overall share of state and local budgets, however, masks a significant shift in its composition. In earlier decades, federal aid flowed largely through discretionary programs: agriculture, transportation, disaster assistance, and education. But over the last few decades--like almost every other aspect of government--federal transfers have become increasingly dominated by entitlement programs.
Today, Medicaid accounts for 57% of federal transfers to states. As eligibility expanded and health care costs rose, Medicaid became the primary channel through which federal funds flow into states.
* * *
Chart: Medicaid now dominates federal aid to state and local governments
* * *
This rise of Medicaid aid shifted the nature of federal transfers. A growing share of transfers now flows through mandatory programs, rather than through discretionary grants that Congress appropriates annually. By 2023, 73% of federal transfers to state and local governments flowed through mandatory programs, up from 42% in 1980.
* * *
Chart: Mandatory programs now dominate federal aid to state and local governments
* * *
Ranking states by reliance on federal aid
The following rankings measure state and local governments' reliance on federal grants--not whether residents of each state receive more from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. Some analyses subtract the federal taxes paid by a state's residents from the federal grants and other federal spending in that state, labeling states with negative balances "net donor states" to the union. That measures interstate redistribution, but not reliance on the federal government. Residents of a state can be net donors overall, even as its state and local governments remain materially dependent on federal aid, since Washington may reduce or condition intergovernmental grants at any time.
This analysis, therefore, uses gross federal grant revenue to measure how much state and local governments receive from the federal government and how exposed their budgets are if those transfers are delayed, conditioned, or withdrawn.
Additionally, we include the District of Columbia (D.C.) alongside the states because, although it is a federal district with unique circumstances, its position in the rankings is of public interest.
The states that receive the most federal aid
In total, state and local governments in California ($162 billion), New York ($118 billion), and Texas ($89 billion) received the most federal aid in 2025, while those in Wyoming ($3.9 billion), South Dakota ($3.8 billion), and North Dakota ($2.8 billion) received the least.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received $18.4 billion from the federal government.
* * *
Table: Total federal aid to state and local governments, by state
* * *
Total federal aid received says little about fiscal reliance. The largest states, of course, receive more because they have larger populations. In fact, the seven states receiving the most federal aid are also the seven most populous states, with only New York appearing out of order, ranking second in aid and fourth in population. For this reason, it is important to examine federal aid relative to state and local finances and to population size.
The states that receive the most federal aid as a share of their budgets
States differ in the share of their budgets financed by federal transfers. In North Dakota (19%), Virginia (21%), and Utah (22%), federal transfers account for less than a quarter of state and local revenues. In Alaska (39%), Kentucky (38%), and Vermont (38%), federal transfers account for almost 40% of state and local revenues.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received 27.7% of its revenues from the federal government.
* * *
Table: Federal aid as a share of total state and local revenue, by state
* * *
The states that receive the most federal aid per capita
The states that have the highest federal aid as a share of their budgets are not necessarily the ones receiving the most federal funding in absolute or per-capita terms.
In 2023, the median U.S. state received $3,815 per resident from the federal government. The District of Columbia ($11,030), Alaska ($8,389), and Wyoming ($6,772) received the most federal aid per capita, while Tennessee ($2,783), Virginia ($2,699), and Georgia ($2,397) received the least.
* * *
Table: Per capita federal aid to state and local governments, by state
* * *
Fiscal discipline and autonomy
Federal aid is one of the largest revenue sources for state and local governments, but its importance varies. Some states receive large transfers simply because they are large, while others depend on federal funding to finance nearly half of their budgets.
As national debt rises and federal spending becomes more politically contentious, these differences become more consequential. Understanding which states rely most heavily on federal transfers and which programs those transfers are tied to is increasingly relevant to assessing fiscal risk.
Recent actions by the Trump administration illustrate how federal aid can be used as leverage in policy disputes. States that are already burdened by high debt and legacy costs--such as unfunded pension liabilities or retiree health obligations--often have little room in their budgets to absorb shocks.
This fiscal vulnerability is unfortunately not limited to highly indebted states. In states with leaner budgets, federal aid can account for an outsized share of revenue. In the absence of strong reserves, threats to those transfers can also put their finances under pressure.
It is therefore prudent for state and local governments to document precisely how they rely on federal aid, including which programs, agencies, and budget functions depend on those funds. They should also develop contingency plans for delays or reductions of federal transfers, especially discretionary transfers.
Federal transfers will always undermine state autonomy and federalism. States and local governments must understand the precise role that the federal government plays in their finances.
The states, cities, counties, and school districts that don't have excessive debt and have strong fiscal reserves may be able to absorb disruptions in federal funding without surrendering policy autonomy. Those burdened by debt, unfunded liabilities, and weak reserves may not.
* * *
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
Jordan Campbell is managing director of government finance and senior quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/ranking-the-states-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/
FFRF Decries Trump Administration's Nearly $2 Billion Giveaway to Religious Entities
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 11 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF decries Trump administration's nearly $2 billion giveaway to religious entities
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says the Trump administration's announcement that it will direct almost $2 billion in global funding toward faith-based organizations is outrageous.
The State Department is touting the initiative as the largest allocation of global health foreign assistance to faith-based groups in more than 20 years, which includes hundreds of millions of dollars for some of the
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 11 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF decries Trump administration's nearly $2 billion giveaway to religious entities
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says the Trump administration's announcement that it will direct almost $2 billion in global funding toward faith-based organizations is outrageous.
The State Department is touting the initiative as the largest allocation of global health foreign assistance to faith-based groups in more than 20 years, which includes hundreds of millions of dollars for some of theworld's largest evangelical Christian ministries. The administration announced $1.4 billion for health services delivered through faith-based and community hospitals and clinics plus $538 million in humanitarian assistance involving Samaritan's Purse, and a consortium led by World Vision and Compassion International.
"The administration is openly restructuring American foreign assistance around religion," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Humanitarian aid should be based on humanitarian need and the ability to provide effective, secular services, not on whether an organization puts 'faith in action.' Taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an administration's campaign to elevate and subsidize religion."
The administration's own language makes its religious favoritism impossible to miss. It celebrates the funding as a "historic" investment in faith-based groups and repeatedly identifies the religious character of recipients as a virtue. The government may contract with religiously affiliated organizations to provide secular services under appropriate safeguards. Still, it may not use public money to advance religion, subsidize evangelism or deliberately privilege religious organizations because they are religious.
The inclusion of Samaritan's Purse, a pervasively sectarian religious outfit headed by zealous evangelist Franklin Graham, is particularly alarming.
Samaritan's Purse is not just any old charity. It explicitly identifies itself as an evangelical Christian organization whose mission combines aid with spreading Christianity. Its own mission statement says it assists "with the purpose of sharing God's love through His Son, Jesus Christ" and "serves the Church worldwide to promote the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." The group says its mission is to help people in need while "proclaiming the hope of the Gospel."
Those are constitutionally significant facts when the federal government proposes directing enormous amounts of taxpayer money through the organization.
Samaritan's Purse also requires employees to affirm and adhere to its Statement of Faith, such as that the bible is "inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God." Its employment website describes working for the group as a "calling" and "ministry," and states that its religious beliefs determine employment eligibility.
The organization has attracted particular controversy for its anti-LGBTQ+ religious requirements. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Samaritan's Purse faced widespread criticism when workers at its emergency field hospital in New York were required to subscribe to a statement of faith containing its religious teachings about marriage. Samaritan's Purse defended its practice of requiring paid staff to subscribe to that statement. Graham himself has publicly attacked marriage equality and insisted that marriage is defined by "God's laws."
It is untenable that theTrump administration now proposes making Samaritan's Purse one of its favored conduits for American humanitarian assistance.
"Feeding hungry people and providing medical treatment are worthy public purposes," says Gaylor. "Preaching the gospel is not a government purpose. When an organization expressly combines humanitarian assistance with an evangelical mission, the government has a heightened obligation to ensure that not one taxpayer dollar subsidizes religious activity, proselytizing or religious discrimination."
FFRF emphasizes that the constitutional problem is not simply that religious organizations may participate in otherwise neutral government programs. The problem is that the administration is proposing to funnel extraordinary sums of public money through ministries because those missions advance Christianity.
The danger is especially acute overseas, where recipients of American assistance may be experiencing war, famine, disease, displacement or natural disaster. People in desperate circumstances should never have to encounter government-subsidized evangelism alongside food, medicine or shelter. U.S. foreign assistance must serve people regardless of their religion or nonreligion, without using their vulnerability as an opportunity for religious outreach. Making the allocations all the more concerning is the inhumane destruction of USAID under DOGE cuts, which have already cost as many as 750,000 lives worldwide. Lancet estimates the aid defunding will take as many as 9.4 million lives by 2030.
FFRF is urging the administration to disclose the terms of every award, the safeguards separating publicly funded services from religious activities, the rules governing employment and subcontracting with federal funds, and the mechanisms that will ensure beneficiaries are never subjected to proselytizing or religious discrimination. The state/church watchdog will be filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department seeking records related to these awards, including grant agreements and funding terms, communications concerning the selection of faith-based recipients and documents detailing safeguards intended to prevent taxpayer funds from being used for religious activities, proselytizing or religious discrimination.
FFRF is also calling on Congress to investigate these awards and demand strict accounting for every taxpayer dollar. The American public deserves to know why these organizations were selected, how federal funds will be used and what protections are in place to ensure that humanitarian assistance does not become taxpayer-funded evangelism.
The United States can and should provide lifesaving assistance around the world. It does not need to finance the spread of Christianity to do so.
* * *
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-decries-trump-administrations-nearly-2-billion-giveaway-to-religious-entities/
[Category: Religion]
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Keep Texas from Forcing Deceptive Warning Labels on Perfectly Safe Food
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Keep Texas from Forcing Deceptive Warning Labels on Perfectly Safe Food
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to uphold a district court decision striking down a Texas food-labeling law on First Amendment grounds.
The case centers on Texas's new food labeling regime, which says that packaged food containing one of 44 disfavored ingredients must carry a warning that the "appropriate authority"
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Keep Texas from Forcing Deceptive Warning Labels on Perfectly Safe Food
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to uphold a district court decision striking down a Texas food-labeling law on First Amendment grounds.
The case centers on Texas's new food labeling regime, which says that packaged food containing one of 44 disfavored ingredients must carry a warning that the "appropriate authority"in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or Great Britain deems the product "not recommend for human consumption." But the State's list includes perfectly safe ingredients. Texas admits that by "not recommended" it doesn't mean a foreign authority considers the item to be poison or even bad for you. Rather, it just means one of those four jurisdictions literally doesn't cheerlead for the ingredient.
As WLF's brief explains, Texas's effort to play cute as it compels speech violates the First Amendment. Texas claims its measure is subject to light-touch judicial review but makes that argument through caselaw premised on a Fifth Circuit decision set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under proper constitutional scrutiny, even if you spot Texas an interest in hoodwinking the public into a preferred diet through deceptive argument, the State's compelled-speech regime violates the First Amendment.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/08/10/communicating/wlf-asks-fifth-circuit-to-keep-texas-from-forcing-deceptive-warning-labels-on-perfectly-safe-food/
TPPF Releases New Research on Local Government Spending in Texas
AUSTIN, Texas, Aug. 10 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Releases New Research on Local Government Spending in Texas
*
Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Taxpayer Protection Project released new research examining local government spending habits. This report confirms that local expenditures have increased far too quickly, resulting in higher costs and bigger government. It's because local budgets are so big that taxes are soaring and the affordability crisis is getting worse.
"When it comes to property taxes, Texans' message
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Aug. 10 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Releases New Research on Local Government Spending in Texas
*
Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Taxpayer Protection Project released new research examining local government spending habits. This report confirms that local expenditures have increased far too quickly, resulting in higher costs and bigger government. It's because local budgets are so big that taxes are soaring and the affordability crisis is getting worse.
"When it comes to property taxes, Texans' messageis clear: the current status quo is unacceptable and reform is long overdue. That is why the 90th Legislative Session will be the property tax reform session. We will advance bold, enduring solutions to deliver real property tax relief for Texans. With the conservative leadership and policy expertise of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, we will rein in runaway local government spending and empower Texans to keep more of their hard-earned money," said Governor Greg Abbott.
"The state adheres to a spending limit. If it's good enough for the state, it should be good enough for local governments," said Jose Melendez, Campaign Director for the Taxpayer Protection Project.
John Bonura, policy analyst and author of the report, said, "Local governments continue to spend above their means and plunge Texans further into debt. The 90th legislative session should put guardrails in place to rein in out-of-control local spending."
* * *
REPORT: https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2026-08-TPP-Just-the-Facts-Local-Spending-Bonura.pdf
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-releases-new-research-on-local-government-spending-in-texas
Better Chatbot Safety for Children Requires Smarter Policy, New ITIF Report Finds
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 [Category: Computer Technology] (TNSrpt) -- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Better Chatbot Safety for Children Requires Smarter Policy, New ITIF Report Finds
*
With the bipartisan CHATBOT Act advancing out of the Senate Commerce Committee and states continuing to introduce chatbot safety legislation, a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, outlines which chatbot safety policies policymakers should pursue-and which
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 [Category: Computer Technology] (TNSrpt) -- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Better Chatbot Safety for Children Requires Smarter Policy, New ITIF Report Finds
*
With the bipartisan CHATBOT Act advancing out of the Senate Commerce Committee and states continuing to introduce chatbot safety legislation, a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, outlines which chatbot safety policies policymakers should pursue-and whichthey should avoid-to better protect children while preserving children's access to the benefits AI chatbots can provide.
The report comes as policymakers at both the federal and state levels continue advancing AI chatbot legislation. It recommends a child safety framework centered on targeted safeguards, meaningful parental controls, clear legal standards, stronger industry best practices, and continued research to address documented harms while preserving children's access to the educational, creative, and mental health benefits AI chatbots can provide.
"Congress is right to take children's chatbot safety seriously," said Alex Ambrose, ITIF policy analyst and author of the report. "The challenge is making sure regulations actually reduce the risks children face. Policymakers should focus on safeguards that address documented harms instead of importing social media policies that have proven ineffective."
Organized around 10 policy "Do's," the report recommends policymakers:
* Create a privacy-preserving child flag system rather than requiring universal age verification
* Encourage meaningful parental controls that families can tailor to their children's needs
* Expand AI and digital literacy education for children and parents
* Require clear disclosures when chatbot responses include paid content
* Establish clear legal definitions that distinguish general-purpose chatbots from AI companions
* Establish standards for AI systems providing licensed professional services
* Require appropriate safeguards for conversations involving self-harm or suicide risk
* Discourage the misuse of fictional characters popular with children
* Fund additional research on children's interactions with AI chatbots
* Encourage industry-led best practices and voluntary safety standards
The report also cautions against policies-including universal age verification mandates, blanket content restrictions, warning-label requirements, bans on minors' access, and government-mandated time limits-that often fail to address the underlying risks to children while creating new privacy concerns and limiting access to beneficial AI tools.
"Protecting children and preserving innovation are not competing goals," said Ambrose. "Thoughtful regulation should empower parents, improve transparency, and establish targeted safety standards that address documented harms without cutting young people off from tools that can support learning, creativity, and even access to mental health resources."
* * *
REPORT: https://www2.itif.org/2026-children-chatbot-safety.pdf
***
Original text here: https://itif.org/publications/publications/2026/08/10/better-chatbot-safety-for-children-requires-smarter-policy-new-itif-report-finds/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: New York City Mayor Mamdani Cuts Red Tape, But Needs to Hold Government Accountable
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior policy analyst Christina Mojica:
* * *
New York City Mayor Mamdani cuts red tape, but needs to hold government accountable
City Hall would simply have to apply the same standard to itself that it recently applied to every small business owner in New York.
-
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's new OPEN for Small Business initiative cuts more than 50 outdated rules for small businesses. The mayor's efforts are the needed, practical, unglamorous work far too easy for city government to put off.
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior policy analyst Christina Mojica:
* * *
New York City Mayor Mamdani cuts red tape, but needs to hold government accountable
City Hall would simply have to apply the same standard to itself that it recently applied to every small business owner in New York.
-
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's new OPEN for Small Business initiative cuts more than 50 outdated rules for small businesses. The mayor's efforts are the needed, practical, unglamorous work far too easy for city government to put off.With Mamdani's moves, a bodega no longer needs a separate license to sell fruit on the sidewalk when it already holds one to sell fruit inside. A restaurant no longer needs a second, decades-old dairy permit just to serve ice cream.
It's a real, useful audit, built on a simple standard: If a rule isn't actually protecting anyone or preventing a real problem, it shouldn't survive just because it's always been on the books.
Mayor Mamdani's new Click-to-Cancel and junk-fee rules require businesses to let customers cancel a subscription as easily as they signed up, and to disclose the full price of a hotel room or service upfront rather than adding hidden charges at checkout. Both rules carry civil penalties beginning at $525 per violation. This is smarter government: Set the standard, back it with a real cost if the government misses its deadline, and companies tend to fall in line.
The common thread in Mamdani's initiative is accountability. When City Hall decides a rule matters, it expects businesses to comply and backs that expectation with real consequences. The city should hold itself to the same standard. Unfortunately, that same logic hasn't made its way into the city's housing permitting process yet, where delays routinely stretch on for years.
Many housing developments in New York spend years navigating the city's permitting and approval process. Projects that need a rezoning or another discretionary approval can take roughly three years before construction even begins.
Every extra month in review adds financing costs, consultant fees, and other expenses before a single home is built. A recent study of Los Angeles, a large market that shares New York's mix of high housing costs and heavy permitting delays, put a number to that dynamic, estimating that permitting accounts for roughly one-third of the gap between home prices and construction costs there.
A few states have already gone further than setting a goal for these types of reforms. Pennsylvania's PAyback program requires state agencies to publish a firm review timeline for each permit type and refunds the applicant's fee in full if the agency misses its own deadline. Reporting this year credits it with cutting backlogs and shortening approval times statewide.
Washington state passed a version this March requiring local governments to refund 10% to 20% of a permit fee depending on how badly a deadline was missed.
Florida's law, in effect since January 2025, applies automatic fee reductions for every day a deadline is missed.
Michigan has had a comparable directive since 2023, requiring agencies to establish permit timelines and, where legally permitted, waive or refund fees when those timelines are missed.
New York hasn't tried anything like it yet. Mamdani's own SPEED reforms are headed in the right direction. They have already set faster goals for permitting, cutting the pre-certification timeline for many zoning actions from about two years to six months, but a goal isn't the same as a consequence, and agencies still face nothing if they miss it.
To have the impact the mayor says he wants, a well-designed permitting standard needs to account for a real risk that researchers studying similar policies have flagged. A deadline only changes behavior if there are consequences for missing it, and a poorly designed one can backfire. If the government missing a deadline meant automatic approval for a project, an agency facing a complicated application might simply deny it rather than risk losing control of a project it hasn't finished reviewing. A fee refund sidesteps that problem, since it costs the agency money without forcing approval of a project that may genuinely need more scrutiny.
This fix doesn't require new staff, new software, or another task force. City Hall would simply have to apply the same standard to itself that it recently applied to every small business owner in New York. Publish the timeline, and if it's missed, issue a full refund instead of an apology.
Mayor Mamdani has already shown he's comfortable attaching a price tag to a missed standard when the target is a private company. Applying that same logic to the agencies responsible for housing permits is the natural next step. It should also be relatively simple politically for the mayor because it doesn't require Albany or the City Council.
If City Hall expects accountability from businesses, it should be willing to demand the same from itself. A faster, more predictable permitting process won't solve New York's housing shortage on its own, but it would make building homes less expensive and less uncertain, and that's exactly the kind of practical reform Mamdani's OPEN for Small Business was meant to implement.
* * *
Christina Mojica is a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/new-york-city-mayor-mamdani-cuts-red-tape-but-needs-to-hold-government-accountable/
Christian Nationalist Rep. Ogles Loses Tenn. Primary After FFRF Called for Resignation
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 8 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Christian nationalist Rep. Ogles loses Tenn. primary after FFRF called for resignation
One of Congress' most outspoken Christian nationalism proponents has lost his bid for re-election months after the Freedom From Religion Foundation called on him to resign for declaring that Muslims do not belong in American society.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., was defeated on Thursday by former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, a more traditional conservative Republican backed by the
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 8 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Christian nationalist Rep. Ogles loses Tenn. primary after FFRF called for resignation
One of Congress' most outspoken Christian nationalism proponents has lost his bid for re-election months after the Freedom From Religion Foundation called on him to resign for declaring that Muslims do not belong in American society.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., was defeated on Thursday by former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, a more traditional conservative Republican backed by thestate's party establishment, in the GOP primary for Tennessee's 5th Congressional District. The two-term incumbent lost despite receiving President Trump's "complete and total endorsement" hours before polls closed.
Ogles' defeat follows his congressional tenure marked by repeated efforts to portray the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation and to cast Americans of other faiths as outsiders. In one particularly striking social media post, Ogles shared a video depicting himself, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as medieval crusader knights emblazoned with crosses and marching in front of the U.S. Capitol.
"This is a battle of good vs evil," Ogles wrote. "We must reaffirm that our nation was built on Christian principles."
The imagery encapsulated the Christian nationalist ideology that FFRF has spent decades opposing: the false notion that the United States belongs especially to Christians and that the government should privilege Christianity over other religions and nonreligion.
"The United States is not a Christian nation -- and members of Congress are not Christian crusaders," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Our Constitution created a secular government belonging equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics and every other American. Rep. Ogles repeatedly used his position to promote precisely the kind of religious division our Constitution was designed to prevent."
That rhetoric took an especially disturbing turn earlier this year.
FFRF called on Ogles to resign in March after he publicly declared that "Muslims don't belong in American society" and that "pluralism is a lie." In a letter to Ogles, FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line condemned the statements as "profoundly bigoted, fundamentally un-American, and incompatible with the oath" of a U.S. representative.
"Members of Congress take an oath not to a religion, ideology, or political movement, but to the Constitution of the United States," Line wrote. "If you cannot accept the basic constitutional principle that Americans of all religions -- including Muslims -- and no religion belong fully and equally in this nation, then you cannot faithfully discharge the duties of your office."
Ogles' comments at that time were not isolated. He additionally announced plans during his during his time in office for legislation barring immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries, proclaimed that "diversity is our weakness" and called for the deportation of Muslims, including U.S. citizens. He also joined the congressional "Sharia Free America Caucus," which was launched in December 2025 and promoted alarmist claims about Islamic law in the United States. FFRF has pointed out the obvious constitutional flaw in this fearmongering: The First Amendment already prevents the government from imposing any religion's laws on Americans.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause bars the government from imposing Islamic doctrine just as surely as it prevents the government from imposing Christian doctrine. At the same time, its Free Exercise Clause protects Muslims, Christians and members of other faiths from government discrimination because of their religious beliefs. And Article VI of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office.
Ogles' defeat is an encouraging development in the broader fight against Christian nationalism. His rhetoric represented an especially stark version of an ideology that seeks to merge Christian identity with American citizenship and governmental power. The rejection of that rhetoric by voters in his own party is a welcome reminder that Christian nationalism is neither inevitable nor synonymous with American values.
"Christian nationalism may be loud, but it does not speak for America," adds Gaylor. "Our nation's promise is far better than the divisive vision promoted by politicians like Andy Ogles. America belongs equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics -- and everyone else. Any setback for the effort to turn our secular republic into a Christian nation is a victory for the constitutional principles that protect us all."
FFRF will continue challenging Christian nationalism wherever it appears in government and defending the foundational principle that public officials swear an oath to the Constitution, not to Christianity. Ogles' upcoming departure from Congress marks a welcome victory in that ongoing fight.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including more than 400 members and a local chapter in Tennessee. FFRF's purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/christian-nationalist-rep-ogles-loses-tenn-primary-after-ffrf-called-for-resignation/
[Category: Religion]
