Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Track Record
DETROIT, Michigan, Feb. 7 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by freelance journalist Mark Nayler:
* * *
Track Record
Spain's railway crisis.
Spain receives much well-deserved praise for its rail network, the second-largest in the world after China's, with around 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles) of high-speed track. Rail travel in the Iberian country now accounts for 56% of all travel, more than road and air combined, with high-speed services connecting over fifty Spanish cities. In 2009, then-US President Barack Obama credited the 470-kilometer
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Feb. 7 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by freelance journalist Mark Nayler:
* * *
Track Record
Spain's railway crisis.
Spain receives much well-deserved praise for its rail network, the second-largest in the world after China's, with around 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles) of high-speed track. Rail travel in the Iberian country now accounts for 56% of all travel, more than road and air combined, with high-speed services connecting over fifty Spanish cities. In 2009, then-US President Barack Obama credited the 470-kilometer(292-mile) line linking Madrid to the southern city of Seville--the country's first high-speed service, opened in 1992--as one of the inspirations for creating a network of comparable efficiency across America.
But after four incidents in less than a week, public trust in Spain's world-class network has been shaken. The most serious accident occurred on the evening of January 18 near the southern town of Adamuz, when a train operated by Italian company Iryo derailed on its way north from Malaga to Madrid, veering onto the opposite track. About twenty seconds later, a train operated by state-owned Renfe, traveling south from Madrid to Huelva, slammed into the derailed carriages at 200kph (124 mph). The collision killed 46 people and injured almost 300 others, 15 critically. This was followed two days later by an accident outside Barcelona, in which a commuter train collided with a collapsed wall, killing the driver and injuring 37 others; the same day, another train near the Catalan capital hit a rock, but there were no injuries. Two days after that, several people received minor injuries near the southeastern city of Cartagena, when a crane swung into the windows of a passing commuter service.
Spain's Socialist-led government has promised to uncover the truth about the Adamuz tragedy, and pay Euros20 million ($24 million) in compensation to its victims--but that won't answer their questions about what caused it. Speaking at a state funeral held for the deceased in Huelva on January 29 (attended by Spain's king and queen, but not its Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez), Liliana Saenz, who lost her mother in the collision, said: "Only the truth will help us heal this wound."
Several clues have already been discovered. Spain's Railway Accident Investigation Commission found marks on the wheels of the derailed Iryo carriages that might have been caused by a broken weld in the track near Adamuz. It also found similar grooves on trains that passed over that section earlier on January 18, indicating that it was fractured before the crash--not, as some speculated, as a result of it. The Spanish train drivers' union SEMAF sent a letter to the state railway operator Adif last August, warning of damage on several lines, including the Adamuz stretch. SEMAF has called a three-day strike for February, in protest of what it describes as "the constant deterioration of the rail network."
Meanwhile, the Conservative People's Party (PP) has seized on the Adamuz crash as an opportunity for revenge. More than 230 people died in the catastrophic floods of October 2024, most of them in Conservative-controlled Valencia. The region's then-president, Carlos Mazon, was heavily criticized for his handling of the disaster, eventually resigning. Now, it's payback time. The Valencian administration has criticized what it sees as disproportionate aid given to the Adamuz victims. According to spokesperson Miguel Barrachina, victims of the floods "received about Euros72,000 [each] compared to Euros210,000 for the victims of the train accident." "For Sanchez," he concluded, "a Valencia victim is worth a third of any other victim."
The PP's national leader Alberto Nunez Feijoo has called for Sanchez to appear before a Senate committee, and for the resignation of Transport Minister Oscar Puente. "The state of [Spain's] railways," he said, "is a reflection of the state of the country," a symptom of the Socialist-led government's "collapse." Isabel Ayuso, the PP's influential president of Madrid, wants both Puente and Sanchez gone; while Vox says that the crash is proof of the government's "criminal incompetence." Surprisingly, Andalucia's PP president Juan Moreno has not joined in the fierce attack on Sanchez's government.
Feijoo's words, however, have rebounded against him. He was president of the northwestern region of Galica in 2013, when 79 people were killed in a train crash near Santiago de Compostela (Spain's most recent rail catastrophe until a few weeks ago), and conversations on social media are dredging up some uncomfortable facts about the aftermath. In 2021, a platform for the victims demanded that Feijoo respond to accusations that he cut safety measures to streamline construction of the high-speed track. (The allegations came from then-Transport Minister Jose Abalos, who's now in jail, suspected of fraud.) Most embarrassingly, Feijoo said at the time that he wouldn't use victims' pain for political gain. Five years on, such scruples seem to have deserted him.
Puente, meanwhile, is living up to his nickname of "Sanchez's Rottweiler." During a heated parliamentary session on January 29, in which PP ministers shouted at him to resign, he claimed that Spain's annual rail investment totaled around Euros5 billion in 2025, up from Euros1.7 billion in 2017 (when the PP was in power). Since then, the Transport Minister claimed, railway maintenance spending has increased by 66%. The section of track near Adamuz was renovated last May, as part of a Euros700 million refurbishment of the 34-year-old line connecting Andalucia with Madrid. But as Puente himself has clarified, that does not mean all of its components were replaced: the broken weld under investigation connected a new segment of track with a much older one.
Rail investment might have increased under Sanchez, but Spain is still spending more on new lines than repairing old ones. Of the annual average of Euros1.5 billion Madrid spent on high-speed infrastructure from 2018 (the year Sanchez took power) to 2022, only 16% was allocated for maintenance, compared to between 34% and 39% in France, Germany, and Italy. Between 2015 and 2024, reported problems with tracks, including breaks, rose from 440 to 716. One expert estimates that Spain needs to increase its maintenance spending from Euros11,000 per kilometer of track to Euros150,000.
As with the floods of 2024 and the freak blackout last April, the Adamuz train crash has revealed the extent of Spain's political polarization--a situation in which politicians seize on any event, no matter how tragic, to score points against their opponents. As Liliana Saenz, the woman who spoke at the state funeral, said: "[The 46 people who died] were part of a society so polarized that it began to crack a long time ago." Those cracks are also in urgent need of repair.
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist based in Malaga, Spain, and writes regularly for The Spectator and Foreign Policy on politics and culture.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/track-record/
PAN Foundation: Most Americans Experiencing Higher Health Insurance Premiums, Concerned About Affordability in 2026
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The PAN Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Most Americans experiencing higher health insurance premiums, concerned about affordability in 2026
Two-thirds of Medicare and commercially insured patients report premium increases
*
A recent national poll from the PAN Foundation's Center for Patient Research finds that most Americans (59 percent) experienced an increase in health insurance premium costs in 2026, with 2 in 5 (41 percent) seeing an increase of 10 percent or more compared to the previous year. And people enrolled in Medicare (66 percent) and with commercial
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The PAN Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Most Americans experiencing higher health insurance premiums, concerned about affordability in 2026
Two-thirds of Medicare and commercially insured patients report premium increases
*
A recent national poll from the PAN Foundation's Center for Patient Research finds that most Americans (59 percent) experienced an increase in health insurance premium costs in 2026, with 2 in 5 (41 percent) seeing an increase of 10 percent or more compared to the previous year. And people enrolled in Medicare (66 percent) and with commercialinsurance (69 percent) saw even higher rates of health insurance premium increases in 2026.
Read the polling results (https://www.panfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Health-insurance-premiums_poll-findings_January-2026.pdf)
Other findings
* More than half of Americans with Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage (55 percent) had their prescription drug plan premium costs increase in 2026 compared with 2025.
* Over half of Americans (54 percent) are concerned about their ability to continue to afford their monthly health insurance premiums in 2026.
* This includes 1 in 5 (21 percent) who are very concerned.
* More than 4 in 10 Americans (43 percent) spend 10 percent or more of their income on health insurance premium costs.
"This new polling reinforces the affordability challenges people are facing when it comes to their health insurance premiums," said Amy Niles, Chief Mission Officer at the PAN Foundation. "If people can't afford their health insurance, they often go without the care they need and deserve. Or, they are forced to make difficult decisions between affording their care and other living expenses, such as rent, food, or utilities. This is why the PAN Foundation offers financial assistance funds to specifically help patients afford their health insurance premiums."
Niles added, "It's also why we have supported extension of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits, which expired at the end of 2025. Because we know when you are facing a serious or chronic health condition, worrying about how you're going to pay for your care should be the last thing on your mind."
Resources
* PAN's health insurance premium grants (https://www.panfoundation.org/apply-and-manage-grants/our-grants/health-insurance-premium-grants/)
* PAN's policy position on preserving coverage under the ACA (https://www.panfoundation.org/our-positions/preserve-coverage-affordable-care-act/)
Polling methodology
This survey was conducted online within the United States between January 15 - 20, 2026, among 2,097 adults (aged 18 and over), including 605 who self-report being a Medicare/Medicare Advantage beneficiary and 1,019 as having commercial health insurance, by The Harris Poll on behalf of PAN Foundation via its Harris On Demand omnibus product. Data were weighted where necessary by age, gender, race/ethnicity, region, education, marital status, household size, household income, and political party affiliation, to bring them in line with their actual proportions in the population.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in our surveys. The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For this study, the sample data is accurate to within +- 2.5 percentage points using a 95% confidence level. This credible interval will be wider among subsets of the surveyed population of interest.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to other multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including, but not limited to coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.
* * *
About the PAN Foundation
As a leading charitable foundation and healthcare advocacy organization, the PAN Foundation is dedicated to accelerating access to treatment for those who need it most and empowering patients on their healthcare journeys. We provide critical financial assistance for treatment costs, advocate for policy solutions that expand access to care, and deliver education on complex topics--all driven by our belief that everyone deserves access to affordable, equitable healthcare.
Since 2004, our financial assistance programs have helped more than 1.3 million people to start or stay on life-changing treatment. In addition, we've achieved major policy victories that increase access to care, mobilized patient advocates to call for change, and educated people nationwide on critical healthcare-related topics. We're committed to working towards a future where equitable health outcomes are a reality for all. To learn more, visit panfoundation.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.panfoundation.org/most-americans-higher-health-insurance-polling-2026/
LAWSUIT: FIRE sues Federal Trade Commission over agency's targeting of news rating service
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Feb. 6 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
LAWSUIT: FIRE sues Federal Trade Commission over agency's targeting of news rating service
*
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2026 -For almost a year, the Federal Trade Commission has unconstitutionally used its broad regulatory powers to attack NewsGuard, a private news organization, because it doesn't like its news ratings.
Now, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of the company to protect NewsGuard's First Amendment
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Feb. 6 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
LAWSUIT: FIRE sues Federal Trade Commission over agency's targeting of news rating service
*
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2026 -For almost a year, the Federal Trade Commission has unconstitutionally used its broad regulatory powers to attack NewsGuard, a private news organization, because it doesn't like its news ratings.
Now, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of the company to protect NewsGuard's First Amendmentrights and remind the federal government it has no business using its power to censor journalism whose reporting it opposes.
"NewsGuard's rating service is quintessential journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment," FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere said, "and the Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that the government has no legitimate role in saying what counts as the right balance of private expression -to 'un-bias' what it thinks is biased."
Since its founding in 2018 by veteran journalists L. Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and Steven Brill, the founder of The American Lawyer and Court TV, NewsGuard has published ratings of the reliability of news websites based on fully disclosed journalistic criteria. These criteria include whether news sites verify their information, regularly correct errors, and disclose ownership and financing, among other transparency metrics. NewsGuard's services are used by consumers and businesses alike, including advertisers, to weigh the credibility of news platforms where their ads may appear.
Websites across the political spectrum earning low scores have objected to their ratings. In recent years, some conservative websites earning lower scores than their conservative competitors have sought government censorship of the ratings.
FIRE's lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, lays out three ways in which the federal government violated the company's First Amendment rights:
* FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and the agency engaged in unconstitutional retaliation against NewsGuard based on its perceived viewpoints.
* The government violated the First and Fourth Amendments by an unjustified and overly burdensome civil investigation into the company's operations.
* The FTC unconstitutionally targeted NewsGuard for its First Amendment activity, including by conditioning a merger last fall between advertising companies Omnicom and IPG on a prohibition against the new conglomerate using news rating services when determining where to buy ads -drafted and amended to ensure the ban would prohibit access to NewsGuard's ratings.
FIRE is seeking an injunction to stop the FTC's excessive investigation into NewsGuard's practices and to stop the government from enforcing the merger condition.
"Disagreement over news coverage is precisely the kind of expression the First Amendment protects," Corn-Revere said. "If the government, regardless of the party in charge, can use its levers of power to punish an organization over its coverage, there's no reason it can't do the same to pursue other news organizations that it disfavors."
NewsGuard's statement on today's filing is available here.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought -the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@fire.org
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-sues-federal-trade-commission-over-agencys-targeting-news-rating-service
New OMRF research shows potential to slow Alzheimer's
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Feb. 5 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
New OMRF research shows potential to slow Alzheimer's
*
Forgetting dates or recently acquired information is the hallmark sign of early Alzheimer's. New research by Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientists suggests a way to protect the brain from this forgetfulness.
OMRF scientist Heather Rice, Ph.D., studies molecules in the brain called amyloid precursor proteins. Faulty breakdown of these proteins creates plaques that are thought to damage neurons and cause cognitive decline
... Show Full Article
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Feb. 5 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
New OMRF research shows potential to slow Alzheimer's
*
Forgetting dates or recently acquired information is the hallmark sign of early Alzheimer's. New research by Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientists suggests a way to protect the brain from this forgetfulness.
OMRF scientist Heather Rice, Ph.D., studies molecules in the brain called amyloid precursor proteins. Faulty breakdown of these proteins creates plaques that are thought to damage neurons and cause cognitive declineas Alzheimer's progresses.
"But we have found that these proteins also have beneficial functions," Rice said. "With this study, we wanted to explore whether those helpful functions might lead to a new treatment avenue for Alzheimer's."
Rice collaborated with Boston University neuroscientist Michael Hasselmo, Ph.D., on the study. Hasselmo has developed a model linking excessive brain activity to the development of Alzheimer's disease, and Rice's research suggests a potential therapy that could reduce this overactivation.
Along with Dylan Barber, a graduate student in Rice's OMRF lab, Rice and Hasselmo tested a new idea: that one fragment of the amyloid precursor protein might prevent the uncontrolled growth of brain connections by attaching to a receptor on brain cells.
Using computer simulations, the scientists found that this fragment indeed helped keep memory connections stable by stopping the runaway growth.
Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia, affecting nearly 7 million Americans. There currently are no drugs to cure it, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved treatments for symptoms, including dementia.
Early clinical trials involving work by other researchers have shown promise for a drug cocktail including the muscle relaxant baclofen, which targets the same brain receptors Rice and Hasselmo modeled. "Our study found that the fragment of amyloid precursor protein we tested was more effective at stabilizing memory than baclofen," Rice said.
While Rice cautioned that her lab's discovery is a prediction based on computer models, she said it lays the groundwork for further experiments.
"Similar strategies are already being used successfully in new treatments for schizophrenia, and those same drugs could potentially help people with Alzheimer's as well," said Hasselmo.
This discovery was published in Alzheimer's & Dementia, the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. The study was supported by grant No. R35 GM142726 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/2026/02/05/new-omrf-research-shows-potential-to-slow-alzheimers/
NHTSA Urged to Maintain Fuel Economy Standards
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Feb. 5 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
NHTSA Urged to Maintain Fuel Economy Standards
NHTSA predicts that its proposal would force the average driver to pay $1,400 more in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicle. Photo: Creative Commons
*
A coalition of health, consumer and environmental groups told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that its plan to gut fuel-economy standards for cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks is irrevocably flawed and should be withdrawn.
Comments submitted from Conservation Law
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Feb. 5 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
NHTSA Urged to Maintain Fuel Economy Standards
NHTSA predicts that its proposal would force the average driver to pay $1,400 more in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicle. Photo: Creative Commons
*
A coalition of health, consumer and environmental groups told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that its plan to gut fuel-economy standards for cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks is irrevocably flawed and should be withdrawn.
Comments submitted from Conservation LawFoundation, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Public Citizen, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center laid out the legal and technical flaws with NHTSA's plan and explained why gutting fuel-economy standards would be harmful for Americans' wallets and health.
"It makes no sense to weaken standards that save families money at the pump and cut down pollution hurting our health," said James Crowley, Conservation Law Foundation senior attorney. "Except that's exactly what NHTSA is doing with this backward proposal. No one wants to buy cars and trucks that guzzle more gas and diesel. No one wants increased toxics that make us sick and overheat the planet. NHTSA must withdraw this proposal and stop advancing a policy that will cost our wallets, our health, and our environment."
The proposal would weaken existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by lowering the expected fleetwide average to just 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031, which is below what the vehicle fleet has already achieved. NHTSA predicts that its proposal would force the average driver to pay $1,400 more in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicle, with the additional fuel costs outweighing the claimed savings in upfront vehicle purchase prices by hundreds of dollars. This action would not only make cars less affordable for the average American, but also drive the country backwards by making vehicle fleets less efficient.
NHTSA's proposed standards, "would hurt American families by forcing them to spend more money at the gas pump and by worsening air pollution across the country," the groups say in their comments.
The following statements are from the environmental and consumer groups submitting comments:
"This rollback goes so much further than even what was tried in the first Trump administration," said Kathy Harris, director of the clean vehicles program at NRDC. "If this rule gets finalized, it will deliver a harsh blow to American families struggling to keep up with rising prices. It would raise drivers' costs at the pump while worsening air pollution across the country."
"Everything about this proposal threatens the well-being of Americans," said Sierra Club Senior Attorney Josh Berman. "Families are already grappling with rising heating bills, medical expenses, and grocery prices -and with this proposal, our cars will become less efficient and more expensive to drive. To make matters worse, less efficient cars will increase air pollution, worsening our air quality and multiplying our health care costs. We urge the Department of Transportation to leave these common-sense fuel economy standards alone."
"The Trump administration is rewarding oil companies and punishing consumers with their weak standards," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Following the law would save people money and clean the air we breathe. That's not a heavy lift with today's technology. But the Trump administration is choosing to put corporate profits for its big campaign donors first. Drivers will pay the price to use more gas and pollute more, while Big Oil profits."
"Fuel economy standards should be designed to deliver fuel efficient cars, saving consumers money and reducing toxic pollution that harms public health," said Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group. "The Trump administration's proposal is bad for consumers and rolls back decades of progress toward cleaner cars and cleaner air."
"Weakening the CAFE standards will add more pollution to the air we breathe, put us all at greater risk for serious health problems, and saddle American families with higher gas bills for years to come," said Andy Su, attorney, Environmental Defense Fund. "No one in America is hoping to spend more at the gas pump. People want cars that are safe and save money - and this proposal drives us in the wrong direction."
Experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/nhtsa-urged-to-maintain-fuel-economy-standards/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: The Economic Origins of Cryptocurrencies
DETROIT, Michigan, Feb. 5 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Feb. 4, 2026, by Brazilian writer Deborah Palma:
* * *
The Economic Origins of Cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin and the revival of sound money.
*
The launch of Bitcoin in 2009 represents one of the most disruptive phenomena in financial history, establishing a unique link between computer science and an economic tradition opposed to the mainstream. To understand Bitcoin's importance, it is not sufficient to analyze its cryptographic architecture alone; it is essential to delve into the intellectual
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Feb. 5 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Feb. 4, 2026, by Brazilian writer Deborah Palma:
* * *
The Economic Origins of Cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin and the revival of sound money.
*
The launch of Bitcoin in 2009 represents one of the most disruptive phenomena in financial history, establishing a unique link between computer science and an economic tradition opposed to the mainstream. To understand Bitcoin's importance, it is not sufficient to analyze its cryptographic architecture alone; it is essential to delve into the intellectualroots that shaped its existence, primarily found in the Austrian School of Economics.
The conceptual origins of Bitcoin date back to 1871, with the publication of Principles of Economics by Carl Menger. Menger is known for resolving the paradox of value (also known as the diamond-water paradox), demonstrating that value is neither intrinsic to goods nor derived from the labor required to produce them, but rather a subjective attribution based on marginal utility. This analytical framework is the foundation of Austrian monetary theory: money is not a creation of the state, but the product of the gradual development of the market.
Menger demonstrated that money emerges through a spontaneous process when individuals in a barter economy encounter the difficulty of achieving a double coincidence of wants. To facilitate exchange, market participants begin to adopt goods with higher liquidity. Throughout history, tradable goods such as salt, cattle, and precious metals were evaluated, until gold and silver prevailed as the most functional media of exchange due to their physical attributes of durability, divisibility, and scarcity. Bitcoin is the digital representation of this economic evolution, emerging not by government decree, but as a voluntary choice by individuals seeking an asset with superior monetary properties.
Menger's conceptual framework is further developed through the study of marginal utility as applied to money. The value attributed to an additional unit of currency declines as an individual's cash balance increases, which affects the demand for money holdings and, consequently, the purchasing power of money in the market. Bitcoin, characterized by an inelastic and programmatically fixed supply, enables individuals to plan over the long term, counteracting the loss of value caused by inflation, as occurs with government-issued fiat currencies.
In 1976, Friedrich Hayek published The Denationalization of Money, in which he argued that the state monopoly over money issuance should be abolished in favor of free competition among private issuers. Hayek believed that the market would naturally select the most stable and reliable currencies, punishing inflationary issuers.
Bitcoin represents a technological advancement that governments cannot prevent, and that offers a global financial infrastructure alongside the traditional financial system. Unlike Hayek's original proposal, which involved private banks issuing competing currencies, Bitcoin removes even the private issuer, consisting instead of an open-source protocol with decentralized governance. This architecture prevents Bitcoin from suffering the same abuses of power that Hayek observed in central banks throughout the 20th century.
The technical implementation of Bitcoin is a product of the cypherpunk movement of the 1980s and 1990s. This group advocated strong cryptography as a means of protecting individual privacy and resisting state surveillance. Projects such as David Chaum's e-cash and Wei Dai's b-money attempted to create digital money but faced challenges such as centralization or the double-spending problem--that is, the use of the same bitcoins in multiple transactions.
The decisive catalyst for Bitcoin's launch was the 2008 financial crisis. Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) explains that economic crises are caused by artificial credit expansion and low interest rates, which lead to malinvestments and asset bubbles. When these bubbles burst, governments typically resort to quantitative easing (the creation of new money) and bank bailouts, harming savers while benefiting insolvent institutions.
Bitcoin's volatility is repeatedly misinterpreted as a flaw, when in fact it is the necessary price-discovery mechanism of an asset evolving from a technological hobby into a global store of value.
Unlike stocks, Bitcoin does not generate cash flows or dividends to anchor its fundamental value. Its price is derived purely from its marginal utility as a medium of exchange and a scarce store of value. Because its supply is fixed and absolutely limited, all adjustments to changes in demand must occur through price.
The maxim "Not your keys, not your coins" is the cornerstone of individual sovereignty within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Leaving bitcoins on a centralized exchange under third-party custody undermines the original purpose of the technology: the elimination of counterparty risk.
Jesus Huerta de Soto, in his analysis of the banking system, identifies fractional reserve banking as inherently fraudulent and the primary cause of economic instability. When an exchange retains only a fraction of its clients' deposits and lends out the remainder, or uses them for proprietary investments, it creates artificial credit expansion.
The collapse of FTX in 2022 is the definitive example. The exchange used customer funds to finance the operations of Alameda Research, creating a multibillion-dollar deficit. Centralized exchanges behave like the deposit banks that failed in the past, operating without the transparency that the Bitcoin protocol itself provides.
The possession of private keys allows individuals to exercise full control over their wealth, without the permission of governments or financial institutions. This aligns with Murray Rothbard's view of self-ownership and absolute private property rights as the foundation of liberty. In Bitcoin, security is guaranteed by mathematics and cryptography, not by trust in individuals or regulators.
Bitcoin represents the culmination of humanity's pursuit of sound money, free from the distortions caused by central planners. Its significance lies in the restoration of individual sovereignty and in promoting an economy based on savings and real capital, as opposed to the uncontrolled consumption and debt encouraged by the fiat monetary system.
Bitcoin offers a response to the dilemma of inflation and economic cycles. Volatility is the price of a truly free market in the process of maturation, and self-custody is the only way to ensure that the benefits of this institutional disruption remain in the hands of individuals. As Satoshi Nakamoto signaled in the genesis block, Bitcoin is the necessary alternative to a banking system perpetually dependent on bailouts, serving as the foundation of a new monetary paradigm based on transparency and individual responsibility.
In light of the above, the transition to a "Bitcoin Standard" is not merely a technological transformation, but a shift in the economic model that favors long-term orientation, productive investment, and civilizational liberty. A commitment to private custody and a clear understanding of Bitcoin's principles are essential for anyone seeking to participate in the Bitcoin ecosystem in a secure and consistent manner.
* * *
Deborah Palma is a Brazilian writer who holds a bachelor's degree in Business Administration from UNINASSAU. She has published articles with Instituto Millenium, Boletim da Liberdade, and IFL Brazil, and writes for the Damas de Ferro Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-economic-origins-of-cryptocurrencies/
Federal "Guidance" and Georgia Schools: Who's in Charge?
ATLANTA, Georgia, Feb. 5 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Federal "Guidance" and Georgia Schools: Who's in Charge?
*
Georgia lawmakers have raised transparency concerns over federal "guidance" communicated to the state Department of Education (GaDOE). While this issue might seem like the ultimate in esoteric "inside baseball," it reflects a serious challenge to state and local governance in education, and has far-reaching consequences for Georgia's students, parents and educators.
Federal guidance is a catch-all term for many types of communications
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Feb. 5 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Federal "Guidance" and Georgia Schools: Who's in Charge?
*
Georgia lawmakers have raised transparency concerns over federal "guidance" communicated to the state Department of Education (GaDOE). While this issue might seem like the ultimate in esoteric "inside baseball," it reflects a serious challenge to state and local governance in education, and has far-reaching consequences for Georgia's students, parents and educators.
Federal guidance is a catch-all term for many types of communications- such as "Dear Colleague" letters, FAQs or various memoranda - that explain to state administrators how the federal government interprets and intends to enforce federal law. The very existence of such communication is often a sign that either the law is unclear, or that it is so broad or vague as to give federal bureaucrats the need - or simply the opportunity - to create their own interpretation of the law.
Unlike statutes or formal regulations, federal guidance is not, strictly speaking, legally binding. Courts have consistently held that guidance cannot create new legal obligations on its own. In theory, states and school systems remain free to depart from guidance so long as they comply with the underlying law.
In practice, however, federal guidance often carries significant weight. Schools and state agencies frequently adjust their policies to align with federal expectations rather than risk compliance reviews, investigations or potential consequences tied to federal funding. Over time, guidance can function as de facto rulemaking, shaping education policy even though it was never formally enacted or adopted through a legislative process.
Lawmakers have now proposed changes that address how this dynamic plays out at the state level, particularly when guidance is transmitted directly to GaDOE. Guidance is often interpreted and incorporated administratively, without public discussion or transparency. This process risks undermining state and local self-governance by overriding laws passed by elected leaders with the choices of unelected bureaucrats.
When guidance is absorbed quietly through agency action, meaningful oversight becomes more difficult. Legislators may not be aware that guidance is influencing state education policy; local school systems may be unsure whether they are responding to binding law or administrative interpretation; and parents and educators may not know what standards or expectations are driving changes on the ground.
Both chambers of the Georgia legislature have introduced bills aimed at improving transparency when the state receives federal guidance on education. The bills would require the GaDOE to publish federal guidance they receive, making them readily available to the public and to the General Assembly.
The bills proposed in Georgia seek to address this transparency gap without prohibiting cooperation with federal agencies or barring the use of guidance altogether. They would prevent the GaDOE from adopting non-binding federal suggestions without first subjecting them to public review and documentation. Under the proposals, GaDOE would be required to post any relevant federal "guidance document" to a dedicated website within 15 days of receipt.
Within 45 days of receiving a guidance document, the GaDOE would also be required to publish a formal written response on that same webpage. That response must explain whether the guidance is consistent with Georgia law, how the department plans to implement it and whether the GaDOE has raised any objections or concerns with the issuing federal agency.
The legislation also establishes an annual reporting requirement. By August 1 of each year, the State School Superintendent would be required to submit a report to the House and Senate Education Committees listing all federal guidance received during the prior year, along with the department's official responses. The need for these reporting requirements is itself an indication of the problem: There is so little transparency for federal guidance today that it is unclear how often federal bureaucrats even send such missives.
Georgia's effort is not without precedent. In 2024, Tennessee enacted a law requiring its Department of Education to provide federal guidance it receives to the chairs of its government affairs and education committees.
Tennessee's law was widely described as a first-of-its-kind transparency measure, but a few other states have adopted related practices, though not always through statute. Alaska began publishing guidance documents online pursuant to a 2025 administrative order. Virginia, while no longer operating under a standing executive order requiring publication, continued to post guidance documents online as a matter of practice, even after the formal requirement expired in 2018.
These measures fit into a larger legislative effort to reassert oversight in policymaking that occurs outside the legislative process. Just as Georgia lawmakers have pursued regulatory reform to limit unelected agencies from effectively writing law through rulemaking, these education bills apply a similar principle to federal guidance. They are a step toward transparency and accountability, ensuring that policy shifts are visible and not embedded quietly through administrative action.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/federal-guidance-and-georgia-schools-whos-in-charge/
