Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Does getting gel manicures increase my skin cancer risk?
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, April 6 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:* * *
Does getting gel manicures increase my skin cancer risk?
*
Who doesn't love a trip to the nail salon? For some people, that includes a gel manicure-known for its glossy finish and long-lasting wear. But if you've ever placed your hands under a UV or LED lamp to "cure" the gel polish, you may have wondered: Is this UV exposure something to worry about?
We know most skin cancers are caused by damage from ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun. So where do nail salon UV lamps fit into the picture? ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, April 6 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news: * * * Does getting gel manicures increase my skin cancer risk? * Who doesn't love a trip to the nail salon? For some people, that includes a gel manicure-known for its glossy finish and long-lasting wear. But if you've ever placed your hands under a UV or LED lamp to "cure" the gel polish, you may have wondered: Is this UV exposure something to worry about? We know most skin cancers are caused by damage from ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun. So where do nail salon UV lamps fit into the picture?
READ MORE: Clearing the haze about the UV Index
What does the research say about gel manicures and cancer risk?
A 2023 study from the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications indicated that chronic use of UV-emitting devices during a gel manicure can damage DNA and cause mutations in human cells-therefore increasing your risk of skin cancer-but more data are needed before we can be certain just how dangerous the occasional gel manicure might be.
Although cell damage can be worrying, the study does not prove that UV lamps can cause cancer. Cells in a lab are more vulnerable to damage than cells on a person's hand. To date, there is still no large, long-term study conclusively showing that UV nail lamps cause skin cancer.
Major cancer centers, including MD Anderson Cancer Center, report that UV nail laps emit UV radiation at relatively low doses and for most people, occasional gel manicures are not considered a major skin cancer risk. Dermatology experts continue to emphasize that any current evidence shows potential risk, not definitive proof.
RELATED: What a dermatologist wants you to know about skin cancer
What should I do if I want to get a manicure?
Even without definitive answers, many experts agree that simple precautions can reduce potential risk-especially for people who get gel manicures regularly.
READ ALSO: ABCDEs of skin cancer
If you don't want to say goodbye to the salon, try limiting how often you go and save the gel manicure for special occasions to reduce cumulative exposure. Or consider a dip powder manicure, which typically does not require a UV lamp. If it does, ask your nail technician to skip the gel topcoat and ask whether air-drying options are available. If you'd rather not spend any time under UV dryers, there's always good, old-fashioned regular nail polish that can air dry.
If you do decide to get a gel manicure, wear sunscreen or fingerless UV protective gloves.
Whatever you choose, we hope you have the tools and information to feel confident the next time you decide to treat yourself to a day at the salon.
***
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/does-getting-gel-manicures-increase-my-skin-cancer-risk/
TPPF Releases New Research Exposing the Scale and Influence of Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying in Texas
AUSTIN, Texas, April 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:* * *
TPPF Releases New Research Exposing the Scale and Influence of Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying in Texas
*
Today, TPPF's Government Reform & Oversight Coalition released a new research paper focusing on its top priority, ending taxpayer-funded lobbying. The report, "When Government Lobbies Itself: Why Texas Should Ban Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying," provides one of the most comprehensive, bill-level analyses to date of how taxpayer-funded lobbying operates in Texas and its growing impact on the legislative ... Show Full Article AUSTIN, Texas, April 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release: * * * TPPF Releases New Research Exposing the Scale and Influence of Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying in Texas * Today, TPPF's Government Reform & Oversight Coalition released a new research paper focusing on its top priority, ending taxpayer-funded lobbying. The report, "When Government Lobbies Itself: Why Texas Should Ban Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying," provides one of the most comprehensive, bill-level analyses to date of how taxpayer-funded lobbying operates in Texas and its growing impact on the legislativeprocess.
The research finds that taxpayer-funded lobbying has expanded significantly in recent years, with spending reaching as much as $111.5 million during the 89th Legislative Session, more than doubling since the 85th Legislature.
By analyzing lobbying registrations, legislative testimony, and bill outcomes across multiple sessions, the study reveals that government entities routinely use public funds to influence legislation, often in opposition to reforms aimed at lowering taxes, limiting spending, or increasing accountability.
"Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund lobbying efforts that work against their own interests," said Jose Melendez, GROC Campaign Director. "This research confirms what many Texans already suspect: government entities are weaponizing taxpayer dollars to protect and expand their own power, often at the expense of the people they're supposed to serve."
The study also finds that taxpayer-funded lobbying is not limited to fiscal issues, but extends into highly controversial policy debates, including social matters, demonstrating the broad scope of influence exercised using public funds.
"This is not just about how much is being spent, it's about how taxpayer-funded lobbying is shaping policy outcomes across Texas," said Ben Crockett, GROC Policy Scholar and author of the report. "Our findings show that this practice is widespread, growing, and often deployed to resist reforms that would benefit taxpayers."
The release of this report comes as momentum continues to build in Texas to prohibit taxpayer-funded lobbying, with multiple reform proposals introduced in recent legislative sessions.
Read the full research paper here.
Watch our Parent Empowerment episode on taxpayer-funded lobbying.
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-releases-new-research-exposing-the-scale-and-influence-of-taxpayer-funded-lobbying-in-texas
Mountain West Holding Company Traffic Safety Workers Across Montana Vote LIUNA Union Bosses Out of Power
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, April 6 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Mountain West Holding Company Traffic Safety Workers Across Montana Vote LIUNA Union Bosses Out of Power
*
Employees reject union by over 3-1 margin in vote to free more than 150 workers from union bosses' forced-dues ranks
Butte, MT (April 6, 2026) - Workers at traffic safety equipment firm Mountain West Holding Company have overwhelmingly voted Laborers International Union (LIUNA) Local 1686 union officials out of power at their Montana workplaces. The final vote ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, April 6 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Mountain West Holding Company Traffic Safety Workers Across Montana Vote LIUNA Union Bosses Out of Power * Employees reject union by over 3-1 margin in vote to free more than 150 workers from union bosses' forced-dues ranks Butte, MT (April 6, 2026) - Workers at traffic safety equipment firm Mountain West Holding Company have overwhelmingly voted Laborers International Union (LIUNA) Local 1686 union officials out of power at their Montana workplaces. The final votetally was 62-19. Employee John Fisher led his colleagues' effort to free themselves of the union by filing a union decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board in January. Fisher received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or "certify") and remove (or "decertify") unions. Fisher's petition received more than the required threshold of his coworkers' signatures to trigger the process for the NLRB to schedule a decertification vote. Pursuant to a stipulated election agreement approved by the NLRB, the decertification vote took place among employees at Mountain West Holding Company's facilities in Billings, Butte, Bozeman, and Missoula.
Montana lacks Right to Work protections for its workers, meaning that union officials can enforce contracts that force private sector employees to pay money to the union or be fired. In contrast, in Right to Work states like Montana's neighbors Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary and the choice of each worker.
Now that Fisher and his colleagues have voted to remove the LIUNA union from their facilities, they are free of union chiefs' forced-dues power. They are also free of the LIUNA's exclusive "representation," a legal privilege that lets union officials dictate work conditions for every employee in a work unit, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
LIUNA Rejected by Mountain West Workers Twice in Handful of Years
This isn't the first time that Mountain West employees have voted to escape the clutches of LIUNA Local 1686. In 2024, a unit of Mountain West equipment operators based in Billings, MT, led by Michael Horsman, voted to decertify the union in a near-unanimous vote. Horsman also received free Foundation legal assistance.
Foundation attorneys have noticed a marked increase in worker requests for help in decertifying unpopular unions. NLRB statistics indicate that in 2025, decertification petition filings were up almost 40 percent from 2020.
"Mr. Fisher and his colleagues sent a strong message to LIUNA union officials with their vote, as their work unit spanned well over 150 workers all across the Big Sky State," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Foundation attorneys were proud to help them exercise their right to free themselves. But it's outrageous that, despite how heavy the opposition to the union was among his coworkers, LIUNA bosses still had the power to force them to pay dues as a condition of employment.
"Workers in Montana and across America deserve the protection of a Right to Work law, so they can freely decide whether or not union officials at their workplace have earned their financial support," Mix added.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/liuna-montana-fisher-decert-04062026/
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation: US Cannot Afford NSF Disinvestment as Global Competitors Accelerate
WASHINGTON, April 6 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
US Cannot Afford NSF Disinvestment as Global Competitors Accelerate, Says ITIF
*
Following reports that the Trump administration has called for eliminating the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation released the following statement from Trelysa Long, policy analyst for economic theory at ITIF:
Proposals to eliminate the National Science ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 6 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release: * * * US Cannot Afford NSF Disinvestment as Global Competitors Accelerate, Says ITIF * Following reports that the Trump administration has called for eliminating the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation released the following statement from Trelysa Long, policy analyst for economic theory at ITIF: Proposals to eliminate the National ScienceFoundation's SBE directorate, which awarded $154 million last year across fields such as cognitive science, linguistics, and social psychology, raise important questions about federal research priorities. However, the greater risk is not reorganization; it is outright disinvestment. If policymakers choose to wind down SBE, they should fully redirect those funds to other critical areas, such as engineering and computer science. Cutting them altogether would weaken the U.S. research enterprise as global competitors accelerate their investments.
The United States cannot afford to fall further behind in science and technology. ITIF analysis shows that while U.S. R&D spending reached $823 billion in 2023, compared to China's $781 billion, American growth is slowing significantly-averaging just 4.7 percent annually from 2019 to 2023, compared to China's 8.9 percent. When adjusted for cost efficiency, China's effective R&D investment rises to roughly $1.8 trillion, far surpassing U.S. levels.
Broad cuts to the National Science Foundation would only intensify this trend, undermining America's long-term innovation capacity and global competitiveness.
***
Original text here: https://itif.org/publications/publications/2026/04/06/us-cannot-afford-nsf-disinvestment-as-global-competitors-accelerate/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Separating Fact From Fear in Drug-Related Child Welfare Policy
LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by drug policy analyst Layal Bou Harfouch and senior fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:* * *
Separating fact from fear in drug-related child welfare policy
Parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children.
*
Child welfare is a particularly difficult area of public policy. Interventions are frequently based on limited information and early warning signs, rather than on confirmed harm, and are carried out in the name of "protecting the children." While the urgency ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by drug policy analyst Layal Bou Harfouch and senior fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz: * * * Separating fact from fear in drug-related child welfare policy Parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children. * Child welfare is a particularly difficult area of public policy. Interventions are frequently based on limited information and early warning signs, rather than on confirmed harm, and are carried out in the name of "protecting the children." While the urgencymay feel justified, these short-term decisions can have lasting negative consequences for families and the future of the children involved.
In recent years, Naomi Schaefer Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has argued that government-facilitated family separation should be more strongly considered* when authorities find parents have used drugs, both during pregnancy and while parenting.
"We can't let the occasional story about government overreach blind us to the larger truth: that tens of thousands of children are being failed by the system every day--and without intervention from the authorities, they will suffer and die without anyone hearing their cries for help," Riley wrote at AEI last year.
But parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children. The incidence of reporting families to child protective services is high relative to the number of cases where actual abuse or neglect is ultimately found. A recent study found that child welfare agencies in 21 states referred at least 70,778 reports of alleged substance use during pregnancy to police or prosecutors between 2017 and 2023. In the 15 states where investigation outcomes were verified, about 55% of referred cases (around 22,000) were not found to involve abuse or neglect, meaning that though drug use may have occurred, it does not mean that child welfare was at risk.
The practice of automatically reporting parental drug use to child welfare agencies treats perceived risk as proof of harm and removal as prevention, but evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is thin. Research shows that separation itself can cause serious harm to children, such as severe anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), toxic stress, and delays in cognitive development, as well as harm to parents. And there is a demonstrated elevated risk of abuse in foster care, according to a recent meta-analysis.
Despite the downsides, the impulse to separate children from parents continues to influence child welfare interventions around parental drug use, driven largely by misconceptions and myths. An examination of the evidence suggests that we would achieve better results with alternative approaches.
Myth 1: All parental drug use is dangerous
In a 2025 article in National Affairs, Riley argues that society must stop viewing drug use as "a valid if unfortunate decision" and instead recognize it as a "terrible blight on children and families." Her article urges political and media leaders to reframe substance use from a personal choice to a primary driver of family instability. Riley's overarching claim is that economic and social pressures will not prevent children from succeeding in life so long as they have at least one sober, self-sacrificing parent.
Truth: Drug use is not the same as drug abuse
Arguments that equate drug use with drug abuse fail to recognize the full spectrum of substance-using behavior and the spectrum of dependency that can include both legal drugs, like caffeine, nicotine, and prescription medications, as well as illicit substances. Alcohol's central role in social life complicates rigid claims about "drugs" and parental fitness.
Importantly, most drug use does not meet the criteria for a substance use disorder as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), and different substances carry different levels of risk.
* * *
Table 1 - Comparative substance risk and policy context.
* * *
Of course, having a glass of wine on a Saturday is totally different than spending every weekend on a cocaine bender. In order to justify the drastic and inherently harmful step of removing a child where a single drug test is the basis, decision-makers must determine that there are other indications of family dysfunction likely to harm children and that removal is the only safe option. If two parents attend a party and one agrees to be the designated driver while the other drinks alcohol, that may constitute responsible parenting despite the presence of "substance use" in the home.
Interventions that can result in family separation should occur only when there is an actual danger in the family and no other alternatives are available. The presence of any substance use alone is simply not enough proof without further evidence of dysfunction.
Research finds that children who are removed from their homes face 20 to 70% higher odds of adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, poorer educational attainment, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system, compared to similarly situated children who remain with their families. Child welfare policies should reflect those nuances.
Furthermore, national survey data show that about 8% of caregivers meet criteria for alcohol dependence compared to roughly 3% for drug dependence, with approximately 11% meeting criteria for either alcohol or drug dependence. Researchers note that differences in reported prevalence may partly reflect lower stigma and greater social acceptability surrounding alcohol use, which can influence how substance use is reported.
Substance use can appear alongside cases of harm to children, but reports do not show that drug use itself directly causes a large share of the negative outcomes attributed to it. In child welfare investigations, case reports and administrative records that cite parental substance use as a factor in family separation often classify the outcome simply as "neglect." Context, co-occurring factors, and structural conditions are frequently omitted from these accounts. Realistically, families experiencing neglect or abuse are dealing with a web of problems, and drug use is often not the dominant factor driving the dysfunction.
Treating all parental drug use as equivalent ignores these meaningful distinctions. In practice, child welfare policies and reporting frameworks often still treat parental substance use as a monolith, not distinguishing between occasional alcohol use, prescription medication misuse, or high-risk illicit drug dependence. This approach fails to differentiate less dangerous behaviors from much more destabilizing ones, leading to unnecessary family disruption or separation.
The narrative that all parental drug use is dangerous inaccurately portrays parental sobriety as the decisive factor in child wellbeing, downplaying the effects of poverty, education, community safety, and access to services on childhood outcomes.
Myth 2: People who use drugs are dangerous and unsafe parents
This myth operates less as a claim about behavior and more as a shortcut for decision-making. In practice, drug use is often treated as a stand-in for risk, where its mere presence is used to justify concern, intervention, or removal without fully assessing what is actually happening in the home. It is commonly supported by citing child fatality or neglect cases where parental substance use is mentioned as a contributing factor and presenting those cases as evidence that drug use itself leads to harm.
Tragic outcomes involving infants and children are recounted in detail, including prenatal drug exposure, unsafe sleep environments, accidental ingestion of drugs by children, and lack of supervision. These examples are used to imply a direct causal link between parental drug use and child injury or death. As an example, the Spring 2025 National Affairs piece** by Riley asserted that "drug abuse drives child maltreatment," which in turn "drives the lack of social mobility for kids at the very bottom."
Truth: Parental drug use alone is not a reliable indicator of child safety risk
Proponents of more punitive child welfare policies often treat parental drug use as evidence of unsafe parenting, using dramatic accounts of extreme cases to suggest that people who use drugs are inherently dangerous caregivers. These narratives rely on outlier incidents to generalize risk, despite the fact that most drug use in households does not result in harm to children. In fact, in more than 82% of child physical and sexual abuse cases, there are no reported alcohol or drug use problems.
Claims that drugs and bad mothering drive child maltreatment are largely fueled by a single research paper published more than 18 years ago. That study established a correlation between parental substance use and outcomes such as child maltreatment and foster care placement, but it did not demonstrate that substance use causes maltreatment. While substance use and child maltreatment often occur in tandem, this does not mean that drug use causes the maltreatment. In reality, parental drug use overlaps with numerous other factors that impact child welfare, such as housing instability, poor access to healthcare, and poverty.
This disconnect between correlation and causation is reflected in how these assumptions are translated into practice. As reported by The Marshall Project, hospital drug testing and reporting practices routinely funnel families into the child welfare system without reliable evidence of harm. In 2022 alone, more than 35,000 infants were reported as substance-exposed, often relying on tests that are not fully reliable.
These results point to a system that too often substitutes suspicion and stigma for evidence, nuance, and proportional response.
Reports often point to conditions such as congenital malformations, preterm birth, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) as leading contributors to infant mortality, and these outcomes are sometimes attributed to simple parental fault. Research does find associations between prenatal substance exposure and elevated risks, including higher rates of preterm birth, impaired fetal growth, neonatal mortality, and SIDS or sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), even after adjusting for other factors. However, these associations reflect complex biological, medical, and social conditions and do not justify treating every instance of prenatal substance exposure as evidence of abuse or neglect.
Critically, elevated risks associated with prenatal substance exposure are often interpreted as evidence of parental fault, even though similar outcomes can arise from a wide range of medical and social factors. Conditions such as low birth weight, preterm birth, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission are not unique to illicit substance use and do not, on their own, indicate neglect or abuse.
The narrative also suggests that parents who do use drugs are not as loving or attentive as other parents and have less desire to care properly for their children, which is overwhelmingly not the case.
In her book Curious, foster mother Christina Dent describes her initial confusion when caring for an infant whose birth mother had used drugs during pregnancy, noting the fierce commitment she observed from the mother: "This whole-hearted, vulnerable affection and emotion is not at all what I was expecting. Isn't this the same woman who used drugs while she was pregnant? How can a mom who would do that also love her child this much? I don't know much about addiction, but I have some experience with motherhood, and I have no category for this."
In a study out of two drug treatment centers in Southern Florida, mothers identify concern for the well-being of a child as a powerful motivator for them to engage in treatment and abstain from substance use. In this qualitative study with 20 mothers, findings show that even amid substance use, mothers remain deeply motivated to care for their children and often view their caregiving role as central to their identity and recovery. The inaccurate perception that mothers who use drugs are indifferent to their babies may explain why people who make these arguments frequently downplay the value and efficacy of lesser interventions that don't separate families.
Myth 3: Stigma is necessary to dissuade drug use
Riley asserts that the dramatic decline in smoking in the United States was driven primarily by stigma, arguing, "How did we drastically reduce smoking in America? It was stigma."
Truth: Stigma is not necessary to dissuade drug use. Instead, what dissuades drug use is accurate information, honest education, and access to services and treatment
Stigma is ever-present for people who use drugs and their families, and that stigma is compounded by stigma associated with being involved in the child welfare system, to a persistent and pernicious effect.
But stigma is not what dissuades drug use, nor is it what drove declines in smoking. The evidence consistently shows that behavior change is driven by accurate information, sustained public education, and access to services and treatment. Public awareness of health risks is not the same as public stigmatization. Smoking rates fell alongside decades of data-driven education, warning labels, advertising restrictions, and cessation support, not through social exclusion or moral condemnation.
By contrast, stigma toward people who use drugs is associated with worse outcomes, including delayed treatment-seeking, reduced engagement with care, lower access to harm-reduction services, and higher overdose risk--outcomes that also undermine family stability and harm children.
Qualitative research further shows that stigma plays a distinct and often overlooked role in shaping child welfare involvement, particularly for parents who use drugs. Studies of affected families document that mothers report being treated as inherently unfit, regardless of actual caregiving behavior, and describe avoiding healthcare, prenatal care, and social services out of fear of surveillance and child removal.
Providers, in turn, acknowledge that substance use can trigger heightened scrutiny and reporting thresholds that are not applied consistently across substances or contexts. This dynamic can distort decision-making, where stigma, rather than clear evidence of harm, influences perceptions of risk. In this way, stigma does not simply accompany substance use, but can actively shape pathways into the child welfare system and contribute to findings of neglect or maltreatment that are not always grounded in demonstrated harm.
Myth 4: Removal is necessary to protect child welfare
This argument by Riley is grounded in the belief that child welfare systems err on the side of inaction, with proponents pointing to cases of severe abuse and neglect to argue that stronger intervention, including removal, is necessary to prevent serious harm or death.
Truth: The risk of removal must be weighed against the harms, and we should adopt evidence-based alternatives that yield better outcomes
Though removing children from potentially unsafe homes can feel like a safe approach, family separation is not without its own risks. Removing children from the home itself causes harm to children that must be weighed carefully when assessing a child's best interests. These harms include emotional and psychological harms, separation and attachment disorders, trauma inherent to the removal process, grief and confusion, and other long-term consequences that may be more harmful to children than leaving them at home.
Parents are a central part of a child's life, and many of the most effective child welfare responses involve supporting parents who are willing and able to address challenges that affect caregiving. The purpose of these interventions is to improve the family's overall functioning and support the most conducive environment possible for raising the child.
Federal policy reflects this understanding of the value of family cohesion. The Families First Prevention Services Act, a bipartisan bill passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in 2018, increased federal funding for services to prevent the need for children to enter the foster care system at all.
The act recognized that access to funding for in-home services, treatment, and other concrete assistance to parents who may be struggling reduces the risk of child maltreatment and child welfare involvement.
A growing body of evidence shows that alternatives to removal can produce equal or better outcomes when properly implemented, compared to standard child welfare practice, which typically relies on case monitoring, service referrals, and court oversight without intensive, family-centered support. These alternatives include models such as family drug treatment courts, peer mentorship and parent partner programs, intensive in-home reunification services, and wraparound approaches that integrate substance use treatment, parenting support, and case management.
One systematic review shows that roughly 20% of children who reunify with their families reenter foster care, with the risk of reentry highest in the first few months following separation, highlighting the instability created by repeated removals. By contrast, targeted, family-centered interventions have demonstrated measurable improvements. In one program, children receiving peer mentorship support had a 13.4% reentry rate within 12 months compared to 21.8% among those receiving standard services. Family drug treatment court models have reduced reentry rates to as low as 2% compared with 12% in traditional court processing, while also reducing subsequent child protective service investigations from 64% to 33% in some cases. Intensive in-home reunification services have similarly reduced re-referral rates, from 32.5% to 25.2%.
While results vary across studies, the overall pattern is clear. Interventions that stabilize families and address underlying needs can outperform default reliance on removal.
Myth 5: To protect unborn children, expectant mothers should be routinely drug-tested, and results should inform child welfare or legal action
Many hospitals routinely test mothers or newborns for drugs, and many report those results to child welfare agencies.
Truth: Testing should be consensual, and given known accuracy limitations, a positive test should not be relied on alone as evidence of problematic drug use
As documented by The Nation, many prosecutions and child removals hinge on positive toxicology screens that may be inaccurate, reflect prescribed medications, or indicate substance use without demonstrating harm. For this reason, leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose using drug testing as a punitive or criminal tool during pregnancy.
Evidence suggests that health-centered approaches are more effective. For example, when hospitals limit nonconsensual drug screening and use testing to support care rather than build criminal cases, family surveillance declines without harming infant outcomes. This was demonstrated in New York City, where toxicology-only reports to child welfare departments fell by 80% following such reforms without leading to increased harm to infants.
Conclusion
Riley advances oversimplified and often inaccurate narratives about child welfare, particularly when it comes to mothers with substance use disorder or mothers who have used drugs. These myths are frequently presented as settled facts, despite conflicting evidence and a growing body of research that points to far more complex realities.
Supporting families through accessible treatment, economic stability, and coordinated care is more consistent with both the data and the long-term interests of children than reflexive surveillance and removal. Reason has crafted a model bill for states that wish to improve their approach in this way. Separating fact from fear is a prerequisite for building a child welfare system that is both humane and effective.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/separating-fact-from-fear-in-drug-related-child-welfare-policy/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Why the US South Is Rising
DETROIT, Michigan, April 4 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by Douglas Carswell, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy:* * *
Why the US South Is Rising
The region has become a business-friendly destination.
*
While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth.
A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception: 36% of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growth ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, April 4 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by Douglas Carswell, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy: * * * Why the US South Is Rising The region has become a business-friendly destination. * While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth. A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception: 36% of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growthover the next decade--far ahead of the West Coast (23%), Northeast (21%), and Midwest (19%).
This is quite a transformation for a region sometimes regarded as a backwater.
Since the late 19th century, American commerce and industry centered on the traditional business hubs of New York, Chicago, and California. Each successive wave of innovation--automobile manufacturing and aerospace, chemicals and consumer goods, financial services and digital startups--seemed to happen outside of the South.
Starting in the 1980s, an initial wave of "Sun Belt" states, like Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, began to prosper. But what you might call the "core" Southern states, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina, remained resolutely stuck in the slow lane. Until now.
Over the past decade, economic growth in the South has exceeded the national average, and in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and South Carolina, significantly so. Real GDP in 2024 rose 4.2% in Mississippi and South Carolina, 3.8% in Alabama and Arkansas, and 3.0% in Tennessee, surpassing the national rate of 2.8%.
Manufacturing jobs might have disappeared in the Rust Belt, but many of those jobs went South, not to China. US industrial output has roughly doubled since the Reagan era, and much of that expansion happened in states like Alabama, which has added over 50,000 auto jobs since 2000 while Michigan lost them.
Combined, Alabama and Mississippi now produce more vehicles annually than Italy or the United Kingdom.
The South is not just a manufacturing powerhouse--it's rapidly emerging as a major financial service center. Think "Y'all Street" rather than Wall Street. Cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Miami, and even Nashville have become financial hubs in ways that once seemed unimaginable. This shift is so pronounced that JPMorgan Chase now employs more people in Texas (around 31,000) than in New York.
So strong has Southern growth been that between 2020 and 2024, 78% of all US jobs added to the economy have been located in the South.
The population of the South has increased by 7 million since 2020.
If anything, this shift in population to the South seems to be accelerating. According to the 2026 HireAHelper Moving Migration Report, in 2025, for every 10,000 residents, South Carolina gained 79 more people, Tennessee 47, Alabama 36, and Mississippi 18. New York, by contrast, lost 28, California 25, and Washington state 10.
Even as America's college-age population shrinks due to lower birth rates, Southeastern Conference (SEC) universities are bucking the trend with rising applications, especially from out-of-state Northeastern students. Between 2014 and 2023, SEC schools saw a 91% surge in undergraduates from out of state. These students aren't just chasing sunshine and football; many seek a campus culture that is the antithesis of Northeastern or Westcoast woke.
Unsurprisingly, the JL Partners survey found young graduates particularly bullish on the South's prospects, with nearly 4 in 10 naming it the region most likely to grow fastest in the coming decade.
What explains this Southern success? Southern states are not just more friendly. They are business-friendly.
Taxes tend to be lower. Some Southern states, such as Texas, Florida, or Tennessee, have no income tax; others, like Mississippi and South Carolina, are on the road to income tax elimination. State income taxes are higher elsewhere, with Washington state, for example, about to introduce an income tax for the first time.
Southern states tend to have less red tape. South Carolina recently repealed a lot of the so-called Certificate of Need red tape that held back the healthcare economy. Contrast that to California, now one of the most stringent regulatory environments in the US, with onerous compliance requirements, for example, on climate disclosure and environmental standards.
Southern states have more flexible labor laws, and most are right-to-work states, meaning that workers cannot be required to join unions. Southern states like Mississippi have begun to remove restrictive occupational licensing rules, too, making it easier for people to find work.
The South has significantly lower electricity costs on average, largely because the South never really took the Biden-era inducements to take up renewable energy. Ironically, given that the Sun Belt is where the sunshine is, the South avoids prescriptive renewable mandates, while making practical use of solar power. In contrast, the Northeast and California have stringent renewable mandates and face higher prices as a consequence.
The secret of America's success is having fifty different states trying out different policy solutions side by side. The Southern states seem to have found a winning formula.
* * *
Douglas Carswell is President and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/why-the-us-south-is-rising/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Separating Fact From Fear in Drug-Related Child Welfare Policy
LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by drug policy analyst Layal Bou Harfouch and senior fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:* * *
Separating fact from fear in drug-related child welfare policy
Parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children.
*
Child welfare is a particularly difficult area of public policy. Interventions are frequently based on limited information and early warning signs, rather than on confirmed harm, and are carried out in the name of "protecting the children." While the urgency ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by drug policy analyst Layal Bou Harfouch and senior fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz: * * * Separating fact from fear in drug-related child welfare policy Parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children. * Child welfare is a particularly difficult area of public policy. Interventions are frequently based on limited information and early warning signs, rather than on confirmed harm, and are carried out in the name of "protecting the children." While the urgencymay feel justified, these short-term decisions can have lasting negative consequences for families and the future of the children involved.
In recent years, Naomi Schaefer Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has argued that government-facilitated family separation should be more strongly considered* when authorities find parents have used drugs, both during pregnancy and while parenting.
"We can't let the occasional story about government overreach blind us to the larger truth: that tens of thousands of children are being failed by the system every day--and without intervention from the authorities, they will suffer and die without anyone hearing their cries for help," Riley wrote at AEI last year.
But parental drug use does not necessarily mean abuse or neglect of children. The incidence of reporting families to child protective services is high relative to the number of cases where actual abuse or neglect is ultimately found. A recent study found that child welfare agencies in 21 states referred at least 70,778 reports of alleged substance use during pregnancy to police or prosecutors between 2017 and 2023. In the 15 states where investigation outcomes were verified, about 55% of referred cases (around 22,000) were not found to involve abuse or neglect, meaning that though drug use may have occurred, it does not mean that child welfare was at risk.
The practice of automatically reporting parental drug use to child welfare agencies treats perceived risk as proof of harm and removal as prevention, but evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is thin. Research shows that separation itself can cause serious harm to children, such as severe anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), toxic stress, and delays in cognitive development, as well as harm to parents. And there is a demonstrated elevated risk of abuse in foster care, according to a recent meta-analysis.
Despite the downsides, the impulse to separate children from parents continues to influence child welfare interventions around parental drug use, driven largely by misconceptions and myths. An examination of the evidence suggests that we would achieve better results with alternative approaches.
Myth 1: All parental drug use is dangerous
In a 2025 article in National Affairs, Riley argues that society must stop viewing drug use as "a valid if unfortunate decision" and instead recognize it as a "terrible blight on children and families." Her article urges political and media leaders to reframe substance use from a personal choice to a primary driver of family instability. Riley's overarching claim is that economic and social pressures will not prevent children from succeeding in life so long as they have at least one sober, self-sacrificing parent.
Truth: Drug use is not the same as drug abuse
Arguments that equate drug use with drug abuse fail to recognize the full spectrum of substance-using behavior and the spectrum of dependency that can include both legal drugs, like caffeine, nicotine, and prescription medications, as well as illicit substances. Alcohol's central role in social life complicates rigid claims about "drugs" and parental fitness.
Importantly, most drug use does not meet the criteria for a substance use disorder as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), and different substances carry different levels of risk.
* * *
Table 1 - Comparative substance risk and policy context.
* * *
Of course, having a glass of wine on a Saturday is totally different than spending every weekend on a cocaine bender. In order to justify the drastic and inherently harmful step of removing a child where a single drug test is the basis, decision-makers must determine that there are other indications of family dysfunction likely to harm children and that removal is the only safe option. If two parents attend a party and one agrees to be the designated driver while the other drinks alcohol, that may constitute responsible parenting despite the presence of "substance use" in the home.
Interventions that can result in family separation should occur only when there is an actual danger in the family and no other alternatives are available. The presence of any substance use alone is simply not enough proof without further evidence of dysfunction.
Research finds that children who are removed from their homes face 20 to 70% higher odds of adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, poorer educational attainment, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system, compared to similarly situated children who remain with their families. Child welfare policies should reflect those nuances.
Furthermore, national survey data show that about 8% of caregivers meet criteria for alcohol dependence compared to roughly 3% for drug dependence, with approximately 11% meeting criteria for either alcohol or drug dependence. Researchers note that differences in reported prevalence may partly reflect lower stigma and greater social acceptability surrounding alcohol use, which can influence how substance use is reported.
Substance use can appear alongside cases of harm to children, but reports do not show that drug use itself directly causes a large share of the negative outcomes attributed to it. In child welfare investigations, case reports and administrative records that cite parental substance use as a factor in family separation often classify the outcome simply as "neglect." Context, co-occurring factors, and structural conditions are frequently omitted from these accounts. Realistically, families experiencing neglect or abuse are dealing with a web of problems, and drug use is often not the dominant factor driving the dysfunction.
Treating all parental drug use as equivalent ignores these meaningful distinctions. In practice, child welfare policies and reporting frameworks often still treat parental substance use as a monolith, not distinguishing between occasional alcohol use, prescription medication misuse, or high-risk illicit drug dependence. This approach fails to differentiate less dangerous behaviors from much more destabilizing ones, leading to unnecessary family disruption or separation.
The narrative that all parental drug use is dangerous inaccurately portrays parental sobriety as the decisive factor in child wellbeing, downplaying the effects of poverty, education, community safety, and access to services on childhood outcomes.
Myth 2: People who use drugs are dangerous and unsafe parents
This myth operates less as a claim about behavior and more as a shortcut for decision-making. In practice, drug use is often treated as a stand-in for risk, where its mere presence is used to justify concern, intervention, or removal without fully assessing what is actually happening in the home. It is commonly supported by citing child fatality or neglect cases where parental substance use is mentioned as a contributing factor and presenting those cases as evidence that drug use itself leads to harm.
Tragic outcomes involving infants and children are recounted in detail, including prenatal drug exposure, unsafe sleep environments, accidental ingestion of drugs by children, and lack of supervision. These examples are used to imply a direct causal link between parental drug use and child injury or death. As an example, the Spring 2025 National Affairs piece** by Riley asserted that "drug abuse drives child maltreatment," which in turn "drives the lack of social mobility for kids at the very bottom."
Truth: Parental drug use alone is not a reliable indicator of child safety risk
Proponents of more punitive child welfare policies often treat parental drug use as evidence of unsafe parenting, using dramatic accounts of extreme cases to suggest that people who use drugs are inherently dangerous caregivers. These narratives rely on outlier incidents to generalize risk, despite the fact that most drug use in households does not result in harm to children. In fact, in more than 82% of child physical and sexual abuse cases, there are no reported alcohol or drug use problems.
Claims that drugs and bad mothering drive child maltreatment are largely fueled by a single research paper published more than 18 years ago. That study established a correlation between parental substance use and outcomes such as child maltreatment and foster care placement, but it did not demonstrate that substance use causes maltreatment. While substance use and child maltreatment often occur in tandem, this does not mean that drug use causes the maltreatment. In reality, parental drug use overlaps with numerous other factors that impact child welfare, such as housing instability, poor access to healthcare, and poverty.
This disconnect between correlation and causation is reflected in how these assumptions are translated into practice. As reported by The Marshall Project, hospital drug testing and reporting practices routinely funnel families into the child welfare system without reliable evidence of harm. In 2022 alone, more than 35,000 infants were reported as substance-exposed, often relying on tests that are not fully reliable.
These results point to a system that too often substitutes suspicion and stigma for evidence, nuance, and proportional response.
Reports often point to conditions such as congenital malformations, preterm birth, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) as leading contributors to infant mortality, and these outcomes are sometimes attributed to simple parental fault. Research does find associations between prenatal substance exposure and elevated risks, including higher rates of preterm birth, impaired fetal growth, neonatal mortality, and SIDS or sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), even after adjusting for other factors. However, these associations reflect complex biological, medical, and social conditions and do not justify treating every instance of prenatal substance exposure as evidence of abuse or neglect.
Critically, elevated risks associated with prenatal substance exposure are often interpreted as evidence of parental fault, even though similar outcomes can arise from a wide range of medical and social factors. Conditions such as low birth weight, preterm birth, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission are not unique to illicit substance use and do not, on their own, indicate neglect or abuse.
The narrative also suggests that parents who do use drugs are not as loving or attentive as other parents and have less desire to care properly for their children, which is overwhelmingly not the case.
In her book Curious, foster mother Christina Dent describes her initial confusion when caring for an infant whose birth mother had used drugs during pregnancy, noting the fierce commitment she observed from the mother: "This whole-hearted, vulnerable affection and emotion is not at all what I was expecting. Isn't this the same woman who used drugs while she was pregnant? How can a mom who would do that also love her child this much? I don't know much about addiction, but I have some experience with motherhood, and I have no category for this."
In a study out of two drug treatment centers in Southern Florida, mothers identify concern for the well-being of a child as a powerful motivator for them to engage in treatment and abstain from substance use. In this qualitative study with 20 mothers, findings show that even amid substance use, mothers remain deeply motivated to care for their children and often view their caregiving role as central to their identity and recovery. The inaccurate perception that mothers who use drugs are indifferent to their babies may explain why people who make these arguments frequently downplay the value and efficacy of lesser interventions that don't separate families.
Myth 3: Stigma is necessary to dissuade drug use
Riley asserts that the dramatic decline in smoking in the United States was driven primarily by stigma, arguing, "How did we drastically reduce smoking in America? It was stigma."
Truth: Stigma is not necessary to dissuade drug use. Instead, what dissuades drug use is accurate information, honest education, and access to services and treatment
Stigma is ever-present for people who use drugs and their families, and that stigma is compounded by stigma associated with being involved in the child welfare system, to a persistent and pernicious effect.
But stigma is not what dissuades drug use, nor is it what drove declines in smoking. The evidence consistently shows that behavior change is driven by accurate information, sustained public education, and access to services and treatment. Public awareness of health risks is not the same as public stigmatization. Smoking rates fell alongside decades of data-driven education, warning labels, advertising restrictions, and cessation support, not through social exclusion or moral condemnation.
By contrast, stigma toward people who use drugs is associated with worse outcomes, including delayed treatment-seeking, reduced engagement with care, lower access to harm-reduction services, and higher overdose risk--outcomes that also undermine family stability and harm children.
Qualitative research further shows that stigma plays a distinct and often overlooked role in shaping child welfare involvement, particularly for parents who use drugs. Studies of affected families document that mothers report being treated as inherently unfit, regardless of actual caregiving behavior, and describe avoiding healthcare, prenatal care, and social services out of fear of surveillance and child removal.
Providers, in turn, acknowledge that substance use can trigger heightened scrutiny and reporting thresholds that are not applied consistently across substances or contexts. This dynamic can distort decision-making, where stigma, rather than clear evidence of harm, influences perceptions of risk. In this way, stigma does not simply accompany substance use, but can actively shape pathways into the child welfare system and contribute to findings of neglect or maltreatment that are not always grounded in demonstrated harm.
Myth 4: Removal is necessary to protect child welfare
This argument by Riley is grounded in the belief that child welfare systems err on the side of inaction, with proponents pointing to cases of severe abuse and neglect to argue that stronger intervention, including removal, is necessary to prevent serious harm or death.
Truth: The risk of removal must be weighed against the harms, and we should adopt evidence-based alternatives that yield better outcomes
Though removing children from potentially unsafe homes can feel like a safe approach, family separation is not without its own risks. Removing children from the home itself causes harm to children that must be weighed carefully when assessing a child's best interests. These harms include emotional and psychological harms, separation and attachment disorders, trauma inherent to the removal process, grief and confusion, and other long-term consequences that may be more harmful to children than leaving them at home.
Parents are a central part of a child's life, and many of the most effective child welfare responses involve supporting parents who are willing and able to address challenges that affect caregiving. The purpose of these interventions is to improve the family's overall functioning and support the most conducive environment possible for raising the child.
Federal policy reflects this understanding of the value of family cohesion. The Families First Prevention Services Act, a bipartisan bill passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in 2018, increased federal funding for services to prevent the need for children to enter the foster care system at all.
The act recognized that access to funding for in-home services, treatment, and other concrete assistance to parents who may be struggling reduces the risk of child maltreatment and child welfare involvement.
A growing body of evidence shows that alternatives to removal can produce equal or better outcomes when properly implemented, compared to standard child welfare practice, which typically relies on case monitoring, service referrals, and court oversight without intensive, family-centered support. These alternatives include models such as family drug treatment courts, peer mentorship and parent partner programs, intensive in-home reunification services, and wraparound approaches that integrate substance use treatment, parenting support, and case management.
One systematic review shows that roughly 20% of children who reunify with their families reenter foster care, with the risk of reentry highest in the first few months following separation, highlighting the instability created by repeated removals. By contrast, targeted, family-centered interventions have demonstrated measurable improvements. In one program, children receiving peer mentorship support had a 13.4% reentry rate within 12 months compared to 21.8% among those receiving standard services. Family drug treatment court models have reduced reentry rates to as low as 2% compared with 12% in traditional court processing, while also reducing subsequent child protective service investigations from 64% to 33% in some cases. Intensive in-home reunification services have similarly reduced re-referral rates, from 32.5% to 25.2%.
While results vary across studies, the overall pattern is clear. Interventions that stabilize families and address underlying needs can outperform default reliance on removal.
Myth 5: To protect unborn children, expectant mothers should be routinely drug-tested, and results should inform child welfare or legal action
Many hospitals routinely test mothers or newborns for drugs, and many report those results to child welfare agencies.
Truth: Testing should be consensual, and given known accuracy limitations, a positive test should not be relied on alone as evidence of problematic drug use
As documented by The Nation, many prosecutions and child removals hinge on positive toxicology screens that may be inaccurate, reflect prescribed medications, or indicate substance use without demonstrating harm. For this reason, leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose using drug testing as a punitive or criminal tool during pregnancy.
Evidence suggests that health-centered approaches are more effective. For example, when hospitals limit nonconsensual drug screening and use testing to support care rather than build criminal cases, family surveillance declines without harming infant outcomes. This was demonstrated in New York City, where toxicology-only reports to child welfare departments fell by 80% following such reforms without leading to increased harm to infants.
Conclusion
Riley advances oversimplified and often inaccurate narratives about child welfare, particularly when it comes to mothers with substance use disorder or mothers who have used drugs. These myths are frequently presented as settled facts, despite conflicting evidence and a growing body of research that points to far more complex realities.
Supporting families through accessible treatment, economic stability, and coordinated care is more consistent with both the data and the long-term interests of children than reflexive surveillance and removal. Reason has crafted a model bill for states that wish to improve their approach in this way. Separating fact from fear is a prerequisite for building a child welfare system that is both humane and effective.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/separating-fact-from-fear-in-drug-related-child-welfare-policy/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Why the US South Is Rising
DETROIT, Michigan, April 4 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by Douglas Carswell, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy:* * *
Why the US South Is Rising
The region has become a business-friendly destination.
*
While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth.
A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception: 36% of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growth ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, April 4 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 3, 2026, by Douglas Carswell, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy: * * * Why the US South Is Rising The region has become a business-friendly destination. * While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth. A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception: 36% of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growthover the next decade--far ahead of the West Coast (23%), Northeast (21%), and Midwest (19%).
This is quite a transformation for a region sometimes regarded as a backwater.
Since the late 19th century, American commerce and industry centered on the traditional business hubs of New York, Chicago, and California. Each successive wave of innovation--automobile manufacturing and aerospace, chemicals and consumer goods, financial services and digital startups--seemed to happen outside of the South.
Starting in the 1980s, an initial wave of "Sun Belt" states, like Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, began to prosper. But what you might call the "core" Southern states, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina, remained resolutely stuck in the slow lane. Until now.
Over the past decade, economic growth in the South has exceeded the national average, and in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and South Carolina, significantly so. Real GDP in 2024 rose 4.2% in Mississippi and South Carolina, 3.8% in Alabama and Arkansas, and 3.0% in Tennessee, surpassing the national rate of 2.8%.
Manufacturing jobs might have disappeared in the Rust Belt, but many of those jobs went South, not to China. US industrial output has roughly doubled since the Reagan era, and much of that expansion happened in states like Alabama, which has added over 50,000 auto jobs since 2000 while Michigan lost them.
Combined, Alabama and Mississippi now produce more vehicles annually than Italy or the United Kingdom.
The South is not just a manufacturing powerhouse--it's rapidly emerging as a major financial service center. Think "Y'all Street" rather than Wall Street. Cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Miami, and even Nashville have become financial hubs in ways that once seemed unimaginable. This shift is so pronounced that JPMorgan Chase now employs more people in Texas (around 31,000) than in New York.
So strong has Southern growth been that between 2020 and 2024, 78% of all US jobs added to the economy have been located in the South.
The population of the South has increased by 7 million since 2020.
If anything, this shift in population to the South seems to be accelerating. According to the 2026 HireAHelper Moving Migration Report, in 2025, for every 10,000 residents, South Carolina gained 79 more people, Tennessee 47, Alabama 36, and Mississippi 18. New York, by contrast, lost 28, California 25, and Washington state 10.
Even as America's college-age population shrinks due to lower birth rates, Southeastern Conference (SEC) universities are bucking the trend with rising applications, especially from out-of-state Northeastern students. Between 2014 and 2023, SEC schools saw a 91% surge in undergraduates from out of state. These students aren't just chasing sunshine and football; many seek a campus culture that is the antithesis of Northeastern or Westcoast woke.
Unsurprisingly, the JL Partners survey found young graduates particularly bullish on the South's prospects, with nearly 4 in 10 naming it the region most likely to grow fastest in the coming decade.
What explains this Southern success? Southern states are not just more friendly. They are business-friendly.
Taxes tend to be lower. Some Southern states, such as Texas, Florida, or Tennessee, have no income tax; others, like Mississippi and South Carolina, are on the road to income tax elimination. State income taxes are higher elsewhere, with Washington state, for example, about to introduce an income tax for the first time.
Southern states tend to have less red tape. South Carolina recently repealed a lot of the so-called Certificate of Need red tape that held back the healthcare economy. Contrast that to California, now one of the most stringent regulatory environments in the US, with onerous compliance requirements, for example, on climate disclosure and environmental standards.
Southern states have more flexible labor laws, and most are right-to-work states, meaning that workers cannot be required to join unions. Southern states like Mississippi have begun to remove restrictive occupational licensing rules, too, making it easier for people to find work.
The South has significantly lower electricity costs on average, largely because the South never really took the Biden-era inducements to take up renewable energy. Ironically, given that the Sun Belt is where the sunshine is, the South avoids prescriptive renewable mandates, while making practical use of solar power. In contrast, the Northeast and California have stringent renewable mandates and face higher prices as a consequence.
The secret of America's success is having fifty different states trying out different policy solutions side by side. The Southern states seem to have found a winning formula.
* * *
Douglas Carswell is President and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/why-the-us-south-is-rising/
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Personal Jurisdiction
WASHINGTON, April 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:* * *
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Personal Jurisdiction
*
"A Delaware defendant headquartered in Texas. An Iowa plaintiff alleging a South Dakota injury. Yet the case was brought in Minnesota. That just can't be right."
-Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
Click here to read WLF's brief.
(Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case that asks whether a Minnesota state ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Personal Jurisdiction * "A Delaware defendant headquartered in Texas. An Iowa plaintiff alleging a South Dakota injury. Yet the case was brought in Minnesota. That just can't be right." -Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click here to read WLF's brief. (Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case that asks whether a Minnesota statecourt can exercise jurisdiction over a dispute between two out-of-state parties arising from an out-of-state injury.
The case stems from a lawsuit by Tanner Lynn, an Iowa resident. Mr. Lynn was employed by BNSF-a legal resident of Delaware that principally conducts business in Texas. Lynn was injured on the job in South Dakota. He sued-not in South Dakota, Iowa, Delaware, or Texas-but in Minnesota. Solely because BNSF is registered to do business in Minnesota, the state court determined that the company had consented to such suits.
That outcome can be traced to the Supreme Court's contentious 2023 decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, where a 5-4 Court found a Pennsylvania statute that expressly claimed open-ended jurisdiction via business registration did not run afoul of the Due Process Clause. But Justice Alito, a member of the Mallory majority, penned an unusual concurrence, arguing that while such jurisdiction does not undermine due process, it very likely violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
WLF's amicus brief urges the Court to take the case on two grounds. First, after Mallory,the lower courts are divided on whether consent can be inferred from a generic business registration statute-with Connecticut in the odd situation of having the federal and state judiciaries at loggerheads on that issue. That undermines business certainty. WLF's brief also explains that the Court can use this case to help clarify its broader dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/04/03/communicating/wlf-asks-supreme-court-to-clarify-scope-of-the-dormant-commerce-clause-for-personal-jurisdiction/
Georgia Public Policy Foundation Issues Commentary: Georgia Won't Lower Cost of Housing Until State Tackles the 'Regulatory Tax'
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 3 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by President and CEO Kyle Wingfield:* * *
Georgia won't lower cost of housing until state tackles the 'regulatory tax'
If you've spent any time scrolling through social media or watching the evening news lately, you've likely heard a familiar villain blamed for the skyrocketing cost of housing in Georgia: the "institutional investor."
The narrative is simple and, for many, emotionally satisfying. We're told that Wall Street hedge funds are swooping into neighborhoods from Gwinnett ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, April 3 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by President and CEO Kyle Wingfield: * * * Georgia won't lower cost of housing until state tackles the 'regulatory tax' If you've spent any time scrolling through social media or watching the evening news lately, you've likely heard a familiar villain blamed for the skyrocketing cost of housing in Georgia: the "institutional investor." The narrative is simple and, for many, emotionally satisfying. We're told that Wall Street hedge funds are swooping into neighborhoods from GwinnettCounty to Glynn, outbidding hard-working families with all-cash offers and turning the American Dream into a permanent rental nightmare.
I'm not here to convince you this never happens, or that these companies are sympathetic figures. I would simply tell you that if housing affordability is one of your concerns, the "investor" issue is a distraction.
The math of the housing market is remarkably straightforward: Prices rise when demand outstrips supply. And in Georgia, the supply of housing isn't being held back by investors. It's being strangled by government regulation.
If we want to ensure that the next generation of Georgians has a place to call home, that's the problem we have to solve.
Why regulations make homes more expensive
Research from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation shows the "corporate landlord" narrative doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Institutional investors represent a relatively small slice of the overall market: only 3% across all of metro Atlanta, ranging from 0.5% in Spalding County to 8.3% in Henry County.
At the same time, homeownership rates in each metro county have risen in recent years after bottoming out due to the Great Recession.
The logical conclusion is that if institutional investors are increasing their market share, then it's more at the expense of smaller investors in rental property than of would-be homebuyers.
But even if your pitchfork is still drawn, know that these investors are a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
Investors are drawn to Georgia's housing market precisely because they see a chronic, government-induced shortage that practically guarantees home values will continue to climb. They are responding to scarcity, not creating it.
The real culprit is what we might call the "regulatory tax."
According to our research, government regulations -ranging from impact fees to outdated zoning laws -can account for about 27% of the final price of a new single-family home in Georgia.
That's higher than the national average of about 24%. For a home priced at $400,000, those extra 3 percentage points alone represent about $12,000. That's real money.
Allow for different types of housing in communities
Homebuilders today face more than just the costs of lumber and labor. They must also contend with minimum lot-size requirements that force developers to build on large, expensive plots.
They must meet "design standards" that dictate everything from the type of siding used to the pitch of the roof, piling tens of thousands of dollars onto the price tag without adding a lick of structural value.
Housing's "missing middle" -townhomes, duplexes and smaller cottages -comprises options often banned outright by local zoning boards that view anything other than a 2,500-square-foot home as a threat to "neighborhood character."
When we make it prohibitively expensive or even illegal to build modest, attainable homes, we shouldn't be surprised when modest, attainable homes are hard to find.
If a young teacher or a police officer can't afford a home in the community they serve, it probably isn't because a hedge fund manager in Manhattan outbid them. More likely, it's because their local government made it impossible to build a home at a price point that fits their budget.
There are also national headwinds making it tougher for hard-working Georgians to purchase a home.
Changes to federal lending standards following the Great Recession have made it much more difficult for buyers with short credit histories to get mortgages, even if their earnings would otherwise justify a loan. That's true even in places where local regulation hasn't gone overboard.
We can lessen regulations on homebuilding by streamlining the permitting process, eliminating unnecessary design mandates and allowing for a greater variety of housing types. We need to allow the market to work.
When we artificially restrain supply through red tape, we create a "musical chairs" economy where the person with the most money always wins. We can keep blaming the people winning the game, or we can finally decide to add more chairs. For the sake of Georgia's future, it's time we chose the latter.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/georgia-wont-lower-cost-of-housing-until-state-tackles-the-regulatory-tax/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: From Content to Design
DETROIT, Michigan, April 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, Ladies of Liberty Alliance president:* * *
From Content to Design
The EU's new digital ambition, starting with TikTok.
*
Brussels has accused TikTok of adopting an addictive design and is demanding changes, extending the Digital Services Act (DSA) from a content regulator to the design of platforms themselves. Motivations aside, such a move would deepen the micromanagement of Europeans' digital lives, while such regulatory reach increasingly imposes ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, April 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, Ladies of Liberty Alliance president: * * * From Content to Design The EU's new digital ambition, starting with TikTok. * Brussels has accused TikTok of adopting an addictive design and is demanding changes, extending the Digital Services Act (DSA) from a content regulator to the design of platforms themselves. Motivations aside, such a move would deepen the micromanagement of Europeans' digital lives, while such regulatory reach increasingly imposesstandards that end up shaping technology worldwide.
For years, the European Union (EU) has been engaged in a battle against large technology companies. Through regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Brussels has created a complex, bureaucratic, and punitive regulatory environment that makes it difficult for truly competitive European tech companies to emerge and grow.
While imposing increasingly intrusive rules on foreign platforms, Europe has failed to produce its own technology giants. Instead of fostering innovation through open competition and entrepreneurial freedom, the EU has chosen to regulate existing companies quite heavily. The result is a landscape of limited European innovation and growing dependence on technologies developed outside the continent, the very technologies that, in turn, Brussels continues to shape according to its regulatory preferences. Major platforms comply simply because losing access to the European market is not an option.
In February 2026, under the DSA, Brussels concluded that TikTok's design is addictive, citing violations of Articles 34 and 35, which require the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks, including risks to mental health and minors. Brussels also cited Article 25, which prohibits manipulative interfaces.
If the DSA was originally designed to address content on platforms--already a problematic principle in itself, given that it places a central authority in charge of regulating speech--this new step goes further. The EU is now expanding its interpretation of existing law and intervening directly in platform design, claiming that certain features were intentionally created to encourage compulsive use.
By requiring measures such as limiting or disabling infinite scroll over time, introducing mandatory screen breaks (including at night), and altering recommendation algorithms to make them less "addictive," regulation shifts away from content and begins to dictate how platforms should function.
Although the protection of children is the main justification, these measures do not apply only to minors. The Commission's conclusions also affect adults, and because, as mentioned above, digital platforms operate with unified global designs, rules adopted in Brussels end up shaping user experiences worldwide, including in the United States, where tensions around the DSA have been growing.
One example comes from the report "The Foreign Censorship Threat, Part II," published in February 2026 by the House Judiciary Committee. Based on thousands of internal documents obtained through subpoenas, the report accuses the European Commission of pressuring major platforms, across more than 100 closed-door meetings, to strengthen their content moderation policies globally, including the removal or suppression of political content and factual information that is legal in the United States.
Regardless of the report's political framing, it highlights a growing risk. When European regulators impose heavy requirements, platforms tend to apply the same rules worldwide in order to avoid fines of up to 6% of global revenue. Penalizing the very design that has made an application successful under threat of fines goes far beyond the proper role of the state, and carries wider consequences for innovation. Forcing companies to alter their products deliberately and abandon the formulas that made them successful discourages technological progress, both for the specific company and others.
Above all, this approach erodes individual responsibility. Instead of trusting parents and users themselves to manage their digital habits, the state assumes the role of an ever-present guardian that decides what is acceptable.
Throughout history, society has consistently adapted to new entertainment and information technologies. Television sparked decades of concern about its impact, yet these concerns were largely addressed through industry self-regulation, rating systems, and parental tools. Video games triggered even stronger moral panics, from pinball to titles like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto, but were ultimately integrated through classification systems and recognition as forms of protected expression.
In both cases, adaptation came through individual responsibility, market competition, and innovation, without the state dictating how technologies should be technically designed.
The relationship between individuals and technology should rest on personal responsibility, not on overreaching government mandates that seek to replace the freedom to innovate, to speak, and to consume entertainment with control.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/from-content-to-design/
FFRF's Chicago Chapter Puts Up Secular Display at the Daley Center Plaza
MADISON, Wisconsin, April 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 2, 2026:* * *
FFRF's Chicago chapter puts up secular display at the Daley Center Plaza
The Freedom From Religion Foundation's Metropolitan Chicago Chapter has set up a display at the Daley Center Plaza in Chicago to counter Easter activities there.
Each year, the chapter erects a banner display to protest a Catholic prayer shrine and worship service taking place annually on the city plaza during the Christian "holy week." The Catholic organization responsible for the service has insisted ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, April 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 2, 2026: * * * FFRF's Chicago chapter puts up secular display at the Daley Center Plaza The Freedom From Religion Foundation's Metropolitan Chicago Chapter has set up a display at the Daley Center Plaza in Chicago to counter Easter activities there. Each year, the chapter erects a banner display to protest a Catholic prayer shrine and worship service taking place annually on the city plaza during the Christian "holy week." The Catholic organization responsible for the service has insistedon using taxpayer property as a platform to proselytize its religion and convert others to its belief system. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has long disagreed with and fought to prevent such public forums, which serve mainly to provide a voice to religion. Proving that point is the fact that the FFRF banner was stolen last year in broad daylight, showing that such so-called public forums are viewed as belonging to the dominant religion.
The banner proclaims quotes supportive of the separation of state and church by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan and reads:
Keep religion in a place of worship -- Not on secular government property
* * *
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."
John F. Kennedy, Sept. 12, 1960
* * *
"We establish no religion in this country. ... Church and state are and must remain separate."
Ronald Reagan, Oct. 26, 1984
* * *
Thanks to the awesome team of volunteers who braved the cold, windy temperatures, the FFRF banner was set up on Wednesday, April 1, in the afternoon at Chicago's Daley Center Plaza, and will be on display for one week.
FFRF thanks chapter members for their work in setting up the display, pictured from left to right: Brian Emerick, Bob Hunter, Jeff Kramer and Manuel Beltran. Not pictured are Steve Foulkes, who also assisted with the setup, and Bob Elmore, who kindly took the photos.
"Taxpayers of all faiths, and no faith, should be free from government influence regarding their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Just as important, religions of any tradition should have no influence regarding the legislation of our laws and public policy," FFRF Metropolitan Chicago Chapter Associate Executive Director Tom Cara says. "Our deepest appreciation goes out to each of [the volunteers] for their staunch activism toward maintaining the wall of separation between state and religion. Our thanks as well to the national Freedom From Religion Foundation for funding the required (and costly!) permit fee for Daley Center Plaza displays."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including more than 1,400 members and a chapter in Illinois. FFRF's purposes are to protect 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/ffrfs-chicago-chapter-puts-up-secular-display-at-the-daley-center-plaza/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Blasts Florida's Unconstitutional School 'Prayer Hotline'
MADISON, Wisconsin, April 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 2, 2026:* * *
FFRF blasts Florida's unconstitutional school 'prayer hotline'
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is warning that a newly announced Florida Department of Education complaint system threatens to undermine constitutional protections.
In a letter sent to Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas, FFRF outlined serious concerns about the department's new reporting process, which invites parents and community members to file complaints alleging that prayer or ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, April 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 2, 2026: * * * FFRF blasts Florida's unconstitutional school 'prayer hotline' The Freedom From Religion Foundation is warning that a newly announced Florida Department of Education complaint system threatens to undermine constitutional protections. In a letter sent to Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas, FFRF outlined serious concerns about the department's new reporting process, which invites parents and community members to file complaints alleging that prayer orreligious expression is being restricted in public schools. FFRF is cautioning that this encourages religious activity in public schools while ignoring the right of students to be free from religious coercion. While the department claims the system is intended to safeguard religious freedom, FFRF says that it presents a dangerously one-sided view of the law.
"As the U.S. Department of Education's own guidance acknowledges, schools may not sponsor or appear to favor religious activity," FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line writes. "Yet the [Florida] Department's new reporting mechanism focuses exclusively on alleged restrictions of religious expression, without any parallel mechanism to address violations of the Establishment Clause."
This imbalance, FFRF contends, risks misleading school officials and emboldening unconstitutional conduct. "The department's approach sends a clear message that the state is more concerned with expanding religious activity than preventing its unconstitutional imposition," the letter states.
FFRF notes that students already have the right to engage in private, voluntary religious expression. However, the Constitution prohibits public schools from endorsing or promoting religion, particularly through the actions of teachers and staff, whose authority can exert coercive pressure on students.
Each year, FFRF receives numerous complaints from Florida families regarding violations of state/church separation in public schools. In 2025 alone, the national watchdog received more than 80 complaints about entanglements in Florida schools, many of which concerned school-sponsored prayer and staff-led religious activity. "Given the inherent power imbalance between students and school officials, even subtle religious activity can become coercive," FFRF emphasizes.
The organization is particularly concerned that the complaint system could encourage educators to push the boundaries of the law, mistakenly believing they are permitted to lead or participate in religious activities with students. "The result will likely be increased religious coercion, especially affecting younger students," FFRF warns.
"Longstanding Supreme Court precedent affirms that public schools must remain free from religious indoctrination," notes FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, "and ensures that families, not government officials, have the right to direct their own children's religious upbringing."
FFRF is urging the Florida Department of Education to reconsider the complaint process and to ensure that any guidance fully reflects the Constitution's requirement of neutrality. If the department fails to uphold students' constitutional rights, FFRF stands ready to step in to protect freedom of conscience and urges parents and students to report violations directly to FFRF's legal team.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including more than 2,000 members and a chapter in Florida. 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/ffrf-blasts-floridas-unconstitutional-school-prayer-hotline/
[Category: Religion]