Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: Kratom Use by Students Does Not Mean Kratom Caused Deaths at Ole Miss
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Kratom use by students does not mean kratom caused deaths at Ole Miss
Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
October 15, 2026
University officials have urged the public to avoid speculating about the circumstances that led to the deaths of two students at the University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss," following news that both potentially used kratom products prior to their deaths.
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Kratom use by students does not mean kratom caused deaths at Ole Miss
Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
October 15, 2026
University officials have urged the public to avoid speculating about the circumstances that led to the deaths of two students at the University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss," following news that both potentially used kratom products prior to their deaths.Some media outlets have linked the deaths to kratom use anyway, adding to the pressure on local and federal lawmakers to ban all kratom products. Tragic as these deaths are, the use of kratom by these students does not mean that kratom caused their deaths and policymakers should not rashly institute prohibitions that are unlikely to prevent deaths like this in the future.
Aidan Hamilton, 18, and Robert Strang, 20, were found dead on Sept. 21, reportedly with similar packages of kratom products nearby. It is not yet clear exactly what these products contained, whether either had been using those products when they died, or what else they may have taken. Autopsy and post-mortem toxicology reports have not yet been made public.
Based on the packaging, these products likely contained at least mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI) and dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine, known as MGM-15. Both have been classified as controlled substances since August 2026 when the Drug Enforcement Agency moved to temporarily list these and other derivatives of kratom under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
These are not the traditional preparations of kratom, the colloquial name given to a variety of products derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree. In Southeast Asia, where kratom trees grow, people typically chew kratom leaves or brew them into a tea that can alleviate pain, boost energy, or help alleviate opioid cravings and withdrawal. With traditional preparations, users primarily ingest mitragynine--the plant's most abundant alkaloid. Some of that mitragynine is then converted by the liver into its more potent metabolite, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH)--a minor alkaloid found in only trace amounts in the plant itself--which is believed to produce most of the plant's pain-relieving effects.
Since gaining popularity in Europe and the U.S., kratom manufacturers have learned how to isolate the alkaloids in kratom extracts, allowing manufacturers to add an unlimited amount of those minor alkaloids, like 7-OH, into gummies, shots, capsules, or tablets to create more potent "concentrated" products. While traditional kratom preparations have been used for generations in Southeast Asian countries with few adverse events reported, concentrated kratom products have received significant media and regulatory attention in the U.S. due to several high-profile incidents of adverse effects. Most, but not all, of these incidents can be traced to poor manufacturing processes, such as contamination with salmonella or heavy metals, or to illicit suppliers who have laced kratom products with other substances, like opioids.
Even aside from poor manufacturing processes or intentional adulteration, these products still carry risk. For example, the evidence is clear that mixing kratom with other substances is a bad idea. While lower doses of kratom leaves can be stimulating, higher doses cause sedation. Taking kratom alongside other depressants, like alcohol, cold medicine, or a range of prescription medications, may compound that sedative effect.
Mixing kratom with other medications can lead to another potentially dangerous side effect. Many of kratom's alkaloids have been shown to bind to and inhibit the liver enzymes needed to metabolize many common prescriptions and over-the-counter medications. This is similar to how grapefruit juice can alter medication metabolism and why labels on many medications caution against mixing that medication with grapefruit juice. Combining kratom with such medications can lead to a toxic build-up of the medication because the body cannot clear it from the bloodstream quickly enough.
According to statements made by their roommates, both students were regular users of other drugs. Hamilton was supposedly a frequent cannabis user while Strang was reportedly a daily user of "whippets," or nitrous oxide, and had consumed a "Xanax bar" in the hours leading up to his death. The possible use of Xanax--a central nervous system depressant--alongside kratom is especially concerning, as kratom is known to inhibit the precise enzyme the body uses to metabolize that medication.
Despite these risks, deaths linked to kratom remain exceedingly rate in the U.S., even for concentrated products. Moreover, nearly all those deaths involve the use of additional substances. Since 2019, federal officials have identified just 85 overdose cases related to concentrated 7-OH products, 55 of which were fatal, with many involving the co-ingestion of opioids. Similarly, when researchers examined all fatal overdoses between 2016 and 2017--more than 127,000 deaths--they identified only 152 where post-mortem toxicology found kratom in their systems. Of these, only in seven cases was kratom the only substance found in their system. Nearly all people who have died while using kratom had also consumed far more dangerous substances like heroin or cocaine.
This is not to say that kratom is safe or that it played no role in the deaths at Ole Miss. The death of two students is tragic and deserves a thorough investigation. But that investigation must answer whether the specific kratom products involved caused their deaths, not simply whether the students used them. That question cannot be answered until toxicology and autopsy reports are made public and the products they used have been analyzed. What we know so far seems to paint a more complex picture.
Both students allegedly used other substances, with claims that one had been using depressants with known kratom interactions. The product involved--reportedly the same brand purchased by both students--was illicitly purchased, raising questions about its quality and ingredients, and overdoses involving kratom rarely involve kratom alone.
It is likely that toxicology reports will show that one or both of the students were using kratom at the time of their deaths. This will undoubtedly lead to demands for a total prohibition on kratom products, as Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has already called for following the deaths. But, while the rush to blame kratom is understandable, this urge is not evidence-based and won't prevent tragedies like this in the future.
There are currently an estimated five million adults who use kratom in the U.S. Surveys indicate that a substantial portion of them use kratomto wean themselves off opioids. Outlawing all kratom products will not eliminate this demand. Instead, some kratom consumers will return to opioids or turn to illicit suppliers of kratom--suppliers with no incentive to comply with regulations or age restrictions. In addition to putting those adults at even greater risk, the proliferation of illicit kratom dealers may perversely increase youth access to those products and whatever else illicit dealers may be selling.
The better solution is to regulate kratom products to ensure they are produced through safe manufacturing processes for adults and kept away from youth. Mississippi already restricts sales of kratom products to those 21 years or older. It was already against the law in Mississippi for Hamilton and Strang to have purchased kratom. Mississippi law also limits the allowable concentrations of alkaloids, like 7-OH, and bans synthesized alkaloids, functionally outlawing concentrated kratom products.
Whether or not the students' deaths were caused in whole or part by kratom, no retailer should have sold them any type of kratom due to their age. The suspected products involved should not have been sold to anyone based on their ingredients, which are prohibited under both Mississippi and federal law. Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/kratom-use-by-students-does-not-mean-kratom-caused-deaths-at-ole-miss/
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Class Certification Without Proof of Injury
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Class Certification Without Proof of Injury
*
"Rule 23 requires common proof of injury before certification, not a promise to look later."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
WASHINGTON, DC--Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in a challenge to the Ninth Circuit's certification of two damages classes. In its amicus brief, WLF contends that affirming those classes
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Class Certification Without Proof of Injury
*
"Rule 23 requires common proof of injury before certification, not a promise to look later."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
WASHINGTON, DC--Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in a challenge to the Ninth Circuit's certification of two damages classes. In its amicus brief, WLF contends that affirming those classeswithout evidence of Article III injury improperly lets class size, not proof of harm, dictate what a business must pay.
The case arises from claims that buyers of Bayer's Natural Fruit Bites overpaid because the label said "Natural." Bayer sold less than $2 million of the product in New York and California combined. Plaintiffs seek $36.2 million in statutory damages for the New York class alone. Their survey expert found that removing "Natural" had no statistical impact, and their damages expert never ran his model. The Ninth Circuit affirmed both classes anyway, and the panel never mentioned Article III.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that Rule 23 requires proof of a common injury before certification, not a promise to look for one later. An unrun damages model is not evidence, and a "reasonable consumer" standard cannot stand in for actual buyers. If allowed to stand, the decision will reward the plaintiffs' strategy of keeping injury vague and leave businesses unable to price a risk that tracks class size rather than harm.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/10/15/communicating/wlf-urges-supreme-court-to-reject-class-certification-without-proof-of-injury/
Texas Must Protect Its Critical Infrastructure
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 15 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Texas Must Protect Its Critical Infrastructure
*
New TPPF Research: Texas Must Protect Its Critical Infrastructure
AUSTIN -- Texas's power grid, water systems, fuel supply, and communications networks are vulnerable to natural disasters, attacks by hostile nations, and terrorism. If key parts fail, recovery could take years. That is the warning in a new Texas Public Policy Foundation paper by the Honorable Chuck DeVore, Protecting Texas Critical Infrastructure.
The federal government largely
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 15 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Texas Must Protect Its Critical Infrastructure
*
New TPPF Research: Texas Must Protect Its Critical Infrastructure
AUSTIN -- Texas's power grid, water systems, fuel supply, and communications networks are vulnerable to natural disasters, attacks by hostile nations, and terrorism. If key parts fail, recovery could take years. That is the warning in a new Texas Public Policy Foundation paper by the Honorable Chuck DeVore, Protecting Texas Critical Infrastructure.
The federal government largelyabandoned civil defense decades ago. The paper warns that in a national emergency, FEMA will not be able to come to Texas's aid. Meanwhile, Chinese state-sponsored hackers have already gotten into U.S. energy, water, and communications networks. The large power transformers the grid depends on take more than two years to replace, and most imported ones come from China.
As Texas confronts the threat of terrorism, including the potential for attacks inspired by extremist ideologies, protecting the infrastructure that millions of Texans depend on is a critical part of the state's homeland security strategy.
"Texas cannot prevent every cyberattack, terrorist plot, or hostile-state action, and certainly cannot prevent hurricanes and winter storms, but we can ensure that no single event can produce catastrophic failure resulting in mass casualties," said Chuck DeVore, Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. "Washington walked away from civil defense more than 30 years ago. Texas has taken important first steps, but now we need spare transformers on hand, real field exercises that test our response, and laws that treat plotting to attack the grid as the serious crime it is."
The report recommends that Texas raise penalties for plotting attacks on infrastructure, strengthen intelligence sharing through the DPS Fusion Center, and set risk-based hardening standards for infrastructure owners. It also calls for state-managed reserves of transformers and medical supplies, along with regular full-scale field exercises led by TDEM or the National Guard.
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/texas-must-lead-on-protecting-its-critical-infrastructure (TNSmrp)
Royal Marsden Opens Pioneering Cancer Genomics Centre to Advance Personalised Treatment Across the UK
LONDON, England, Oct. 15 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
The Royal Marsden opens pioneering cancer genomics centre to advance personalised treatment across the UK
The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will combine advanced genomics, imaging and AI to extend the benefits of personalised medicines and clinical trials to more patients across the UK.
15 October 2026
The Royal Marsden has opened a pioneering cancer genomics centre in Sutton, designed to help more patients across the UK benefit from personalised cancer treatments
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Oct. 15 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
The Royal Marsden opens pioneering cancer genomics centre to advance personalised treatment across the UK
The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will combine advanced genomics, imaging and AI to extend the benefits of personalised medicines and clinical trials to more patients across the UK.
15 October 2026
The Royal Marsden has opened a pioneering cancer genomics centre in Sutton, designed to help more patients across the UK benefit from personalised cancer treatmentsand clinical trials. The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics is the first NHS facility designed to develop and deliver nationwide composite biomarker testing, which combines genetic information, imaging and other patient data to build a more detailed picture of an individual's cancer.
Advancing personalised cancer care across the UK
Genomics has become a fundamental part of cancer care, helping clinicians diagnose disease earlier and match patients to the most effective therapies and clinical trials. By 2035, the UK Government anticipates half of all healthcare interactions will be informed by genomic insights and other predictive analytics. In this context, The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will help deliver on the ambitions of the UK's National Cancer Plan by expanding the country's genomic infrastructure and developing the expertise needed to support earlier diagnosis, more personalised treatment and improved access to clinical trials.
This new facility has been made possible by funding from The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, including funding for the expansion of ctDNA testing at The Royal Marsden, as well as an infrastructure grant from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).
How could the new testing benefit patients?
Historically, biomarker testing has involved finding a single indicator (e.g. a genetic mutation) and prescribing the patient a treatment tailored to that biomarker. However, this type of one-to-one matching has its limitations, and scientists cannot always reliably predict why some patients respond to a treatment while others do not.
In contrast, composite biomarker testing aims to build a fuller picture of a patient's biology by combining multiple measurements (e.g. genetic mutations, immune signatures, features derived from imaging) and using machine learning to identify patterns that might otherwise be missed by the human eye. By analysing these different signals together, researchers hope to better understand which patients are likely to respond to certain treatments or combinations of drugs.
The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will act as a national biomarker facility for clinical trials, helping bring the latest composite biomarker studies to the UK and enabling samples to be tested from anywhere in the country. In practice, this could help more patients in different parts of the UK to access these highly tailored drug trials without needing to travel to a major cancer centre.
Using blood tests to personalise cancer care
The facility will also be dedicated to translational research, helping to bring promising innovations from the research laboratory into routine clinical practice more quickly, as well as next-generation circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing and novel, personalised diagnostic pathways like MyTrack(TM) Myeloma. ctDNA testing is a blood-based 'liquid biopsy' that detects small fragments of tumour DNA in a person's bloodstream to diagnose cancer, guide treatment and predict recurrence.
This builds on The Royal Marsden's history of successfully translating similar innovations into a clinical setting, especially regarding ctDNA and genetic testing. In 2023, the Trust was the first in the NHS to deliver large-scale ctDNA testing and co-led a national pilot that received samples from hospitals across the country.
As the cancer testing laboratory for the North Thames Genomics Laboratory Hub - one of seven hubs in England - The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will allow the Trust to relocate and expand its ctDNA analysis programme. As well as supporting the wider adoption of this technology in patient care, the facility will also help evaluate new applications for ctDNA testing and explore how it can be integrated with other diagnostic measurements as part of composite biomarker testing.
By bringing together the NHS, academia and industry, The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will help accelerate the development and adoption of new diagnostic methodologies, attracting greater investment into the national and local economy, and supporting the UK's position as a world leader in life sciences innovation.
Giving patients greater reassurance through personalised testing
Elaine Nangle, 45, from Reading, was diagnosed with stage 3 lobular breast cancer in March 2020. Following treatment which included chemotherapy, radiotherapy and a mastectomy, she received the news that she was cancer free and was given the opportunity to join the TRAK-ER trial at The Royal Marsden, which is supported by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. This trial monitors the risk of the cancer returning with a personalised ctDNA test every three months, for up to three years. If risk of relapse is indicated, the patient's treatment will be altered to try and prevent relapse from happening.
She said: "To have such a simple blood test detect something like this, it's incredible. It was just so reassuring to be part of something that may be able to give me forewarning of relapse, especially because the test is tailored to my specific tumour. Even just knowing that I've been monitored so frequently gives me a huge safety net. Anything that gives me a greater chance of being here for longer, and being well for longer, is amazing."
The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will be part of a thriving life sciences campus alongside our long-standing academic research partner, The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) and located within the context of the growing London Cancer District in Sutton.
Bringing the latest cancer research to patients
The new centre brings together clinical expertise, research and advanced technology, strengthening The Royal Marsden's ability to develop new diagnostic approaches and make them available to patients across the NHS.
Dame Cally Palmer, Chief Executive of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said:
"At The Royal Marsden, we are continuing to invest in the facilities, expertise, and technologies required to develop the next generation of cancer diagnostics, while continuing to deliver the highest standard of patient care. By bringing together world-leading cancer research, clinical expertise and patient care on a single campus, The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will help bring new diagnostics and genomic technologies into clinical practice faster, enabling more patients to benefit from life-saving treatments, while helping to accelerate innovation across the wider NHS."
Professor Michael Hubank, Scientific Director of Clinical Genomics at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Professor of Translational Genomics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, said:
"Composite biomarker testing looks set to deliver on the promise of integrated diagnostics, compiling as many different types of data as is necessary to characterise the patient and their tumour and make an effective, truly personalised clinical decision.
"The Royal Marsden Centre for Cancer Genomics will create the capacity for us to develop and deliver these new, highly sophisticated tests, while extending the reach of our genomic expertise far beyond the bounds of our own hospitals. By helping to establish and support new diagnostic approaches across the country, we can ensure that more patients benefit from the most advanced cancer testing and the personalised treatments it enables."
Together with its principal academic partner, the ICR, The Royal Marsden is designated as the UK's only National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) dedicated solely to cancer. Funding from the NIHR BRC has supported a wide range of cancer research at The Royal Marsden and the ICR.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/royal-marsden-opens-pioneering-cancer-genomics-centre-advance-personalised
Rockefeller Foundation: ONE Data Launches AI Platform That Transforms International Development Sector
NEW YORK, Oct. 15 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
ONE Data Launches AI Platform That Transforms International Development Sector
* The Development Finance Observatory, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation and Google.org, launches during the World Bank-IMF Annual Meetings
* The new platform will give governments, journalists, think tanks and the public free, rapid access to global aid, lending and debt data for the first time
-
WASHINGTON, D.C. | October 14, 2026 -- Today, ONE Data, an initiative of the ONE Campaign, launched the Development Finance
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 15 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
ONE Data Launches AI Platform That Transforms International Development Sector
* The Development Finance Observatory, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation and Google.org, launches during the World Bank-IMF Annual Meetings
* The new platform will give governments, journalists, think tanks and the public free, rapid access to global aid, lending and debt data for the first time
-
WASHINGTON, D.C. | October 14, 2026 -- Today, ONE Data, an initiative of the ONE Campaign, launched the Development FinanceObservatory, an AI platform built by development finance experts to eliminate blind spots and build cohesive pictures of the finance flowing in and out of developing economies. The platform lets policymakers, researchers, journalists and civil society groups analyze aid, domestic budget, and debt data in a single platform, drawing on datasets that previously sat scattered across International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development databases, and other sources.
As needs across the globe rise, the Development Finance Observatory is a world-class data analyst in your pocket. It supports a new generation of AI-assisted workflows that makes data easier to access and explore, allowing the policy makers and those that inform them to move quicker and more efficiently. Calculations and visualizations that used to take months now take minutes. Every number is traceable to a specific source, preventing AI-hallucinations. The platform is the latest in a string of cutting-edge data, analysis, and tools that ONE Data has released.
ONE Data, Google.org and The Rockefeller Foundation first announced the intention to build the Development Finance Observatory in January with $4 million in combined funding. Today's launch delivers on that promise, making analysis available to the public directly, through a platform built on Data Commons by Google with support from The Rockefeller Foundation's independent charitable affiliate RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC). Users can query the data with natural-language questions instead of navigating raw spreadsheets, cutting what used to take researchers months down to minutes.
"We believe policy makers -- who make decisions that impact millions of people's lives - deserve world class insights." said David McNair, Managing Director of ONE Data. "We built the Development Finance Observatory so that policymakers, journalists and citizens can get the answers they need in seconds -- with the confidence that those answers are right. Better data means better decisions...better decisions mean a better quality of life for people around the world."
"Data Commons was built so organizations like ONE can focus on solving the world's biggest challenges without worrying about data storage and APIs," Prem Ramaswami, Head of Google Data Commons, said. "Unifying isolated datasets into a single, AI-ready foundation removes the heavy infrastructure work. With the Development Finance Observatory, ONE can focus on turning that shared foundation into immediate impact for global development."
"The development finance landscape is being rewritten in real time, and we cannot build a better system without understanding how money is actually moving," said Mike Muldoon, Chief Executive Officer of RFCC, The Rockefeller Foundation's independent charitable affiliate. "The Development Finance Observatory gives leaders a clearer picture of aid, debt, private capital, and other financial flows so they can make faster, smarter decisions about where limited resources can have the greatest impact. As we rethink the future of development, tools like this can help move us toward a system that is more transparent, more accountable, and ultimately more effective."
* * *
About ONE Data
ONE Data is an initiative from the ONE Campaign that transforms fragmented, inaccessible development data into trusted, actionable insights for policymakers, campaigners, journalists, and citizens. It organizes the world's public finance data, democratizing access and collapsing the time from data to insight. For more information, sign up for the newsletter at https://substack.com/@insider.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance, including with our public charity, RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC). For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
About Google.org
Google.org is Google's philanthropy, applying Google's innovation, research, and resources to promote progress and expand opportunity for everyone.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/one-data-ai-platform-transforms-international-development-sector/
Helmsley Charitable Trust grants $15K to The Foster Network as Helmsley staff volunteers for the organization
NEW YORK, Oct. 15 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust posted the following news release:
* * *
Helmsley Charitable Trust grants $15K to The Foster Network as Helmsley staff volunteers for the organization
*
SIOUX FALLS, SD, October 15, 2026 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust has granted $15,000 to The Foster Network, which provides clothing, essentials, support and hope for children and families navigating foster care.
Staff from Helmsley's Sioux Falls office volunteered at The Foster Network's office on Thursday, Oct. 15, helping staff sort donated clothing
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 15 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust posted the following news release:
* * *
Helmsley Charitable Trust grants $15K to The Foster Network as Helmsley staff volunteers for the organization
*
SIOUX FALLS, SD, October 15, 2026 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust has granted $15,000 to The Foster Network, which provides clothing, essentials, support and hope for children and families navigating foster care.
Staff from Helmsley's Sioux Falls office volunteered at The Foster Network's office on Thursday, Oct. 15, helping staff sort donated clothingitems and Halloween costumes ahead of an evening event.
"The Foster Network provides essential resources to help local foster families thrive, and Helmsley's Sioux Falls staff is honored to support that mission," said Walter Panzirer, a Helmsley Trustee. "The Helmsley Charitable Trust aspires to improve lives through health and select place-based initiatives. Part of that commitment involves giving back to the communities we call home."
The Foster Network regularly receives clothing donations and recently accepted a large gift of new costumes from a Los Angeles-area agency. The organization will display the costumes on Thursday night, inviting foster kids and their families to browse the selection to choose outfits for Halloween.
"Volunteers are so essential to the work that we do at The Foster Network. We are excited to have the Helmsley Charitable Trust team working with us to provide fun costumes to the foster children we serve," said Stacy Stahl, Executive Director of The Foster Network. "Children deserve to participate in these fun experiences without additional financial burden to the families that have accepted the call to take them in and provide a safe and caring home. We are proud to provide essential services to families, and bring the fun too! We are so appreciative to the Helmsley team for volunteering with us, but also providing grant funding to help us sustain our operations to continue to serve this community well into the future."
***
Original text here: https://helmsleytrust.org/news-and-insights/helmsley-charitable-trust-grants-15k-to-the-foster-network-as-helmsley-staff-volunteers-for-the-organization/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Stop Calling It Capitalism When It's Government Favoritism
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
October 14, 2026
Stop Calling It Capitalism When It's Government Favoritism
Ninos P. Malek
How the free market gets blamed for cronyism.
-
Words have specific meanings. Unfortunately, capitalism is frequently misused by supporters and critics alike. Too often, what people defend or condemn is not free-market capitalism at all.
Although distinctions exist among capitalism, free enterprise, and free market, for the purposes of this essay, I use capitalism to mean free-market capitalism:
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
October 14, 2026
Stop Calling It Capitalism When It's Government Favoritism
Ninos P. Malek
How the free market gets blamed for cronyism.
-
Words have specific meanings. Unfortunately, capitalism is frequently misused by supporters and critics alike. Too often, what people defend or condemn is not free-market capitalism at all.
Although distinctions exist among capitalism, free enterprise, and free market, for the purposes of this essay, I use capitalism to mean free-market capitalism:an economic system based on private property, voluntary exchange, competition, freedom of entry and association, and freedom of contract--including wages negotiated without government-imposed minimums. Government's role is that of a referee: protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and preventing force and fraud, not granting subsidies, bailouts, or special privileges.
Consider Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) and Robert Reich's Saving Capitalism (2017). Both criticize corporate power, political influence, and government favors for large businesses. On corporate welfare, I agree with their criticisms on economic and moral grounds. Why should taxpayers subsidize businesses they might never voluntarily support? Why should politically connected corporations receive special privileges? And why should businesses making poor decisions be rescued at taxpayers' expense?
These are legitimate complaints. But why blame free-market capitalism for government interference with the competitive market process?
In a free market, businesses must satisfy customers to earn profits. Persistent losses can signal that resources would be better used elsewhere. Rather than rescuing failing firms with taxpayer money, the free-market perspective is to allow the market process to work. As I sometimes jokingly tell my students when explaining this principle, it's time to say, "Bye-bye, die-die!" to businesses that fail to satisfy consumer needs. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
Some call government favoritism crony capitalism. I dislike that expression because it still associates the problem with capitalism. Calling someone a "nice jerk" doesn't change the fact that you're calling that person a jerk. Likewise, attaching crony to capitalism leaves the impression that capitalism itself is the problem. Why not simply call it cronyism, corporate welfare, or government favoritism? The defining feature is political privilege, not voluntary exchange.
Another misconception is that defending capitalism means defending big business. Being pro-market is not the same as being pro-business. Free-market advocates defend competition and voluntary exchange, not every corporation or business decision.
Consider manufacturers demanding protective tariffs, corporations seeking exclusive tax incentives, or industries lobbying for regulations that discourage competitors. Rather than competing for customers, these businesses seek political favors. Economists call this rent-seeking. The greater the potential rewards from government favoritism, the stronger the incentive to pursue politicians rather than customers.
Interestingly, critics from opposing ideological perspectives sometimes agree about corporate welfare. Consider my former professor, the late free-market economist Walter E. Williams, and Robert Reich, a progressive political commentator and former US secretary of labor. In his PragerU video "Is Capitalism Moral?" Williams explained that voluntary market transactions are positive-sum games because both parties expect to benefit. By contrast, he described government programs such as farm subsidies, business bailouts, and food stamps as zero-sum games in which some benefit at the expense of others. Reich has similarly criticized corporate welfare for benefiting politically connected businesses at taxpayers' expense. Although their economic philosophies differ considerably, both recognized problems associated with government favoritism.
Consider Amazon's proposed second headquarters in New York City. In 2018, state and local officials offered Amazon an incentive package potentially worth approximately $3 billion, primarily through tax credits and other benefits tied to investment and job creation. Progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opposed the deal, questioning why a wealthy corporation should receive preferential treatment while communities faced pressing public needs.
A free-market advocate would oppose the deal on different grounds: no business, large or small, should receive taxpayer-funded subsidies or special privileges. The objection is not merely that Amazon received benefits unavailable to other businesses; it's that government should not grant such favors in the first place. Businesses should compete for customers' dollars, not taxpayers' dollars. Government should enforce the rules, not pick winners and losers.
Amazon abandoned its New York plans in February 2019, but the controversy illustrates how different economic philosophies can identify the same problem. One emphasizes inequality and public priorities; the other emphasizes competition and market discipline.
The disagreement extends beyond subsidies to the question of monopoly power. In one of his videos, John Stossel shows a clip of Robert Reich describing Amazon as a monopoly. Stossel then challenges that characterization, pointing out that consumers have alternatives, including Walmart, Target, and Alibaba. This raises an important question: Should government determine when a company has become "too big," or should consumers determine which businesses succeed through their voluntary purchasing decisions?
A company's size alone does not establish monopoly power, and size itself is never a justification for government intervention. From a free-market perspective, the relevant distinction is between a business that grows by satisfying customers and one that benefits from government-created barriers to competition. Likewise, voluntary mergers should not require government approval merely because officials believe the resulting company would be "too large."
None of this means that free markets require the complete absence of government or that all corporate misconduct results from intervention. The crucial distinction is between government enforcing general rules that protect property rights, contracts, and voluntary exchange, versus government granting special privileges or interfering with voluntary business decisions, including mergers and acquisitions.
There is nothing inconsistent about criticizing corporate misconduct while defending free-market capitalism. Any politician claiming to support free markets should, to be philosophically consistent, oppose government intervention beyond protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and preventing force and fraud. That includes subsidies, bailouts, special privileges, and antitrust laws that interfere with voluntary market competition. Government should act as a referee, not determine which companies are "too big" or which businesses should be permitted to merge. Consumers--not politicians or bureaucrats--should determine which businesses succeed and how large they become. Unfortunately, politicians in both major parties routinely claim to support free markets while advocating policies that undermine them.
So the next time someone points to a corporate bailout, subsidy, or protectionist tariff as evidence that capitalism has failed, ask: Is this business succeeding because customers voluntarily support it, or because government granted it a special advantage?
If the problem is government favoritism, stop blaming capitalism. Call it what it is: cronyism.
* * *
Ninos P. Malek
Ninos P. Malek is an Economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California and a Lecturer at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. He teaches principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, economics of social issues, and intermediate microeconomics. His previous experience also includes teaching introductory economics at George Mason University.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/stop-calling-it-capitalism-when-its-government-favoritism/
