Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Our Privacy Laws Need Upgrades to Address the Spread of Facial Recognition Tools
LOS ANGELES, California, May 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by technology policy analyst Richard Sill:
* * *
Our privacy laws need upgrades to address the spread of facial recognition tools
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using facial recognition to identify people in images captured by officers' body-worn cameras (also known as bodycams) and other networked camera systems. Together, these tools enable federal, state, and local agencies to track and identify people at scale in ways that existing privacy and civil rights laws were not designed to regulate.
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, May 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by technology policy analyst Richard Sill:
* * *
Our privacy laws need upgrades to address the spread of facial recognition tools
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using facial recognition to identify people in images captured by officers' body-worn cameras (also known as bodycams) and other networked camera systems. Together, these tools enable federal, state, and local agencies to track and identify people at scale in ways that existing privacy and civil rights laws were not designed to regulate.
Fifteen states have moved to limit or ban some law enforcement uses of facial recognition, including its application to body-worn camera footage, but the federal government and most states lack clear, binding standards to protect people's privacy and civil liberties when police use this technology. The current patchwork of laws also causes confusion because people in the same community can face different levels of biometric surveillance depending on which agency they encounter. States should strengthen and expand their privacy and civil rights protections around law enforcement facial recognition, and Congress should set clear and consistent rules for federal law enforcement that limit when the technology may be used, how long biometric data may be kept, and how it's audited and disclosed.
How facial recognition turns camera networks into tools for biometric surveillance
Police use bodycams both to document incidents and to provide raw material for biometric identification. An officer's bodycam records video during his or her shift, and this footage gets uploaded to a database.
Facial recognition software can then search each frame for faces, crop those images, and measure features such as the distance between the eyes or outline of the jaw. Those measurements are converted into a numerical template, essentially a digital faceprint, that can be compared to government image databases containing mugshots, driver's license photos, and immigration records. Some systems are used after the fact to identify people captured in stored footage, but others can operate close to real-time, allowing an officer to see a possible match on a linked device during an encounter. In practice, bodycams become one more high-volume input into the same facial recognition systems that also draw on fixed and networked surveillance cameras.
Facial recognition has become routine in policing for many cities and municipalities. For years, cities like New York and New Orleans and states like Ohio have been scanning faces from hundreds of fixed and networked cameras around the city and sending alerts to officers' phones when someone appears to match a watchlist built from mugshot images. This model, combined with bodycam requirements for officers on patrol, effectively turns dense urban camera networks into live biometric lookouts. This has the potential to improve police efficiency.
But this surveillance also raises obvious privacy concerns. Because body cameras follow officers into many spaces, they can capture far more than only suspects. They can record people standing nearby on sidewalks, family members and children inside homes, patients and staff during medical calls, congregants in places of worship, journalists, legal observers, and protesters in public squares. Once this footage is subject to facial recognition, all those appearances can be treated as biometric data points, even where individuals are not accused of wrongdoing and may not even know that a digital template of their faces exists. This same face-matching system can also ingest images from other camera networks, extending this kind of incidental biometric capture well beyond the spaces officers enter with body-worn cameras.
Law enforcement access is not limited to cameras they control. In many cities and towns, police routinely obtain footage from privately operated cameras and doorbells by requesting clips from residents who have opted-in to sharing footage or asking companies that store cloud-based footage to share it. They can then run the same facial recognition tools on that video. A recent example is Ring's Super Bowl LX "Search Party" commercial, which depicted neighbors pooling footage from Ring cameras to track a lost dog. The concept drew backlash from privacy advocates who warned that the same mechanism could be used to track people, showing how tapping into vast networks of privately collected video can effectively extend biometric surveillance across entire neighborhoods with little public oversight.
Federal law enforcement policies only increase these concerns. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers began deploying body-worn cameras in 2024 in response to calls for more transparency in the field. Shortly thereafter, ICE began implementing mobile tools that allow agents to capture facial images during encounters and check them against federal biometric databases, including immigration records and criminal records.
ICE policies state that facial recognition will not be used to identify people during live bodycam streams, but the agency can still run an analysis of stored footage once it is uploaded. In practice, that means a face captured anywhere, whether during a raid, a workplace inspection, or even a benign street encounter, can still be scanned against federal databases. Recent reports indicate that these tools have been used on people in their households, on protesters while demonstrating, and on legal observers. These reports also revealed that images may be stored for extended periods under Department of Homeland Security policies.
Missing federal and state protections
Fifteen states have moved to restrict or ban police use of facial recognition, with some laws targeting body-worn cameras specifically and others setting broader rules for law enforcement use of the technology. In 2017, Oregon enacted ORS 133.741, which requires any law enforcement agency within the state that uses body-worn cameras to adopt a policy prohibiting the use of facial recognition and other biometric-matching technologies to analyze recordings, meaning they cannot run face-matching on bodycam footage. New Hampshire followed Oregon with a similar law, and from 2020 to 2023, California's Body Camera Accountability Act prevented law enforcement from installing, activating, or using facial recognition or biometric surveillance on bodycams or their data. That moratorium has since expired, so the state no longer has a bodycam-specific restriction in force statewide.
Other states have placed guardrails on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology more broadly, including when officers may apply these tools to bodycam footage. In 2023, Montana enacted the Facial Recognition for Government Use Act, which effectively prohibits real-time facial recognition by requiring police to obtain a warrant before using the technology on video captured from bodycams. Other states, such as Utah, Maryland, and Vermont, have also limited law enforcement use of facial recognition to specified serious offenses, including felonies and violent crimes, and to narrowly defined emergency situations like locating a missing person or responding to a specific threat to life, while Vermont and Maryland, in particular, prohibit its use to monitor protests or other constitutionally protected activities. That still leaves 35 states without clear, binding statewide standards for police.
Congress has also left major gaps at the federal level. Despite years of warnings from civil rights groups and oversight bodies about the risks of facial recognition, there is still no comprehensive federal statute that sets binding rules for how federal law enforcement can use this technology. Instead, federal agencies largely rely on internal policies that can be changed without public debate or clear accountability.
A legal patchwork creates concerns for all Americans
In those jurisdictions without clear rules, policies are often left to individual departments, vendor contracts, or informal practices that the public rarely sees. The result is a patchwork in which the legality and oversight of facial recognition can vary sharply from place to place, even as the technology spreads rapidly in everyday policing.
But this patchwork also affects residents of states that have implemented protections. While state legislatures can regulate their own agencies and local governments, they cannot directly dictate how federal agencies use their own equipment and databases. As a result, a city police department may be prohibited by state law from running facial recognition on its bodycam video, while federal agents working the same operation are free to use their own.
Similarly, state agencies might upload videos into shared systems or honor informal federal requests for clips that are later scanned outside of state processes. Local departments that want to strictly comply with state bans or local ordinances may limit what they share, which can generate tension when federal partners expect broad access to footage. This unevenness can undermine public understanding of, and confidence in, both body cameras and the safeguards meant to accompany them.
New federal and state legal protections are needed
States have begun to address the risks of unregulated facial recognition, but those efforts remain uneven and incomplete, leaving significant gaps in how the technology is used and overseen. Continued state action is needed to clarify limits, strengthen safeguards, and ensure that bodycam and other law enforcement uses of facial recognition do not erode privacy and due process. States without laws on the books yet can adopt concrete safeguards already emerging elsewhere. At a minimum, new statutes should require a warrant for most facial recognition searches of government image databases, as Montana does; limit use to specific serious crimes and narrowly defined emergencies, as in Utah and Maryland; and require regular reporting accuracy and bias audits, as Maryland does.
State laws should also prohibit face matches from serving as the sole basis for an arrest, as Detroit has done, and provide meaningful enforcement mechanisms and remedies when agencies violate these rules.
These safeguards should also apply when police seek to acquire footage from private cameras or third-party platforms, so agencies cannot evade facial recognition limits by outsourcing biometric searches to privately collected video. By adopting these measures, states without facial recognition standards can help ensure the technology serves legitimate public safety goals without enabling unchecked biometric surveillance.
Nevertheless, state-level protections can't govern how federal agencies use facial recognition, so Congress needs to establish clear, comparable baseline rules for federal law enforcement. Because federal agencies investigate within individual states and routinely across state lines, gaps in federal standards can undercut even the strongest state protections, making national rules on when and how facial recognition may be used, how long data may be retained, how agencies may obtain and analyze footage from private camera systems, and how accountability is monitored essential to a coherent system of protections.
* * *
Richard Sill is a technology policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/our-privacy-laws-need-upgrades-to-address-the-spread-of-facial-recognition-tools/
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Chi-Cal Rivers Fund Announces $1.2 Million in Conservation Grants
WASHINGTON, May 6 -- The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Chi-Cal Rivers Fund Announces $1.2 Million in Conservation Grants
*
CHICAGO (May 6, 2026) - The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and partners today announced $1.2 million in grants to enhance habitat and improve water quality in the Chicago-Calumet region. The grants will generate $1 million in matching contributions for a total conservation impact of $2.2 million.
The grants were awarded through the Chi-Cal Rivers Fund (Chi-Cal), a partnership
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 6 -- The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Chi-Cal Rivers Fund Announces $1.2 Million in Conservation Grants
*
CHICAGO (May 6, 2026) - The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and partners today announced $1.2 million in grants to enhance habitat and improve water quality in the Chicago-Calumet region. The grants will generate $1 million in matching contributions for a total conservation impact of $2.2 million.
The grants were awarded through the Chi-Cal Rivers Fund (Chi-Cal), a partnershipbetween NFWF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service, BNSF Railway, Cleveland-Cliffs, Crown Family Philanthropies, Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation, Hunter Family Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, and the Walder Foundation.
"The grants announced today will restore habitat for wildlife, improve water quality and stormwater management, and increase community access to outdoor recreation through restoration of natural areas throughout the Chicago and Calumet regions," said Jeff Trandahl, executive director and CEO of NFWF.
The projects supported by the six grants announced today will restore wetland and riparian habitat to benefit migratory birds and native fish species; install nature-based infrastructure that reduces runoff and creates natural community areas to enhance residents' quality of life; and activate previously restored habitats through community engagement and enhancement of public-access opportunities. Additionally, these projects will:
* Add more than 173,000 gallons of stormwater storage capacity annually
* Restore 120 acres of wetland habitat
* Restore 89 acres of floodplain
* Engage volunteers in conservation activities for more than 1,000 hours
"Joyce is a proud longtime supporter of this partnership that is vital to protecting and enhancing the Chicago and Calumet region waterways. It is an investment that benefits us today and benefits the next generation," said Preeti Shankar, Joyce Foundation Environment Program Officer.
"EPA is pleased to support these projects with funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative," said Teresa Seidel, director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office. "This partnership exemplifies how lasting environmental results can be delivered to local communities through cooperation and collaboration."
"The Chi-Cal Rivers Fund inspires people to build trusting partnerships and take collective action to address environmental concerns with innovative solutions," said Frank Baiocchi, executive director, the Hunter Family Foundation. "This occurs at both the funder level and with grantee partners, whose scientific expertise and community-minded approaches foster meaningful, sustainable change in areas that need it most."
Since 2013, Chi-Cal has awarded 72 grants totaling $16.3 million, drawing an additional $30 million in matching contributions for total conservation investment of more than $46.3 million.
A complete list of the 2025 grants made through the Chi-Cal Rivers Fund is available here.
About the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) works with partners to foster sustainable and impactful conservation solutions so that people and nature thrive together. Chartered by Congress in 1984, NFWF has grown to become the nation's largest conservation foundation. Since its founding, NFWF has funded more than 23,900 projects that have generated a total conservation impact of more than $12 billion. Learn more at nfwf.org.
About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
About the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office oversees the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative which was established in 2010 and is used to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water in the world - the Great Lakes. For more information, visit the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative website.
About the U.S. Forest Service
Established in 1905, the Forest Service's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains one of the largest forestry research organizations in the world. Public lands managed by the Forest Service provide 20 percent of the nation's clean water supply and contribute more than $13 billion to the economy each year through visitor spending alone. The agency also supports sustainable management on about 500 million acres of private, state and tribal forests including forests in urban areas. For more information, visit www.fs.usda.gov.
About BNSF Railway
BNSF Railway is one of North America's leading freight transportation companies, operating a rail network of 32,500 route miles in 28 states and three Canadian provinces. BNSF is one of the top transporters of the products and materials that help feed, clothe, supply and power communities throughout America and the world. BNSF moves those goods more safely and efficiently, on significantly less fuel, with fewer emissions than the all-highway alternative. You can learn more about BNSF at www.BNSF.com.
About Cleveland-Cliffs
Cleveland-Cliffs is the largest flat-rolled steel producer in North America. Founded in 1847 as a mine operator, Cliffs also is the largest manufacturer of iron ore pellets in North America. The Company is vertically integrated from mined raw materials, direct reduced iron, and ferrous scrap to primary steelmaking and downstream finishing, stamping, tooling, and tubing. We are the largest supplier of steel to the automotive industry in North America and serve a diverse range of other markets due to our comprehensive offering of flat-rolled steel products. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland-Cliffs employs approximately 27,000 people across its operations in the United States and Canada. For more information, visit www.clevelandcliffs.com.
About Crown Family Philanthropies
Rooted in the legacy of Arie and Ida Crown, as well as the Jewish tradition of tikkun olam-or repairing the world-Crown Family Philanthropies (CFP) is driven by more than 70 years of family commitment to social impact. Crown Family Philanthropies' Great Lakes grantmaking supports efforts to address water quality, habitat conservation, and basin-wide policy to ensure that the Great Lakes are protected and restored for the use and enjoyment of people and wildlife for generations to come. Learn more at: https://crownfamilyphilanthropies.org/
About The Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation
Established in 1952, The Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation supports land conservation, artistic vitality, and regional collections for the people of the Chicago region and the Lowcountry of South Carolina. In the Chicago region, the Foundation focuses its land conservation program on natural and working lands protection and stewardship with emphasis on integrating climate resiliency, advocacy, and inclusive conservation strategies. See more about the Foundation at www.gddf.org.
About The Hunter Family Foundation
The Hunter Family Foundation (HFF) strives to improve lives in sustainable ways by supporting families in accessing equitable opportunities to learn, play, and grow within their home communities. Our environmental programs focus on addressing barriers to outdoor access, emphasizing the importance of cross-sector collaboration, policy and advocacy, and community involvement.
About The Joyce Foundation
The Joyce Foundation is a Chicago-based, nonpartisan, private foundation that invests in policies and strategies to advance racial equity and economic mobility for the next generation in the Great Lakes region in the areas of Culture, Democracy, Education & Economic Mobility, Environment, Gun Violence Prevention & Justice Reform, and Journalism. Learn more at www.joycefdn.org.
About Walder Foundation
Walder Foundation was established by Joseph and Elizabeth Walder to address critical issues impacting our world. The Foundation's five areas of focus-science innovation, environmental sustainability, the performing arts, migration and immigrant communities, and Jewish life-are an extension of the Walders' lifelong passions, interests, and their personal and professional experiences. Learn more at walderfoundation.org.
***
Original text here: https://www.nfwf.org/media-center/press-releases/national-fish-and-wildlife-foundations-chi-cal-rivers-fund-announces-1
Mother's Day: How a 'helicopter mom' keeps fish research swimming along at OMRF
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, May 6 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Mother's Day: How a 'helicopter mom' keeps fish research swimming along at OMRF
*
When stay-at-home mother Sarah Ball decided to go back to work, she found a position that made the most of her nurturing experience: parenting 1,600 tiny fish at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation.
"I've always loved animals," Ball said. "I've passed that down to my kids, so now we have three dogs, two cats and they're always finding creatures in their natural habitat around the backyard."
This
... Show Full Article
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, May 6 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Mother's Day: How a 'helicopter mom' keeps fish research swimming along at OMRF
*
When stay-at-home mother Sarah Ball decided to go back to work, she found a position that made the most of her nurturing experience: parenting 1,600 tiny fish at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation.
"I've always loved animals," Ball said. "I've passed that down to my kids, so now we have three dogs, two cats and they're always finding creatures in their natural habitat around the backyard."
ThisMother's Day, Ball will celebrate with all of her kids - even those with scales.
As the lead caretaker for the lab of OMRF researcher Jaya Krishnan, Ph.D., Ball is charged with the well-being of more than 100 tanks of cavefish. The blind fish, which are native to caves and rivers in Mexico, help Krishnan study metabolic diseases like diabetes.
For those studies, Ball must provide the fish with a stable living environment. That means a daily regimen of cleaning and feeding.
"It's a constant process, but so is mothering," Ball said.
Indeed, she said, her schedule with her human children, ages 7 and 10, mirrors her lab work. "Every day it's bathtime, dinner, sports and homework," she said. "Keeping a consistent routine is important."
At OMRF, consistency is also key to success in research. "If the fish aren't eating enough or have a dirty tank, that can show up in our results," Krishnan said.
So, when Krishnan set up her lab in 2024, her requirements for the caretaker position were clear: She needed someone reliable, organized and able to multitask. "Motherhood teaches all that," said Krishnan.
Krishnan said Ball's years of experience as a stay-at-home mom made her the right choice for the position, even without any previous experience in animal husbandry.
"The term 'helicopter mom' gets thrown around, but here it's necessary," Ball said. "I keep a close eye on every fish, every single day. They can't communicate, so if even one gets sick or is acting differently, I notice and act on it."
Ball said finding a job she was passionate about and flexible with her family schedule felt "far-fetched" until she landed at OMRF.
That passion is evident, said Krishnan, and it leads to success in the lab. "Our work is possible because of the discipline and motherly love Sarah has for these little guys."
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/mothers-day-how-a-helicopter-mom-keeps-fish-research-swimming-along-at-omrf/
Freedom From Religion Foundation: 'Freedom 250' May 17 Prayer Rally is Christian Nationalist Pseudohistory
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
'Freedom 250' May 17 prayer rally is Christian nationalist pseudohistory
The White House's "Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving" on May 17 is an unprecedented and shocking mix of church and state.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is sounding the alarm over the prayer fest's sponsor, "Freedom 250," a public/private initiative aligned with the White House to mark the nation's 250th anniversary with explicitly Christian nationalist programming.
President
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
'Freedom 250' May 17 prayer rally is Christian nationalist pseudohistory
The White House's "Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving" on May 17 is an unprecedented and shocking mix of church and state.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is sounding the alarm over the prayer fest's sponsor, "Freedom 250," a public/private initiative aligned with the White House to mark the nation's 250th anniversary with explicitly Christian nationalist programming.
PresidentTrump promoted the all-day prayer fest on the National Mall during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast: "On May 17, 2026, we are inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to rededicate America as one nation under God."
The all-day spectacle of prayer, testimony, Scripture and worship calls on Americans to gather for "Scripture, testimony, prayer, and rededication of our country as One Nation to God." The overtly sectarian gathering is dominated by Christian nationalist figures and promoted with government involvement. FFRF's Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on public funding is on appeal, so financial details are murky.
The event overwhelmingly features Christian leaders and activists, including those among the Trump cabinet, with token non-Christian representation. Besides House Speaker Mike Johnson and cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Mark Rubio, they include a long list of pastors and religious figures, including Rev. Franklin Graham, Eric Metaxas (a vocal proponent of Christian nationalist ideology), White House Faith Adviser Paula White and Rev. Robert Jeffress, who has repeatedly argued that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. All but one of the 15 religious leaders are Christian.
Military and other governmental bands will perform alongside religious choirs, such as with the extremist Christian Hillsdale College.
"This is not a celebration of America's founding principles -- but an overtly sectarian, exclusionary event catering to evangelicals and other conservative Christians, with participation and the full blessing of the federal government," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Our Constitution is godless by design. The government has no authority to organize religious revivals, much less use them to promote a Christian nationalist agenda."
FFRF Co-President Dan Barker adds, "This isn't subtle. They are openly declaring a goal of redefining America as a Christian nation and using the machinery of government to do it."
Major corporations -- including Mastercard, Deloitte, SAP and Lockheed Martin -- have signed on as sponsors of Freedom 250, even as questions mount about the initiative's sectarian agenda and lack of transparency. Critics have called out the companies for potentially enabling what amounts to a government-backed religious campaign.
The United States belongs to all of us -- not just conservative Christians, FFRF points out. Our government was founded on secular principles to ensure freedom of conscience for everyone.
FFRF is calling on federal officials to immediately cease any involvement in sectarian events, and on corporate sponsors to reconsider their support.
"The 250th anniversary of our nation should celebrate liberty, equality and the constitutional separation of church and state," Gaylor concludes. "Anything less betrays the very ideals the Declaration of Independence set in motion."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 42,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/freedom-250-may-17-prayer-rally-is-christian-nationalist-pseudohistory/
[Category: Religion]
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: FEE's 2026 Bagwell Center Essay Prize
DETROIT, Michigan, May 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by Editorial Director Katrina Gulliver:
* * *
FEE's 2026 Bagwell Center Essay Prize
Celebrating our winners.
*
FEE recently held our second-annual essay competition in cooperation with the Bagwell Center at Kennesaw State University. The contest was open to any student at KSU, and their prompt was related to the work of the Bagwell Center's visiting fellow, Grover Norquist, and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, asks political candidates to sign.
The
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, May 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by Editorial Director Katrina Gulliver:
* * *
FEE's 2026 Bagwell Center Essay Prize
Celebrating our winners.
*
FEE recently held our second-annual essay competition in cooperation with the Bagwell Center at Kennesaw State University. The contest was open to any student at KSU, and their prompt was related to the work of the Bagwell Center's visiting fellow, Grover Norquist, and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, asks political candidates to sign.
Thewinner and runner-up each offered carefully considered responses, and we are sharing excerpts below.
Our winner, Aliyah Johnson, is a junior nursing student from Conyers, Georgia. In addition to being a nursing student, she serves as the Vice President of the Student Government Association, President's Parliament Scholar Ambassador, Kennesaw Campus Tour Guide, and KSU Brand Ambassador.
Her essay, "The American Odyssey: The Quest for Strength Through Stewardship," discusses the values of what governments do with taxpayers' money--and how this needs to be balanced with the needs of taxpayers. She writes:
At its core, this debate is about stewardship. Taxpayer dollars represent trust, the consent of citizens who expect government to manage resources wisely and transparently. Ethical governance requires protecting opportunity while demanding efficiency. Budgets do not collapse overnight. They erode slowly; one unchecked program, one unexamined expense, one easy decision at a time. And by the time the consequences arrive, they are no longer theoretical. Fiscal responsibility is about trust. Trust that the government will not take more than it needs. Trust that it will not spend more than it should. Trust that it understands the weight of every dollar earned by working families. It is about protecting what matters, before there is nothing left to protect.
Our runner-up, Omya Airi, also offered a nuanced approach, suggesting flexibility in policy with an end goal of reducing the deficit and government waste. As she wrote in her essay, "Flexible Fiscal Responsibility Without Ideological Rigidity":
As the debt grows, the government becomes more vulnerable to changes in interest rates, as an increase in those rates will cause net interest expenses to rise sharply, consuming an ever-larger percentage of the budget. These expenditures don't provide any new services to citizens; they are a transfer from the current citizenry to bondholders. In this regard, structural deficits operate not as a stimulus but rather as a delayed form of taxation. In addition, there is an equity issue with running large deficits over time, as current citizens get the benefits of government spending while future citizens will have to pay the taxes and face the resulting inability of the government to respond to future crises.
Omya is a first-year university student studying finance and economics, with a growing interest in real estate investment and wealth management. She plans to pursue a career in finance while continuing her study of economics at an advanced level.
Aliyah and Omya's insights showed a keen grasp of the issues at hand, particularly the practical dimensions of the deficit, and the challenges of restraining government excess. As Omya writes: "The persistent deficits of the federal government represent more than a purely macroeconomic abstraction; they represent increased interest burdens, investment crowding out, and reduced policy options for the next generation."
Young people will be faced with the consequences of government choices, as they are taxed to pay the bill for previous generations. Choices have to be made, and as Aliyah summarizes it: "Every federal dollar represents a moral decision. It reflects what a nation chooses to protect, what it chooses to reform, and what it is willing to let go."
We at FEE were impressed by the quality of these essays and the understanding they represent, and were delighted to award the prizes at the Bagwell Center Dinner. They were the best in a strong field of entries, and we thank Bagwell Center Director, Professor Tim Mathews, for coordinating this contest with FEE. We wish Aliyah and Omya the best as they continue their studies.
As part of their awards, Aliyah and Omya were also offered admission to FEE Summer Campus, an opportunity for college students to learn with peers from across the world about the principles of liberty and the free market. To join them, apply now (https://fee.tfaforms.net/5179920?_gl=1*18p7j1r*_gcl_au*MTY4OTcxNzg4LjE3NzUxMTQ4ODc.*_ga*MjA1MzE1OTExMC4xNzc1MTE0ODg3*_ga_NVQ1VDK76N*czE3NzgwNTkyMTQkbzI1JGcxJHQxNzc4MDU5MjI0JGo1MCRsMCRoMA..).
* * *
Katrina Gulliver is Editorial Director at FEE. She holds a PhD from Cambridge University, and has held faculty positions at universities in Germany, Britain and Australia. She was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 2021. Katrina has written for the Wall St Journal, Reason, The American Conservative, National Review and the New Criterion, among others.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/fees-2026-bagwell-center-essay-prize/
FFRF Warns About Appeals Court Ban on Telehealth Mifepristone
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on May 4, 2026:
* * *
FFRF warns about appeals court ban on telehealth mifepristone
The country now awaits Supreme Court action in a case that could ban telehealth abortion nationwide only four years after the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.
While the Supreme Court today temporarily paused an appeals court ruling imposing an extraordinary restriction all across the United States on telehealth access to medication abortion, a constitutional showdown is in the offing.
The
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on May 4, 2026:
* * *
FFRF warns about appeals court ban on telehealth mifepristone
The country now awaits Supreme Court action in a case that could ban telehealth abortion nationwide only four years after the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.
While the Supreme Court today temporarily paused an appeals court ruling imposing an extraordinary restriction all across the United States on telehealth access to medication abortion, a constitutional showdown is in the offing.
The5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling in State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration, ordered the FDA to temporarily ban the use of telehealth medicine to prescribe mifepristone. Although Louisiana argued the use of telemedicine for abortion undermines its draconian state ban, the appeals court not only granted Louisiana's request but also shockingly banned telehealth abortion care all over the country. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a one-sentence order, briefly paused that ban until the parties file briefs by Thursday and the entire court can take up the issue.
"The appeals court ban is an example of practicing medicine without a license," says Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. "An ideologically driven court is overriding evidence-based medicine, federal authority and the rights of patients nationwide to impose a religious agenda."
About two-thirds of abortions in the United States are via medication and about a quarter are via telemedicine. Millions of U.S. women have used mifepristone, in combination with misoprostol, to safely end pregnancies in the last 26 years, with a serious complication rate of less than 1 percent. The FDA approved mifepristone for use in 2000. In early 2023, the FDA permanently lifted restrictions preventing patients from obtaining medication abortion pills at a retail pharmacy or requiring them to visit a medical provider in person.
Three years ago, an obscure Christian nationalist federal judge in Texas presumed to ban mifepristone nationwide, a ban that the 5th Circuit upheld with modifications, limiting use of the medication to seven weeks of gestation, also banning telemedicine and mail-order shipments. The Biden administration, along with major pharmaceuticals, appealed, with the Freedom From Religion Foundation's brief in the case noting the plaintiff anti-abortion groups lacked standing to sue. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with FFRF on the standing question and tossed the case in 2024. FFRF warned at the time that the crusade against medication abortion was only beginning.
The stakes are enormous. Some 100,000 patients per year living in states with abortion bans have received abortion pills through the mail from physicians living in states that have passed shield laws protecting such prescriptions. FFRF honored Dr. Maggie Carpenter with its 2025 Forward Award for co-founding Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, after the states of Texas and Louisiana prosecuted her for prescribing and mailing medication abortion to Texas. New York's shield law has protected her, so far, from extradition.
"The same Christian nationalist movement that pushed Dobbs is now targeting medication abortion and telehealth access nationwide," Gaylor adds. "This ruling underscores the urgent need to defend the separation of church and state, because these bans are rooted in religious ideology, not medicine or public health."
FFRF is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to swiftly overturn the 5th Circuit's ruling and on state lawmakers to enact and strengthen shield laws explicitly protecting telehealth abortion care.
"This is a wake-up call," Gaylor concludes. "Lawmakers who support reproductive freedom must act now to protect patients and providers from escalating judicial overreach."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 42,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-warns-about-appeals-court-ban-on-telehealth-mifepristone/
[Category: Religion]
Eighth Circuit Vacates the FCC's Controversial Digital Discrimination Rule
WASHINGTON, May 6 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Eighth Circuit Vacates the FCC's Controversial Digital Discrimination Rule
*
"Today's decision rejects a regulatory power grab that would have chilled investment, raised costs, and slowed high-speed internet deployment for consumers nationwide."
-Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
WASHINGTON, DC-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today vacated the FCC's final digital discrimination rule in its entirety. Enacted under the Biden administration,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 6 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Eighth Circuit Vacates the FCC's Controversial Digital Discrimination Rule
*
"Today's decision rejects a regulatory power grab that would have chilled investment, raised costs, and slowed high-speed internet deployment for consumers nationwide."
-Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
WASHINGTON, DC-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today vacated the FCC's final digital discrimination rule in its entirety. Enacted under the Biden administration,that rule threatened to impose a lawless disparate-impact regulatory regime on the nation's broadband industry. The decision was welcome news for Washington Legal Foundation, which joined Pacific Legal Foundation on an amicus brief urging the result.
The case arose from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a $1.2 trillion omnibus infrastructure bill that authorized the FCC to "adopt final rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service," including by "preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin." In an amicus brief asking the Eighth Circuit to vacate the rule, WLF argued that the IIJA supplies no plausible statutory basis for the FCC's unprecedented power grab and violates the Constitution.
A unanimous panel of the Eighth Circuit agreed. Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the appeals court independently interpreted the statute without Chevron deference. It held that the IIJA's phrasing "based on" and the absence of any results-oriented or effects-focused language (such as "otherwise adversely affect" or "otherwise make unavailable") limit the statute to disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) only. Because the FCC's rule expressly adopted disparate impact (unintentional discrminiation), the entire rule was unlawful and must be vacated.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/05/06/communicating/eighth-circuit-vacates-the-fccs-controversial-digital-discrimination-rule/
