Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Health Foundation: Plans to Improve Vocational Pathways to Support Young People Into Work Welcome But Must Be Backed by Wider Reform
LONDON, England, July 29 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by David Finch, interim director of health and inequalities:
* * *
Plans to improve vocational pathways to support young people into work welcome but must be backed by wider reform
Responding to government plans to improve vocational pathways and support young people into work, David Finch, Interim Director of Health and Inequalities at the Health Foundation, said:
'It is encouraging to see the government's recognition of the importance of creating clearer vocational pathways into employment, including a new bursary ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, July 29 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by David Finch, interim director of health and inequalities: * * * Plans to improve vocational pathways to support young people into work welcome but must be backed by wider reform Responding to government plans to improve vocational pathways and support young people into work, David Finch, Interim Director of Health and Inequalities at the Health Foundation, said: 'It is encouraging to see the government's recognition of the importance of creating clearer vocational pathways into employment, including a new bursaryto reduce financial barriers to taking up apprenticeships.
'Good employment can support young people's health. Creating clearer routes into a successful career can help prevent a future generation of young people becoming disconnected from learning and work.
'But the delivery challenge should not be underestimated - successive governments have struggled to create a coherent vocational system that leads to higher level skills. The success of these measures will depend on effective design and implementation, backed by sufficient investment.
'Over the long term, more fundamental reform is needed to ensure our benefits and education systems are fit for purpose, including addressing fragmented support for young people entering work and the shortage of suitable entry-level jobs, to give young people the best possible opportunities.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/plans-to-improve-vocational-pathways-to-support-young-people-into-work-welcome-but-must-be-backed-by-wider-reform
* * *
Plans to improve vocational pathways to support young people into work welcome but must be backed by wider reform
Responding to government plans to improve vocational pathways and support young people into work, David Finch, Interim Director of Health and Inequalities at the Health Foundation, said:
'It is encouraging to see the government's recognition of the importance of creating clearer vocational pathways into employment, including a new bursary ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, July 29 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by David Finch, interim director of health and inequalities: * * * Plans to improve vocational pathways to support young people into work welcome but must be backed by wider reform Responding to government plans to improve vocational pathways and support young people into work, David Finch, Interim Director of Health and Inequalities at the Health Foundation, said: 'It is encouraging to see the government's recognition of the importance of creating clearer vocational pathways into employment, including a new bursaryto reduce financial barriers to taking up apprenticeships.
'Good employment can support young people's health. Creating clearer routes into a successful career can help prevent a future generation of young people becoming disconnected from learning and work.
'But the delivery challenge should not be underestimated - successive governments have struggled to create a coherent vocational system that leads to higher level skills. The success of these measures will depend on effective design and implementation, backed by sufficient investment.
'Over the long term, more fundamental reform is needed to ensure our benefits and education systems are fit for purpose, including addressing fragmented support for young people entering work and the shortage of suitable entry-level jobs, to give young people the best possible opportunities.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/plans-to-improve-vocational-pathways-to-support-young-people-into-work-welcome-but-must-be-backed-by-wider-reform
Freedom From Religion Foundation: Speaker Johnson Worrisomely Says Christian Legal Ministry Guides House Leadership
MADISON, Wisconsin, July 29 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Speaker Johnson worrisomely says Christian legal ministry guides House leadership
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is expressing concern after House Speaker Mike Johnson declared at a highly influential Christian legal organization's annual summit that it shapes his governance.
Johnson, speaking recently to hundreds of Alliance Defending Freedom supporters in San Diego, repeatedly described the group as "home," praised its mission of advancing conservative Christianity through the ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, July 29 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Speaker Johnson worrisomely says Christian legal ministry guides House leadership The Freedom From Religion Foundation is expressing concern after House Speaker Mike Johnson declared at a highly influential Christian legal organization's annual summit that it shapes his governance. Johnson, speaking recently to hundreds of Alliance Defending Freedom supporters in San Diego, repeatedly described the group as "home," praised its mission of advancing conservative Christianity through thelegal system, and credited his years working there with molding his leadership as speaker.
"ADF really is like home to us," Johnson told attendees. "You're like family." He added that his years at the organization were "formative to us," explaining that "so much of what we do, we learned on the front lines of the culture war, keeping the door open for the spread of the gospel, and it informs still how we do our job today."
Such statements are extremely concerning to FFRF.
"Speaker Johnson has made explicit what many Americans have long suspected: He does not view himself simply as an elected official who happens to be religious," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "He views his leadership of the House as an extension of the mission of Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization dedicated to advancing conservative Christian ideology through the courts and government."
Founded in 1994 by leaders in the Christian right, Alliance Defending Freedom has become one of the country's most powerful Christian nationalist legal organizations. The group has played a central role in many Supreme Court cases that have expanded religious exemptions while restricting reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the entity as an anti-LGBTQ hate group because of its long record of attacking LGBTQ rights, a move that has prompted members of Congress to ironically go after the renowned civil rights organization.
At the Alliance Defending Freedom gathering, Johnson continued his longstanding effort to recast America's founding in explicitly Christian terms. Discussing the Declaration of Independence, he argued that the rights of Americans "don't come from the government" but "come from the King of Kings," replacing the Declaration's more inclusive reference to a "Creator" with a specifically Christian theological claim.
Johnson also warned that rejecting belief in God inevitably leads to "Marxism, socialism [and] communism," telling the audience that denying God means people lose their inherent dignity and ultimately their freedom. He described universities as places where students have been "indoctrinated" to reject America's Christian foundations.
"Speaker Johnson is using his constitutional office to promote an explicitly sectarian worldview," remarks Gaylor. "The House speaker represents Americans of every religion and of none. He should not be telling the country that our rights come from Christianity or suggesting that secular Americans are on the road to tyranny."
Johnson repeatedly framed political engagement at the summit as a religious struggle, describing Alliance Defending Freedom supporters as "fellow warriors" and praising the organization for standing on the "front lines" and the "tip of the spear" defending "God's truth." He urged supporters to pledge themselves to the cause just as the Founders supposedly had and predicted that the group's next chapter would be "the greatest season of this ministry since its inception."
The gathering underscored the Alliance Defending Freedom's extraordinary access to Republican leadership. Johnson was introduced not merely as the House speaker but as "one of us," with organizers highlighting his years as an attorney with the group and its spokesman before entering politics.
The event also featured Trump administration Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir, who argued that transgender health care contradicts "the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself," citing Genesis 1:27 and asserting that "male and female" reflect God's design. He encouraged pastors, rather than medical professionals, to play a central role in caring for youth experiencing gender dysphoria.
Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner, who has defended conversion therapy and has repeatedly misgendered transgender people, also interviewed West Virginia and Idaho's Republican attorneys general, reinforcing the organization's close ties to elected officials shaping national legal policy on one end of the political spectrum.
"The American people elected a speaker of the House, not a missionary-in-chief," Gaylor adds. "Mike Johnson is free to practice his religion, but he is not free to govern as though Congress exists to carry out the mission of Alliance Defending Freedom or any other religious organization. His oath is to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion by keeping religion and government separate."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/speaker-johnson-worrisomely-says-christian-legal-ministry-guides-house-leadership/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
Speaker Johnson worrisomely says Christian legal ministry guides House leadership
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is expressing concern after House Speaker Mike Johnson declared at a highly influential Christian legal organization's annual summit that it shapes his governance.
Johnson, speaking recently to hundreds of Alliance Defending Freedom supporters in San Diego, repeatedly described the group as "home," praised its mission of advancing conservative Christianity through the ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, July 29 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Speaker Johnson worrisomely says Christian legal ministry guides House leadership The Freedom From Religion Foundation is expressing concern after House Speaker Mike Johnson declared at a highly influential Christian legal organization's annual summit that it shapes his governance. Johnson, speaking recently to hundreds of Alliance Defending Freedom supporters in San Diego, repeatedly described the group as "home," praised its mission of advancing conservative Christianity through thelegal system, and credited his years working there with molding his leadership as speaker.
"ADF really is like home to us," Johnson told attendees. "You're like family." He added that his years at the organization were "formative to us," explaining that "so much of what we do, we learned on the front lines of the culture war, keeping the door open for the spread of the gospel, and it informs still how we do our job today."
Such statements are extremely concerning to FFRF.
"Speaker Johnson has made explicit what many Americans have long suspected: He does not view himself simply as an elected official who happens to be religious," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "He views his leadership of the House as an extension of the mission of Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization dedicated to advancing conservative Christian ideology through the courts and government."
Founded in 1994 by leaders in the Christian right, Alliance Defending Freedom has become one of the country's most powerful Christian nationalist legal organizations. The group has played a central role in many Supreme Court cases that have expanded religious exemptions while restricting reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the entity as an anti-LGBTQ hate group because of its long record of attacking LGBTQ rights, a move that has prompted members of Congress to ironically go after the renowned civil rights organization.
At the Alliance Defending Freedom gathering, Johnson continued his longstanding effort to recast America's founding in explicitly Christian terms. Discussing the Declaration of Independence, he argued that the rights of Americans "don't come from the government" but "come from the King of Kings," replacing the Declaration's more inclusive reference to a "Creator" with a specifically Christian theological claim.
Johnson also warned that rejecting belief in God inevitably leads to "Marxism, socialism [and] communism," telling the audience that denying God means people lose their inherent dignity and ultimately their freedom. He described universities as places where students have been "indoctrinated" to reject America's Christian foundations.
"Speaker Johnson is using his constitutional office to promote an explicitly sectarian worldview," remarks Gaylor. "The House speaker represents Americans of every religion and of none. He should not be telling the country that our rights come from Christianity or suggesting that secular Americans are on the road to tyranny."
Johnson repeatedly framed political engagement at the summit as a religious struggle, describing Alliance Defending Freedom supporters as "fellow warriors" and praising the organization for standing on the "front lines" and the "tip of the spear" defending "God's truth." He urged supporters to pledge themselves to the cause just as the Founders supposedly had and predicted that the group's next chapter would be "the greatest season of this ministry since its inception."
The gathering underscored the Alliance Defending Freedom's extraordinary access to Republican leadership. Johnson was introduced not merely as the House speaker but as "one of us," with organizers highlighting his years as an attorney with the group and its spokesman before entering politics.
The event also featured Trump administration Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir, who argued that transgender health care contradicts "the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself," citing Genesis 1:27 and asserting that "male and female" reflect God's design. He encouraged pastors, rather than medical professionals, to play a central role in caring for youth experiencing gender dysphoria.
Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner, who has defended conversion therapy and has repeatedly misgendered transgender people, also interviewed West Virginia and Idaho's Republican attorneys general, reinforcing the organization's close ties to elected officials shaping national legal policy on one end of the political spectrum.
"The American people elected a speaker of the House, not a missionary-in-chief," Gaylor adds. "Mike Johnson is free to practice his religion, but he is not free to govern as though Congress exists to carry out the mission of Alliance Defending Freedom or any other religious organization. His oath is to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion by keeping religion and government separate."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/speaker-johnson-worrisomely-says-christian-legal-ministry-guides-house-leadership/
[Category: Religion]
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Reducing Barriers to Manufactured Homes
LOS ANGELES, California, July 28 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Eliza Terziev, housing and land use policy analyst:
* * *
Reducing barriers to manufactured homes
Building homes in factories rather than on-site is a way to both expedite construction timelines and reduce the cost of delivering new homes.
-
With the median sale price of a single-family home in the United States reaching $398,771 in May 2026, many buyers are looking for more affordable options. Building homes in factories rather than using traditional on-site building methods is a way to both expedite ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 28 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Eliza Terziev, housing and land use policy analyst: * * * Reducing barriers to manufactured homes Building homes in factories rather than on-site is a way to both expedite construction timelines and reduce the cost of delivering new homes. - With the median sale price of a single-family home in the United States reaching $398,771 in May 2026, many buyers are looking for more affordable options. Building homes in factories rather than using traditional on-site building methods is a way to both expediteconstruction timelines and reduce the cost of delivering new homes.
Prefabricated homes are built partially or entirely off-site and then transported to their final location. A common type is a manufactured home. These homes are built entirely in a factory to standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), so they're often called "HUD-code homes." One of these standards is that they have historically been required to sit on a permanent steel chassis, which is a towable frame used to transport them. That requirement contributes to their lingering association with single-wide trailers, even though many are large, multi-section homes that resemble site-built houses.
Factory-building has substantial cost savings due to lower labor costs, economies of scale, and fewer weather-related delays. Freddie Mac estimates that the per-square-foot cost of building a manufactured home is nearly 48% less than the cost of building a traditional site-built home. In January 2026, the average price of a new manufactured home in the United States was $131,700.
Despite their relative affordability, zoning codes in many areas either exclude manufactured homes or place undue restrictions on them. Rather than let property owners choose a demonstrably safe type of housing to put on their land, local governments impose their aesthetic preferences, arbitrarily limiting Americans' ability to buy and use these homes. In a time of persistent housing affordability challenges, policymakers searching for solutions could start by allowing buyers to determine what type of housing best meets their needs.
The recent history of factory-built housing
While early instances of prefabricated construction methods can be traced to much earlier, factory-built housing gained popularity in the U.S. following World War II. With housing in short supply and the return of soldiers with growing families, trailers and mobile homes were a common choice due to their rapid construction timelines and relatively low cost. Whereas manufactured homes were previously used as recreational vehicles and temporary accommodation, with new demand they came to be seen as long-term housing options.
In response to this popularization, Congress passed the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act in 1974, instructing HUD to create a list of safety standards manufactured housing had to meet. By 1976, the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards became law, preempting all state and local rules for these homes.
Into the 1990s, the prevalence of manufactured homes grew still, especially among low-income families in rural areas in the South, who saw them as a path to homeownership and independence (see Figure 1). However, unsustainable lending practices in this period also led to cascading foreclosures and a resulting surplus of units. Production was even further discouraged by continued foreclosures and economic distress resulting from the 2008 financial crisis. Manufactured homes have yet to regain their peak production quantities (see Figure 2).
* * *
Figure 1: Manufactured housing units shipped to each state (1994-2024)
Figure 2: Total manufactured housing units shipped to each state (1994-2024)
* * *
Despite advantages in both cost and production speed, HUD estimates that today manufactured housing accounts for only 7% of the housing stock in the United States. However, other countries have integrated prefabricated housing more thoroughly. In Sweden, for example, factory-building is the dominant construction method. Japan also has a vibrant prefabricated home industry. While neither country is necessarily analogous to the United States, they demonstrate that prefabricated housing has potential to become a meaningful part of the housing landscape if builders and developers are allowed to utilize it.
Current estimates find the United States is short 7.2 million units that are affordable to extremely low-income renters. While adding housing at any price point helps overall affordability, factory-built housing is particularly well-suited for households seeking quick, low-cost, independent living options. Using this technology to add units in residential areas, both as standalone homes and in combination with other affordability strategies like multifamily development and infill through accessory dwelling units (ADUs), is a promising and largely untapped opportunity. Decades of regulatory barriers have made widespread adoption challenging. Examining both how these regulations came to be and what progress is being made to reverse them can offer insight into how to better incorporate these options into a dynamic and responsive housing market.
Remaining challenges
Like other relatively affordable housing types, among the largest challenges to prefabricated housing today are restrictive zoning laws brought about by aesthetic preferences. Historically, prefabricated construction methods have been associated with low-income housing and, as a result, are often confined to rural areas on city outskirts. Today, 49% of manufactured homes are outside of metropolitan statistical areas, as opposed to only 22% of all single-family homes. Beyond explicit limits on where manufactured housing can be placed, other restrictions are more covert.
Some areas have exorbitant minimum lot size and setback requirements for manufactured homes, simultaneously pushing them to rural areas and nullifying affordability gains. An examination of the zoning code for areas allowing manufactured housing finds that 57% have a minimum lot size of one-half acre or greater per unit. High minimum lot size requirements are associated with higher home prices regardless of construction type. However, these constraints are particularly harmful to factory-built housing because they undermine its core cost advantage and erode the efficiency gains delivered by the construction technology.
Other widespread restrictions include special permit requirements for manufactured homes and additional aesthetic and design standards beyond the HUD code requirements.
Removing these unnecessarily restrictive laws where they persist is one of the most straightforward ways to lower barriers to the adoption of prefabricated housing.
Policy principles and recent policy changes
Policy on factory-built homes should integrate them into the broader housing market instead of legally treating these homes as marginal.
However, despite their potential to expand affordability, governments should avoid subsidizing projects, as recent efforts in California have attempted to do. Effective policy should allow these homes to compete without further distorting the market, either in their favor or against them.
Both on the state and federal level, policymakers have been moving to make it easier to build prefabricated homes and invite innovation in the home-building space. Statewide policies in Florida, Idaho, and Kentucky have been leading the way on limiting discrimination against these homes, while at the federal level, policymakers are rethinking definitions and parameters.
Recent state-level policy changes
Florida House Bill 399 (2026)
Signed into law on March 27, 2026, this law prohibits local governments from denying building permits for manufactured homes based solely on their construction method or regulating them more stringently than comparable site-built homes. It further requires that off-site constructed dwellings be permitted as of right in any zoning district where traditional housing is allowed. This law is especially helpful in the context of Florida's population and housing landscape. The median age of Florida residents is among the highest in the United States, meaning many Floridians rely on fixed incomes. Due to the lower cost and maintenance requirements of manufactured homes, they can be especially useful for aging homeowners. Highlighting this benefit is one of the reasons this push was successful. HB 399 will go into effect on January 1, 2027.
Idaho House Bill 800 (2026)
As part of a sweeping 2026 housing package tackling minimum lot sizes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair apartments, and permitting reform, Idaho included a significant provision for manufactured housing. House Bill 800, signed in April 2026, requires cities to allow manufactured single-unit homes wherever they permit single-family housing, and permits manufactured duplexes in multifamily zones. It further lowers minimum size requirements and clarifies that single-section and smaller units cannot be zoned out. HB 800 goes beyond standard zoning preemption by proactively neutralizing potential local workarounds, such as minimum size requirements, that could be used to undermine the law's provisions. This law took effect on July 1, 2026.
Kentucky House Bill 160 (2025)
Kentucky's House Bill 160 was signed into law on April 1, 2025, and prohibits local governments from adopting or enforcing zoning regulations that treat manufactured homes differently from site-built single-family homes. All architectural standards applied to manufactured homes must be the same as those applied to other single-family homes, and any zoning regulations that violate these provisions are unenforceable. HB 160 took effect on July 1, 2026.
Recent federal action
On July 11, 2026, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law and eliminated the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes.
Since 1974, when the initial HUD code was created, all manufactured homes have had to be built on a permanent steel chassis, which enables easy transportation. This requirement came from the expectation that the advantage of these homes was their mobility. Today, however, "fewer than 5-7 percent of all manufactured homes are ever moved after initial placement," indicating that the requirement functions as an unnecessary cost burden rather than an integral component of the product's definition. Home foundations, which can be permanent or not, are distinct from the chassis, and will still comply with all applicable building codes.
Recent estimates indicate that the permanent chassis requirement increases the cost of a manufactured home by $5,000 to $10,000, as the steel chassis must remain permanently attached to each home rather than being reused to transport multiple units. Eliminating the requirement could, therefore, produce substantial savings for buyers, making manufactured homes even more affordable relative to site-built homes.
The potential benefits, however, extend beyond immediate cost savings. Eliminating the permanent chassis requirement could facilitate the integration of manufactured housing into conventional residential neighborhoods while expanding opportunities to apply factory-built construction techniques to multistory housing. Removing this requirement could greatly expand the architectural possibilities while using the same technology, including making it "easier to build multilevel units or basements, and to have the main levels closer to the ground."
Reforming the permanent chassis requirement is an example of effective federal housing policy. Although land-use decisions and the integration of manufactured housing ultimately remain the responsibility of state and local governments, reforming the federal standards that define manufactured housing removes an unnecessary regulatory barrier to lower-cost construction, ultimately reducing costs for homebuyers.
Takeaways
Policymakers at both the state and federal levels are recognizing the potential of factory-built housing and updating land use rules to better accommodate a strained market in urgent need of new and affordable supply. These legislative changes mark an important policy evolution, with their full effects on manufactured housing production likely to emerge over time. The importance of this and similar legislation is that they reinforce the principle that housing choices, including construction methods, should be determined by buyers and sellers.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/reducing-barriers-to-manufactured-homes/
* * *
Reducing barriers to manufactured homes
Building homes in factories rather than on-site is a way to both expedite construction timelines and reduce the cost of delivering new homes.
-
With the median sale price of a single-family home in the United States reaching $398,771 in May 2026, many buyers are looking for more affordable options. Building homes in factories rather than using traditional on-site building methods is a way to both expedite ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 28 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Eliza Terziev, housing and land use policy analyst: * * * Reducing barriers to manufactured homes Building homes in factories rather than on-site is a way to both expedite construction timelines and reduce the cost of delivering new homes. - With the median sale price of a single-family home in the United States reaching $398,771 in May 2026, many buyers are looking for more affordable options. Building homes in factories rather than using traditional on-site building methods is a way to both expediteconstruction timelines and reduce the cost of delivering new homes.
Prefabricated homes are built partially or entirely off-site and then transported to their final location. A common type is a manufactured home. These homes are built entirely in a factory to standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), so they're often called "HUD-code homes." One of these standards is that they have historically been required to sit on a permanent steel chassis, which is a towable frame used to transport them. That requirement contributes to their lingering association with single-wide trailers, even though many are large, multi-section homes that resemble site-built houses.
Factory-building has substantial cost savings due to lower labor costs, economies of scale, and fewer weather-related delays. Freddie Mac estimates that the per-square-foot cost of building a manufactured home is nearly 48% less than the cost of building a traditional site-built home. In January 2026, the average price of a new manufactured home in the United States was $131,700.
Despite their relative affordability, zoning codes in many areas either exclude manufactured homes or place undue restrictions on them. Rather than let property owners choose a demonstrably safe type of housing to put on their land, local governments impose their aesthetic preferences, arbitrarily limiting Americans' ability to buy and use these homes. In a time of persistent housing affordability challenges, policymakers searching for solutions could start by allowing buyers to determine what type of housing best meets their needs.
The recent history of factory-built housing
While early instances of prefabricated construction methods can be traced to much earlier, factory-built housing gained popularity in the U.S. following World War II. With housing in short supply and the return of soldiers with growing families, trailers and mobile homes were a common choice due to their rapid construction timelines and relatively low cost. Whereas manufactured homes were previously used as recreational vehicles and temporary accommodation, with new demand they came to be seen as long-term housing options.
In response to this popularization, Congress passed the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act in 1974, instructing HUD to create a list of safety standards manufactured housing had to meet. By 1976, the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards became law, preempting all state and local rules for these homes.
Into the 1990s, the prevalence of manufactured homes grew still, especially among low-income families in rural areas in the South, who saw them as a path to homeownership and independence (see Figure 1). However, unsustainable lending practices in this period also led to cascading foreclosures and a resulting surplus of units. Production was even further discouraged by continued foreclosures and economic distress resulting from the 2008 financial crisis. Manufactured homes have yet to regain their peak production quantities (see Figure 2).
* * *
Figure 1: Manufactured housing units shipped to each state (1994-2024)
Figure 2: Total manufactured housing units shipped to each state (1994-2024)
* * *
Despite advantages in both cost and production speed, HUD estimates that today manufactured housing accounts for only 7% of the housing stock in the United States. However, other countries have integrated prefabricated housing more thoroughly. In Sweden, for example, factory-building is the dominant construction method. Japan also has a vibrant prefabricated home industry. While neither country is necessarily analogous to the United States, they demonstrate that prefabricated housing has potential to become a meaningful part of the housing landscape if builders and developers are allowed to utilize it.
Current estimates find the United States is short 7.2 million units that are affordable to extremely low-income renters. While adding housing at any price point helps overall affordability, factory-built housing is particularly well-suited for households seeking quick, low-cost, independent living options. Using this technology to add units in residential areas, both as standalone homes and in combination with other affordability strategies like multifamily development and infill through accessory dwelling units (ADUs), is a promising and largely untapped opportunity. Decades of regulatory barriers have made widespread adoption challenging. Examining both how these regulations came to be and what progress is being made to reverse them can offer insight into how to better incorporate these options into a dynamic and responsive housing market.
Remaining challenges
Like other relatively affordable housing types, among the largest challenges to prefabricated housing today are restrictive zoning laws brought about by aesthetic preferences. Historically, prefabricated construction methods have been associated with low-income housing and, as a result, are often confined to rural areas on city outskirts. Today, 49% of manufactured homes are outside of metropolitan statistical areas, as opposed to only 22% of all single-family homes. Beyond explicit limits on where manufactured housing can be placed, other restrictions are more covert.
Some areas have exorbitant minimum lot size and setback requirements for manufactured homes, simultaneously pushing them to rural areas and nullifying affordability gains. An examination of the zoning code for areas allowing manufactured housing finds that 57% have a minimum lot size of one-half acre or greater per unit. High minimum lot size requirements are associated with higher home prices regardless of construction type. However, these constraints are particularly harmful to factory-built housing because they undermine its core cost advantage and erode the efficiency gains delivered by the construction technology.
Other widespread restrictions include special permit requirements for manufactured homes and additional aesthetic and design standards beyond the HUD code requirements.
Removing these unnecessarily restrictive laws where they persist is one of the most straightforward ways to lower barriers to the adoption of prefabricated housing.
Policy principles and recent policy changes
Policy on factory-built homes should integrate them into the broader housing market instead of legally treating these homes as marginal.
However, despite their potential to expand affordability, governments should avoid subsidizing projects, as recent efforts in California have attempted to do. Effective policy should allow these homes to compete without further distorting the market, either in their favor or against them.
Both on the state and federal level, policymakers have been moving to make it easier to build prefabricated homes and invite innovation in the home-building space. Statewide policies in Florida, Idaho, and Kentucky have been leading the way on limiting discrimination against these homes, while at the federal level, policymakers are rethinking definitions and parameters.
Recent state-level policy changes
Florida House Bill 399 (2026)
Signed into law on March 27, 2026, this law prohibits local governments from denying building permits for manufactured homes based solely on their construction method or regulating them more stringently than comparable site-built homes. It further requires that off-site constructed dwellings be permitted as of right in any zoning district where traditional housing is allowed. This law is especially helpful in the context of Florida's population and housing landscape. The median age of Florida residents is among the highest in the United States, meaning many Floridians rely on fixed incomes. Due to the lower cost and maintenance requirements of manufactured homes, they can be especially useful for aging homeowners. Highlighting this benefit is one of the reasons this push was successful. HB 399 will go into effect on January 1, 2027.
Idaho House Bill 800 (2026)
As part of a sweeping 2026 housing package tackling minimum lot sizes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair apartments, and permitting reform, Idaho included a significant provision for manufactured housing. House Bill 800, signed in April 2026, requires cities to allow manufactured single-unit homes wherever they permit single-family housing, and permits manufactured duplexes in multifamily zones. It further lowers minimum size requirements and clarifies that single-section and smaller units cannot be zoned out. HB 800 goes beyond standard zoning preemption by proactively neutralizing potential local workarounds, such as minimum size requirements, that could be used to undermine the law's provisions. This law took effect on July 1, 2026.
Kentucky House Bill 160 (2025)
Kentucky's House Bill 160 was signed into law on April 1, 2025, and prohibits local governments from adopting or enforcing zoning regulations that treat manufactured homes differently from site-built single-family homes. All architectural standards applied to manufactured homes must be the same as those applied to other single-family homes, and any zoning regulations that violate these provisions are unenforceable. HB 160 took effect on July 1, 2026.
Recent federal action
On July 11, 2026, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law and eliminated the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes.
Since 1974, when the initial HUD code was created, all manufactured homes have had to be built on a permanent steel chassis, which enables easy transportation. This requirement came from the expectation that the advantage of these homes was their mobility. Today, however, "fewer than 5-7 percent of all manufactured homes are ever moved after initial placement," indicating that the requirement functions as an unnecessary cost burden rather than an integral component of the product's definition. Home foundations, which can be permanent or not, are distinct from the chassis, and will still comply with all applicable building codes.
Recent estimates indicate that the permanent chassis requirement increases the cost of a manufactured home by $5,000 to $10,000, as the steel chassis must remain permanently attached to each home rather than being reused to transport multiple units. Eliminating the requirement could, therefore, produce substantial savings for buyers, making manufactured homes even more affordable relative to site-built homes.
The potential benefits, however, extend beyond immediate cost savings. Eliminating the permanent chassis requirement could facilitate the integration of manufactured housing into conventional residential neighborhoods while expanding opportunities to apply factory-built construction techniques to multistory housing. Removing this requirement could greatly expand the architectural possibilities while using the same technology, including making it "easier to build multilevel units or basements, and to have the main levels closer to the ground."
Reforming the permanent chassis requirement is an example of effective federal housing policy. Although land-use decisions and the integration of manufactured housing ultimately remain the responsibility of state and local governments, reforming the federal standards that define manufactured housing removes an unnecessary regulatory barrier to lower-cost construction, ultimately reducing costs for homebuyers.
Takeaways
Policymakers at both the state and federal levels are recognizing the potential of factory-built housing and updating land use rules to better accommodate a strained market in urgent need of new and affordable supply. These legislative changes mark an important policy evolution, with their full effects on manufactured housing production likely to emerge over time. The importance of this and similar legislation is that they reinforce the principle that housing choices, including construction methods, should be determined by buyers and sellers.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/reducing-barriers-to-manufactured-homes/
Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, July 28 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation
Teamsters Local 983 falsely told worker that informing coworkers how to resign was a "federal crime," then fined him for exercising his federally protected rights
-
Pocatello, ID (July 28, 2026) - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a complaint against a Teamsters Local union for illegally threatening a United Parcel Service (UPS) ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, July 28 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation Teamsters Local 983 falsely told worker that informing coworkers how to resign was a "federal crime," then fined him for exercising his federally protected rights - Pocatello, ID (July 28, 2026) - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a complaint against a Teamsters Local union for illegally threatening a United Parcel Service (UPS)worker and fining him after he resigned his union membership and filed federal charges against the union.
The UPS employee, Andrew Davis, filed his charges against the Teamsters with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
According to the July 22 complaint issued by NLRB Region 27, four Teamsters Local 983 officials told Davis in front of other workers that informing employees how to exercise their right to resign their union membership was "illegal" and a "federal crime." This is blatantly false. Federal law protects the right of employees to resign formal union membership at any time and to inform coworkers of that right.
The complaint further states that after Davis submitted his membership resignation in writing, Local 983 officials violated his rights by refusing to promptly honor it. Davis then filed federal charges against the union for the threats.
In response, according to the complaint, Local 983 officials brought internal union "charges" against Davis for filing his NLRB charge, a violation of federal law. Additionally, this past April, the union issued a fine against Davis, even though he was no longer a union member and had the right, under federal law, to go to the NLRB.
The NLRB complaint states that Local 983 has maintained unlawful rules barring members from seeking recourse from any outside court or agency, including the NLRB, without first exhausting internal union appeals. Union officials invoked that rule to retaliate against Davis for exercising his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
The Regional Director for NLRB Region 27 has determined the charges have merit and issued a formal complaint. A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge is scheduled for September 15, 2026, unless the Teamsters back down and settle beforehand.
"Union bosses lied to Mr. Davis and his coworkers about basic legal rights, then punished him for daring to go to federal authorities," said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. "Even after being caught red handed lying to workers and violating Mr. Davis' rights, Teamsters union bosses continued to double down on their unlawful coercion by attempting to fine him for defending his rights at the NLRB.
"Once again Teamsters bosses show their true colors, prioritizing their own power, even when it means violating the rights of the very rank-and-file workers they claim to 'represent,'" added Mix.
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintShare
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/idaho-ups-teamsters-prosecution-0728-2026/
* * *
Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation
Teamsters Local 983 falsely told worker that informing coworkers how to resign was a "federal crime," then fined him for exercising his federally protected rights
-
Pocatello, ID (July 28, 2026) - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a complaint against a Teamsters Local union for illegally threatening a United Parcel Service (UPS) ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, July 28 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation Teamsters Local 983 falsely told worker that informing coworkers how to resign was a "federal crime," then fined him for exercising his federally protected rights - Pocatello, ID (July 28, 2026) - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a complaint against a Teamsters Local union for illegally threatening a United Parcel Service (UPS)worker and fining him after he resigned his union membership and filed federal charges against the union.
The UPS employee, Andrew Davis, filed his charges against the Teamsters with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
According to the July 22 complaint issued by NLRB Region 27, four Teamsters Local 983 officials told Davis in front of other workers that informing employees how to exercise their right to resign their union membership was "illegal" and a "federal crime." This is blatantly false. Federal law protects the right of employees to resign formal union membership at any time and to inform coworkers of that right.
The complaint further states that after Davis submitted his membership resignation in writing, Local 983 officials violated his rights by refusing to promptly honor it. Davis then filed federal charges against the union for the threats.
In response, according to the complaint, Local 983 officials brought internal union "charges" against Davis for filing his NLRB charge, a violation of federal law. Additionally, this past April, the union issued a fine against Davis, even though he was no longer a union member and had the right, under federal law, to go to the NLRB.
The NLRB complaint states that Local 983 has maintained unlawful rules barring members from seeking recourse from any outside court or agency, including the NLRB, without first exhausting internal union appeals. Union officials invoked that rule to retaliate against Davis for exercising his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
The Regional Director for NLRB Region 27 has determined the charges have merit and issued a formal complaint. A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge is scheduled for September 15, 2026, unless the Teamsters back down and settle beforehand.
"Union bosses lied to Mr. Davis and his coworkers about basic legal rights, then punished him for daring to go to federal authorities," said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. "Even after being caught red handed lying to workers and violating Mr. Davis' rights, Teamsters union bosses continued to double down on their unlawful coercion by attempting to fine him for defending his rights at the NLRB.
"Once again Teamsters bosses show their true colors, prioritizing their own power, even when it means violating the rights of the very rank-and-file workers they claim to 'represent,'" added Mix.
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintShare
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/idaho-ups-teamsters-prosecution-0728-2026/
Greater Cincinnati Foundation: Recognizing Remarkable Community Champions
CINCINNATI, July 28 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Recognizing remarkable community champions
Greater Cincinnati Foundation has a long and rich history of creating regional impact. This work is only made possible by the multitude of generous people who have given their time, talent, and treasure toward building a brighter future. We proudly recognize three of these remarkable individuals each year through our Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award, Bridge Builder Award, and The Devou Cup.
Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award
This year's Jacob ... Show Full Article CINCINNATI, July 28 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news: * * * Recognizing remarkable community champions Greater Cincinnati Foundation has a long and rich history of creating regional impact. This work is only made possible by the multitude of generous people who have given their time, talent, and treasure toward building a brighter future. We proudly recognize three of these remarkable individuals each year through our Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award, Bridge Builder Award, and The Devou Cup. Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award This year's JacobE. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award honors Dr. Donald C. Harrison.
The Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award honors community champions who exemplify leadership, vision, creativity and generosity. Named for GCF's first Governing Board chair and volunteer director, the award celebrates Jacob E. Davis's enduring legacy of service, philanthropy and community impact.
Dr. Harrison is a renowned cardiologist, academic leader, and entrepreneur whose career in medicine spans more than 50 years. Raised in Alabama's Appalachian region, he became one of the world's most respected cardiologists. He led the University of Cincinnati Medical Center through significant growth, overseeing more than 1,000 faculty members and over $240 million in funded research. A pioneer in advancing treatments for heart disease, he founded or co-founded six medical technology companies and served on 12 corporate boards.
In 2006, he and his family established the Donald C. and Laura M. Harrison Family Foundation. The foundation's mission is to help launch innovative educational programs for primary, secondary, and adult education, with an emphasis on helping underserved people. Since its inception, the foundation has granted over $2.6 million.
Bridge Builder Award
This year's Bridge Builder Award recognizes Jody Brant.
Since its inception, GCF has had the privilege of working with many professionals, including estate planners, financial advisors, insurance professionals and others, who connect their charitably inclined clients with GCF's resources. The Bridge Builder Award recognizes a professional advisor who has been a GCF supporter in multiple ways over many years.
Jody Brant is president and CEO of Katz Teller and maintains an active practice in estate, wealth, and tax planning, with a focus on helping families, individuals, and business owners achieve their charitable goals and plan their legacies. He currently serves on the boards of Cincinnati Squash Academy, The Christ Hospital Foundation, the Cincinnati Country Day School Foundation, and the Mayerson JCC. Jody has also chaired the boards of Easterseals Tristate, Jewish Vocational Service and Cincinnati Country Day School, helping guide strategic growth and nonprofit partnerships throughout the community.
He and his wife Debbie have two daughters, Samantha and Nora.
The Devou Cup
This year's Devou Cup celebrates The Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr. Foundation.
The Devou Cup was created in 2004 by The Northern Kentucky Fund to honor the generosity of a donor who has made a profound difference in the quality of community life in Northern Kentucky. The award was named in honor of the generosity exemplified by William Devou, a 19th-century philanthropist.
The Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr. Foundation is a private charitable foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life in our region through collaboration, innovation, and strategic grantmaking. Inspired by the vision, passion, and generosity of Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, the Foundation supports transformative initiatives in education; arts and culture; human services; and civic and community development and engagement.
For years, The Haile Foundation has partnered with GCF to invest in lasting community impact, most recently awarding $1 million in grants in Northern Kentucky through the Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr. Foundation Northern Kentucky Fund of GCF.
Thank you to all our award winners and the scores of generous people who make a difference in our region today and for generations to come.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.gcfdn.org/blog/recognizing-remarkable-community-champions/
* * *
Recognizing remarkable community champions
Greater Cincinnati Foundation has a long and rich history of creating regional impact. This work is only made possible by the multitude of generous people who have given their time, talent, and treasure toward building a brighter future. We proudly recognize three of these remarkable individuals each year through our Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award, Bridge Builder Award, and The Devou Cup.
Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award
This year's Jacob ... Show Full Article CINCINNATI, July 28 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news: * * * Recognizing remarkable community champions Greater Cincinnati Foundation has a long and rich history of creating regional impact. This work is only made possible by the multitude of generous people who have given their time, talent, and treasure toward building a brighter future. We proudly recognize three of these remarkable individuals each year through our Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award, Bridge Builder Award, and The Devou Cup. Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award This year's JacobE. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award honors Dr. Donald C. Harrison.
The Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award honors community champions who exemplify leadership, vision, creativity and generosity. Named for GCF's first Governing Board chair and volunteer director, the award celebrates Jacob E. Davis's enduring legacy of service, philanthropy and community impact.
Dr. Harrison is a renowned cardiologist, academic leader, and entrepreneur whose career in medicine spans more than 50 years. Raised in Alabama's Appalachian region, he became one of the world's most respected cardiologists. He led the University of Cincinnati Medical Center through significant growth, overseeing more than 1,000 faculty members and over $240 million in funded research. A pioneer in advancing treatments for heart disease, he founded or co-founded six medical technology companies and served on 12 corporate boards.
In 2006, he and his family established the Donald C. and Laura M. Harrison Family Foundation. The foundation's mission is to help launch innovative educational programs for primary, secondary, and adult education, with an emphasis on helping underserved people. Since its inception, the foundation has granted over $2.6 million.
Bridge Builder Award
This year's Bridge Builder Award recognizes Jody Brant.
Since its inception, GCF has had the privilege of working with many professionals, including estate planners, financial advisors, insurance professionals and others, who connect their charitably inclined clients with GCF's resources. The Bridge Builder Award recognizes a professional advisor who has been a GCF supporter in multiple ways over many years.
Jody Brant is president and CEO of Katz Teller and maintains an active practice in estate, wealth, and tax planning, with a focus on helping families, individuals, and business owners achieve their charitable goals and plan their legacies. He currently serves on the boards of Cincinnati Squash Academy, The Christ Hospital Foundation, the Cincinnati Country Day School Foundation, and the Mayerson JCC. Jody has also chaired the boards of Easterseals Tristate, Jewish Vocational Service and Cincinnati Country Day School, helping guide strategic growth and nonprofit partnerships throughout the community.
He and his wife Debbie have two daughters, Samantha and Nora.
The Devou Cup
This year's Devou Cup celebrates The Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr. Foundation.
The Devou Cup was created in 2004 by The Northern Kentucky Fund to honor the generosity of a donor who has made a profound difference in the quality of community life in Northern Kentucky. The award was named in honor of the generosity exemplified by William Devou, a 19th-century philanthropist.
The Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr. Foundation is a private charitable foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life in our region through collaboration, innovation, and strategic grantmaking. Inspired by the vision, passion, and generosity of Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, the Foundation supports transformative initiatives in education; arts and culture; human services; and civic and community development and engagement.
For years, The Haile Foundation has partnered with GCF to invest in lasting community impact, most recently awarding $1 million in grants in Northern Kentucky through the Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr. Foundation Northern Kentucky Fund of GCF.
Thank you to all our award winners and the scores of generous people who make a difference in our region today and for generations to come.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.gcfdn.org/blog/recognizing-remarkable-community-champions/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: How Net Zero Helped Bring Down British Steel
DETROIT, Michigan, July 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal:
* * *
How Net Zero Helped Bring Down British Steel
Nationalization shifts risk to taxpayers.
-
The UK government has completed the forced nationalization of British Steel, the company that owns the Scunthorpe plant in Lincolnshire, the last facility in the United Kingdom capable of producing virgin steel in traditional blast furnaces. Celebrated by sectors on both the left and the right, this move represents a definitive ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal: * * * How Net Zero Helped Bring Down British Steel Nationalization shifts risk to taxpayers. - The UK government has completed the forced nationalization of British Steel, the company that owns the Scunthorpe plant in Lincolnshire, the last facility in the United Kingdom capable of producing virgin steel in traditional blast furnaces. Celebrated by sectors on both the left and the right, this move represents a definitivetransfer of risk from private shareholders to taxpayers, ignoring that many of the problems that led to it were largely created by the state itself and its aggressive green policies.
The UK government passed the Steel Industry (Nationalization) Act, a law designed specifically to enable the expropriation of British Steel. On July 16, 2026, just one day after the act received royal assent, the company formally passed into state ownership. Scunthorpe left the control of the Chinese private group Jingye and became public property. This is, in practice, an expropriation disguised as public interest, officially justified by national security concerns in the context of the war in Ukraine and American tariffs on steel. However, there is more to say about the reasons behind the nationalization.
The government had already been directing operations since April 2025, after Jingye found itself unable to reconcile the environmental requirements imposed by the state with its natural goal of making a profit. According to the National Audit Office (NAO), British taxpayers spent pound sterling377 million ($509 million) between April 2025 and January 2026 to keep the plant open, roughly pound sterling1.3 million ($1.76 million) per day, with no fixed budget and no exit date for state support. The NAO projected that spending would reach pound sterling615 million ($830 million) by June 2026 and could exceed pound sterling1.5 billion ($2.03 billion) by 2028 if the current pace continued. The situation was, and remains, a bottomless pit.
It is important to note that net-zero policies were not the only cause of British Steel's difficulties. External factors, such as massive Chinese overproduction and tariffs imposed by the United States, also worsened the situation. Nevertheless, domestic decarbonization policies played a fundamental role in the outcome.
To meet emissions-reduction targets, the government promoted renewable energy through high subsidies and introduced the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, a system that forces companies that emit carbon dioxide to buy emissions allowances, creating an additional cost for carbon-intensive industries.
These measures made industrial electricity significantly more expensive, directly affecting the business. Producing steel from iron ore in blast furnaces is an extremely energy-intensive process. In the United Kingdom, industrial electricity prices have become among the highest in Europe. According to data from the industry body UK Steel, the average price paid by British steelmakers in 2025-26 was pound sterling59.48 ($80.30) per megawatt-hour, compared to pound sterling52.04 ($70.25) in Germany and pound sterling47.76 ($64.48) in France. As a result, British companies currently pay more for electricity than their direct competitors, making British Steel's blast furnaces structurally uncompetitive.
If, on one hand, the state created many of the conditions that made the business unviable, then, on the other, it presented itself as the savior through forced nationalization by legislative decree.
While British Steel was under private ownership, Jingye had a direct interest in good management, maximizing production and profit where viable, or exiting the operation if it was not. This alignment between risk and control is what allows markets to identify and eliminate economically unsustainable activities. Market incentives do not guarantee that all decisions are correct, but they ensure that those who decide poorly largely bear the cost of that decision.
This accountability disappears with nationalization. What was once a private problem becomes one funded by all taxpayers.
Although the Steel Industry (Nationalization) Act was tailor-made for British Steel, setting a precedent for the future, this nationalization does not currently mean the nationalization of the entire British steel industry. The Port Talbot plant, operated by Tata Steel in Wales, remains in private hands. However, Scunthorpe was the last unit with traditional blast furnaces for virgin steel production. While Port Talbot accepted a state support package to transition to electric arc furnaces, a move that also involved substantial job losses, Jingye resisted the transition, which it considered economically unsustainable under the imposed conditions. This resistance ultimately led to the full nationalization.
The state can now subsidize the plant indefinitely because politicians do not directly bear the cost of their choices. Politicians respond to electoral and media incentives. Protecting visible jobs in a specific region and invoking national security makes perfect sense from a political strategy perspective, but not from an economic one.
Furthermore, a foreign investor like Jingye, which injected more than a billion pounds into the United Kingdom, now sees its asset taken by the state against its will, after having been heavily constrained by rules imposed by that same state. Jingye is claiming compensation, with industry sources pointing to more than pound sterling1 billion ($1.35 billion) in debts and losses. The British government has already signaled that it may limit or refuse this payment, generating diplomatic tensions with China. This precedent weakens the security of property rights in the country.
If the state can expropriate a private company because it cannot meet the regulatory and energy requirements that the state itself imposed, and then unilaterally decide how much, or whether, to pay for it, all investors, domestic and foreign, understand that investing carries an inherent risk in the United Kingdom.
* * *
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/how-net-zero-helped-bring-down-british-steel/
* * *
How Net Zero Helped Bring Down British Steel
Nationalization shifts risk to taxpayers.
-
The UK government has completed the forced nationalization of British Steel, the company that owns the Scunthorpe plant in Lincolnshire, the last facility in the United Kingdom capable of producing virgin steel in traditional blast furnaces. Celebrated by sectors on both the left and the right, this move represents a definitive ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal: * * * How Net Zero Helped Bring Down British Steel Nationalization shifts risk to taxpayers. - The UK government has completed the forced nationalization of British Steel, the company that owns the Scunthorpe plant in Lincolnshire, the last facility in the United Kingdom capable of producing virgin steel in traditional blast furnaces. Celebrated by sectors on both the left and the right, this move represents a definitivetransfer of risk from private shareholders to taxpayers, ignoring that many of the problems that led to it were largely created by the state itself and its aggressive green policies.
The UK government passed the Steel Industry (Nationalization) Act, a law designed specifically to enable the expropriation of British Steel. On July 16, 2026, just one day after the act received royal assent, the company formally passed into state ownership. Scunthorpe left the control of the Chinese private group Jingye and became public property. This is, in practice, an expropriation disguised as public interest, officially justified by national security concerns in the context of the war in Ukraine and American tariffs on steel. However, there is more to say about the reasons behind the nationalization.
The government had already been directing operations since April 2025, after Jingye found itself unable to reconcile the environmental requirements imposed by the state with its natural goal of making a profit. According to the National Audit Office (NAO), British taxpayers spent pound sterling377 million ($509 million) between April 2025 and January 2026 to keep the plant open, roughly pound sterling1.3 million ($1.76 million) per day, with no fixed budget and no exit date for state support. The NAO projected that spending would reach pound sterling615 million ($830 million) by June 2026 and could exceed pound sterling1.5 billion ($2.03 billion) by 2028 if the current pace continued. The situation was, and remains, a bottomless pit.
It is important to note that net-zero policies were not the only cause of British Steel's difficulties. External factors, such as massive Chinese overproduction and tariffs imposed by the United States, also worsened the situation. Nevertheless, domestic decarbonization policies played a fundamental role in the outcome.
To meet emissions-reduction targets, the government promoted renewable energy through high subsidies and introduced the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, a system that forces companies that emit carbon dioxide to buy emissions allowances, creating an additional cost for carbon-intensive industries.
These measures made industrial electricity significantly more expensive, directly affecting the business. Producing steel from iron ore in blast furnaces is an extremely energy-intensive process. In the United Kingdom, industrial electricity prices have become among the highest in Europe. According to data from the industry body UK Steel, the average price paid by British steelmakers in 2025-26 was pound sterling59.48 ($80.30) per megawatt-hour, compared to pound sterling52.04 ($70.25) in Germany and pound sterling47.76 ($64.48) in France. As a result, British companies currently pay more for electricity than their direct competitors, making British Steel's blast furnaces structurally uncompetitive.
If, on one hand, the state created many of the conditions that made the business unviable, then, on the other, it presented itself as the savior through forced nationalization by legislative decree.
While British Steel was under private ownership, Jingye had a direct interest in good management, maximizing production and profit where viable, or exiting the operation if it was not. This alignment between risk and control is what allows markets to identify and eliminate economically unsustainable activities. Market incentives do not guarantee that all decisions are correct, but they ensure that those who decide poorly largely bear the cost of that decision.
This accountability disappears with nationalization. What was once a private problem becomes one funded by all taxpayers.
Although the Steel Industry (Nationalization) Act was tailor-made for British Steel, setting a precedent for the future, this nationalization does not currently mean the nationalization of the entire British steel industry. The Port Talbot plant, operated by Tata Steel in Wales, remains in private hands. However, Scunthorpe was the last unit with traditional blast furnaces for virgin steel production. While Port Talbot accepted a state support package to transition to electric arc furnaces, a move that also involved substantial job losses, Jingye resisted the transition, which it considered economically unsustainable under the imposed conditions. This resistance ultimately led to the full nationalization.
The state can now subsidize the plant indefinitely because politicians do not directly bear the cost of their choices. Politicians respond to electoral and media incentives. Protecting visible jobs in a specific region and invoking national security makes perfect sense from a political strategy perspective, but not from an economic one.
Furthermore, a foreign investor like Jingye, which injected more than a billion pounds into the United Kingdom, now sees its asset taken by the state against its will, after having been heavily constrained by rules imposed by that same state. Jingye is claiming compensation, with industry sources pointing to more than pound sterling1 billion ($1.35 billion) in debts and losses. The British government has already signaled that it may limit or refuse this payment, generating diplomatic tensions with China. This precedent weakens the security of property rights in the country.
If the state can expropriate a private company because it cannot meet the regulatory and energy requirements that the state itself imposed, and then unilaterally decide how much, or whether, to pay for it, all investors, domestic and foreign, understand that investing carries an inherent risk in the United Kingdom.
* * *
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/how-net-zero-helped-bring-down-british-steel/
Foundation Fighting Blindness Urges Withdrawal of New Federal Funding Rule to Prioritize Patient Health
COLUMBIA, Maryland, July 28 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news:
* * *
Foundation Fighting Blindness urges withdrawal of new federal funding rule to prioritize patient health
Biomedical research grants should be awarded based on scientific peer review
-
The Foundation Fighting Blindness is the world's leading private funder of research into inherited retinal diseases and dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD). Over fifty years of strategic investments, we have helped advance numerous scientific discoveries from the laboratory into clinical development, including ... Show Full Article COLUMBIA, Maryland, July 28 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news: * * * Foundation Fighting Blindness urges withdrawal of new federal funding rule to prioritize patient health Biomedical research grants should be awarded based on scientific peer review - The Foundation Fighting Blindness is the world's leading private funder of research into inherited retinal diseases and dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD). Over fifty years of strategic investments, we have helped advance numerous scientific discoveries from the laboratory into clinical development, includingresearch that ultimately contributed to the first FDA-approved gene therapy for an inherited disease. Our mission depends upon a strong partnership among private philanthropy, academic institutions, biotechnology companies, and federal research agencies.
For patients living with blinding inherited retinal diseases and dry AMD--many of whom have no approved treatment and face irreversible vision loss--predictability in the federal research system directly affects whether promising therapies reach patients.
The Office of Management and Budget's proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, fundamentally alters the longstanding framework governing federal financial assistance in ways that would undermine the biomedical research enterprise, create substantial uncertainty for research institutions and patient organizations, and jeopardize the public-private partnerships that have driven decades of medical innovation.
Because these changes will ultimately hurt patients awaiting new treatments to slow down or reverse vision loss, we respectfully urge OMB to preserve scientific peer review as the primary basis for awarding biomedical research grants.
As written, the proposed rule would implement the following changes:
* Upend merit-based scientific review by authorizing additional political review of awards that have already undergone rigorous scientific evaluation and the ability to change agency priorities after completing the peer-review process.
* Allow for ad-hoc termination of awards, permitting agencies to terminate discretionary awards when they decide that doing so serves agency priorities or the national interest, instead of terminating awards based on scientific performance or recipient compliance.
* Weaken public-private research partnerships that drive rare disease research by introducing uncertainty into federal funding. Rare disease research typically has limited commercial incentives and instead relies on private investments, which in turn look to federal funding for certainty.
* Put congressional funding for research at odds with presidential policy. It is unclear what happens when presidential priorities are not aligned with the funding Congress has already appropriated for disease-specific research programs.
The proposed revisions represent some of the most significant changes to the federal grants framework in many years and would affect nearly every recipient of federal financial assistance. They carry implications for universities, non-profits, patient advocacy organizations, research institutions, and federal agencies. Changes have the potential to disrupt ongoing clinical research involving patients and delay development of therapies for rare diseases where only a handful of research programs may exist.
Patients with inherited retinal diseases and dry AMD depend on a stable, predictable, and scientifically driven federal research enterprise. Given the major implications of the proposed rules, Foundation Fighting Blindness has submitted comments to OMB requesting that they withdraw the proposed rule and, if additional reforms are deemed necessary, engage stakeholders through a new rulemaking process that preserves merit-based scientific review, respects congressional intent, and strengthens--not weakens--the research ecosystem that is essential to delivering new therapies to patients.
While the public comment submission period to the OMB rule is formally closed, there is still time to contact your elected representative with concerns about how the proposed rule impacts the scientific enterprise and what it means for patients who rely on it to develop new treatments.
Read our full comments here (https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:89514da7-c97c-48b5-a235-696cd892f020).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fightingblindness.org/news/foundation-fighting-blindness-urges-withdrawal-of-new-federal-funding-rule-to-prioritize-patient-health-4303
* * *
Foundation Fighting Blindness urges withdrawal of new federal funding rule to prioritize patient health
Biomedical research grants should be awarded based on scientific peer review
-
The Foundation Fighting Blindness is the world's leading private funder of research into inherited retinal diseases and dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD). Over fifty years of strategic investments, we have helped advance numerous scientific discoveries from the laboratory into clinical development, including ... Show Full Article COLUMBIA, Maryland, July 28 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news: * * * Foundation Fighting Blindness urges withdrawal of new federal funding rule to prioritize patient health Biomedical research grants should be awarded based on scientific peer review - The Foundation Fighting Blindness is the world's leading private funder of research into inherited retinal diseases and dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD). Over fifty years of strategic investments, we have helped advance numerous scientific discoveries from the laboratory into clinical development, includingresearch that ultimately contributed to the first FDA-approved gene therapy for an inherited disease. Our mission depends upon a strong partnership among private philanthropy, academic institutions, biotechnology companies, and federal research agencies.
For patients living with blinding inherited retinal diseases and dry AMD--many of whom have no approved treatment and face irreversible vision loss--predictability in the federal research system directly affects whether promising therapies reach patients.
The Office of Management and Budget's proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, fundamentally alters the longstanding framework governing federal financial assistance in ways that would undermine the biomedical research enterprise, create substantial uncertainty for research institutions and patient organizations, and jeopardize the public-private partnerships that have driven decades of medical innovation.
Because these changes will ultimately hurt patients awaiting new treatments to slow down or reverse vision loss, we respectfully urge OMB to preserve scientific peer review as the primary basis for awarding biomedical research grants.
As written, the proposed rule would implement the following changes:
* Upend merit-based scientific review by authorizing additional political review of awards that have already undergone rigorous scientific evaluation and the ability to change agency priorities after completing the peer-review process.
* Allow for ad-hoc termination of awards, permitting agencies to terminate discretionary awards when they decide that doing so serves agency priorities or the national interest, instead of terminating awards based on scientific performance or recipient compliance.
* Weaken public-private research partnerships that drive rare disease research by introducing uncertainty into federal funding. Rare disease research typically has limited commercial incentives and instead relies on private investments, which in turn look to federal funding for certainty.
* Put congressional funding for research at odds with presidential policy. It is unclear what happens when presidential priorities are not aligned with the funding Congress has already appropriated for disease-specific research programs.
The proposed revisions represent some of the most significant changes to the federal grants framework in many years and would affect nearly every recipient of federal financial assistance. They carry implications for universities, non-profits, patient advocacy organizations, research institutions, and federal agencies. Changes have the potential to disrupt ongoing clinical research involving patients and delay development of therapies for rare diseases where only a handful of research programs may exist.
Patients with inherited retinal diseases and dry AMD depend on a stable, predictable, and scientifically driven federal research enterprise. Given the major implications of the proposed rules, Foundation Fighting Blindness has submitted comments to OMB requesting that they withdraw the proposed rule and, if additional reforms are deemed necessary, engage stakeholders through a new rulemaking process that preserves merit-based scientific review, respects congressional intent, and strengthens--not weakens--the research ecosystem that is essential to delivering new therapies to patients.
While the public comment submission period to the OMB rule is formally closed, there is still time to contact your elected representative with concerns about how the proposed rule impacts the scientific enterprise and what it means for patients who rely on it to develop new treatments.
Read our full comments here (https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:89514da7-c97c-48b5-a235-696cd892f020).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fightingblindness.org/news/foundation-fighting-blindness-urges-withdrawal-of-new-federal-funding-rule-to-prioritize-patient-health-4303