Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
SLF Sues New York AG Letitia James in Federal Court for Threatening School Board Members With Removal If They Allow Debate About Trans Athletes in K-12 Schools
ROSWELL, Georgia, Dec. 10 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 9, 2025:* * *
SLF sues New York AG Letitia James in federal court for threatening school board members with removal if they allow debate about trans athletes in K-12 schools
New York Attorney General Letitia James was sued in federal court today for her threats to remove school board members from office if they publicly spoke - or allowed public discussion at school board meetings - about trans students using the locker rooms of their opposite biological sex. The threats by James in a "guidance ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Dec. 10 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 9, 2025: * * * SLF sues New York AG Letitia James in federal court for threatening school board members with removal if they allow debate about trans athletes in K-12 schools New York Attorney General Letitia James was sued in federal court today for her threats to remove school board members from office if they publicly spoke - or allowed public discussion at school board meetings - about trans students using the locker rooms of their opposite biological sex. The threats by James in a "guidanceletter" include the removal of any school board member who uses the wrong pronoun for a trans person, or if they allow students to publicly speak out at school board meetings about their fears and discomfort with student trans athletes using the wrong locker room for their biological sex.
This new lawsuit is especially timely, as there is a current ongoing public debate at the Massapequa School Board about the accommodations for trans athletes and the experiences of female students there who have to change in a locker room with a trans athlete who is a biological male. One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit is Kerry Wachter, who serves as the chair of the Massapequa Union Free School District.
The new federal case against the NY AG was filed today by the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a national nonprofit of top attorneys that regularly defend constitutional rights. The case is on behalf of several parties, including: Kerry Wachter, the Massapequa School Board President; Danielle Ciampino, a member of the Rotterdam-Mohonasen Central School District Board of Education; Sarah Rouse, a mother of students in the Rockville Centre Union Free School District; and Issac Kuo, a father of students in the Rockville Centre Union Free School District. The case is filed against not only AG James, but also New York Commissioner of Education Betty Rosa, and the members of the New York State Board of Regents.
SLF President Kim Hermann said, "Kerry Wachter has allowed Massapequa High School students to speak up and express their fears and discomforts with biological males changing in their girls locker room, even when there is a gender neutral locker room available at the school that the student does not use. Because she has allowed these students to speak about their experiences, which they said often distract them from learning throughout the school day, she now faces forced removal from her elected position to the school board because of the anti-free speech actions and policies of the State of New York."
Hermann continued, "Letitia James' policies that say students cannot speak at their own school board meetings about the stress and problematic policies around accommodating trans athletes are anti-American and anti-constitutional. Letitia James' policies that say school board members in New York can be removed from office just for using the biologically correct pronoun for a trans student are not only repressive but blatantly disregard the value of free speech for the citizens she represents."
The federal lawsuit states that the plaintiffs in the case, including Watcher, are asking, "the Court to declare that Attorney General James, Commissioner Rosa, and the members of the New York State Board of Regents cannot outlaw or threaten their viewpoints at school board meetings on important issues related to student safety and opportunity. Plaintiffs ask this Court for an injunction against Defendants' censorship."
About Wachter specifically, the complaint states, "Ms. Wachter intends to allow parents and community members to speak viewpoints the Guidance Letter prohibits. Ms. Wachter also intends to allow parents and community members to speak viewpoints supported by and articulated in the Guidance Letter. Ms. Wachter also intends to continue allowing parents and community members to use pronouns that correspond to third persons' biological sex, or to use preferred pronouns...The Guidance Letter threatens Ms. Wachter's intended course of action with removal from office."
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/slf-sues-new-york-ag-letitia-james-in-federal-court-for-threatening-school-board-members-with-removal-if-they-allow-debate-about-trans-athletes-in-k-12-schools/
Madeira: Europe's Forgotten Miracle
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:* * *
Madeira: Europe's Forgotten Miracle
The island that thrived on lower taxes.
By Claudia Ascensao Nunes
In 1978, a tiny, dirt-poor Atlantic island of 250,000 souls decided to do the one thing Brussels now treats as heresy...
It cut its corporate tax rate to the bone and built Europe's last genuine special economic zone.
And now, 47 years and countless European Union investigations later, that same island shows the opposite of decline: its GDP has quadrupled since 1995; it has narrowed the ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news: * * * Madeira: Europe's Forgotten Miracle The island that thrived on lower taxes. By Claudia Ascensao Nunes In 1978, a tiny, dirt-poor Atlantic island of 250,000 souls decided to do the one thing Brussels now treats as heresy... It cut its corporate tax rate to the bone and built Europe's last genuine special economic zone. And now, 47 years and countless European Union investigations later, that same island shows the opposite of decline: its GDP has quadrupled since 1995; it has narrowed thegap with the European average by more than 20 percentage points; unemployment in recent years has fallen below mainland levels; and its 5% corporate tax regime has been legally renewed until 2033.
No oil. No tech miracle. No massive subsidies. Just lower taxes and the freedom to keep the money you earn. This is the story Europe's central planners don't want you to hear.
Half a century ago, the Portuguese island of Madeira was one of the poorest places in Europe: double-digit unemployment, mass emigration, suitcases made of cardboard, and an economy that barely went beyond bananas, Madeira wine, and handicrafts. Insularity was not a postcard feature, but a structural obstacle to any serious development.
Then came regional autonomy in 1976. Shortly after, in 1978, the newly elected regional president, the larger-than-life Alberto Joao Jardim, put forward a simple and, at the time, radical idea: "We cannot change geography, so let's change the tax code." Jardim would go on to govern the island for the next 37 years.
Lisbon said yes. The Portuguese government knew that sporadic subsidies and public works projects would never solve a deep structural problem. Moreover, given that Portugal was preparing to join the European Economic Community, it needed a credible development plan for its poorest regions. The EEC of the late 1970s and early 1980s, far more liberal than today's European Union, not only validated the project but explicitly classified it as a legitimate instrument of territorial cohesion.
And so the Madeira International Business Centre (commonly known as the Madeira Free Zone) was born: sharply reduced corporate income tax, exemptions in the industrial free-trade area of Canical, and a competitive regime for international services. All of this capped off with the strategic masterpiece, the International Ship Registry of Madeira (MAR) with low fees, flexible legislation, and unquestionable EU flag credibility. Add lightning-fast administrative procedures, one-stop licensing, and full freedom to repatriate capital and profits. Madeira stopped competing on location and started competing on tax intelligence.
The economic impact was nothing short of profound. Within a few years, the island ceased to depend almost exclusively on agriculture and tourism. It became a respected European hub for international business services and maritime activities.
Management consultancies, holding companies, logistics operators, yacht-management firms, and tech companies moved in. The MAR registry attracted shipowners from Greece, Germany, Scandinavia, and the world's largest cruise and cargo operators, turning Madeira into one of the largest and most respected open registries in Europe.
Unemployment fell steadily to levels consistently lower than on the Portuguese mainland. Tax revenue soared, not because rates were high, but because the tax base exploded with new investment, new companies, and genuine economic activity. Between 1995 and 2022, Madeira's GDP grew at an average annual rate of 5.2%,comfortably beating mainland Portugal's 3.9% (both nominal; DREM/INE long series, 2024).
To understand just how dramatic the turnaround was, consider that in the late 1970s, Madeira's GDP per capita was barely 40% of the European average. By 2023 it had soared to roughly 75% of the EU average, a near-doubling in relative terms while receiving far less in EU structural and cohesion funds per capita than almost any other ultra-peripheral region.
The International Ship Registry alone is now the third-largest in Europe and the flagship of choice for several of the world's top twenty cruise companies. More than 1,000 vessels fly the Madeira flag, generating hundreds of millions of euros annually in registration fees, legal services, classification societies, and maritime insurance, almost all of it new money that did not exist on the island before 1987.
Meanwhile, the broader International Business Centre hosts over 2,500 licensed companies, many of them subsidiaries of Fortune 500 groups that use Madeira as their European holding or treasury platform. These firms directly employ several thousand highly skilled Madeirans (with an average salary well above the Portuguese mainland) and sustain an ecosystem of law firms, auditors, trust companies, and IT providers that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago.
Perhaps the most telling statistic: in 1970, roughly one in four working-age Madeirans lived abroad. Today, the diaspora still exists, but net migration is positive, and the island regularly appears in the top three Portuguese regions for new business creation per capita.
That success made Brussels deeply uncomfortable. Starting in the 1990s, the European Commission launched repeated investigations for "excessive state aid." Caps were imposed, reports were commissioned, local job-creation quotas were demanded. Nothing managed to kill the regime. In 2015, the Commission tried again, this time requiring "economic substance": real offices, real employees, real activity physically located on the island. The irony is delicious: the rule designed to weaken the zone ended up strengthening it. Companies opened proper offices, hired Madeirans, and rooted themselves in the local economy.
To abolish the regime outright, Brussels would have to renegotiate and rewrite the EU treaties themselves, a political mountain no one in the Commission has ever been willing to climb.
Today, in a Europe that has spent the last 15 years systematically crushing every remaining pocket of tax competition and that proudly led the charge for the OECD's global 15% minimum corporate tax, Portugal has just renewed Madeira's 5% rate until 2033. The island remains the only territory in the entire EU with a fully fledged, fully legal special economic zone, that has been repeatedly attacked, yet repeatedly renewed, for the simple reason that it works.
This should not be treated as an exotic exception. It should be the rule.
More than a stunning tourist destination or the birthplace of Cristiano Ronaldo, Madeira is living proof that competitive tax policy can transform a remote, peripheral, resource-poor region into an economic success story. Brussels fears the precedent precisely because it dismantles the central dogma of tax harmonization: tax competition does not destroy states.
It builds them.
* * *
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/madeira-europes-forgotten-miracle/
LAWSUIT: Tennessee state employee sues after unlawful firing for Charlie Kirk post
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Dec. 10 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:* * *
LAWSUIT: Tennessee state employee sues after unlawful firing for Charlie Kirk post
*
* Monica Meeks is a combat veteran and lifelong public servant fired for criticizing Charlie Kirk from her personal Facebook shortly after his assassination.
* Under the First Amendment, public employers can't fire people simply because the government doesn't approve of their off-duty speech.
* FIRE is suing the Tennessee Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance on Monica's ... Show Full Article PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Dec. 10 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release: * * * LAWSUIT: Tennessee state employee sues after unlawful firing for Charlie Kirk post * * Monica Meeks is a combat veteran and lifelong public servant fired for criticizing Charlie Kirk from her personal Facebook shortly after his assassination. * Under the First Amendment, public employers can't fire people simply because the government doesn't approve of their off-duty speech. * FIRE is suing the Tennessee Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance on Monica'sbehalf, seeking reinstatement and damages.
NASHVILLE, Dec. 10, 2025 The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of Monica Meeks, a Tennessee public employee unlawfully fired from her state government job solely for criticizing Charlie Kirk in a Facebook comment after his assassination.
"Our democracy suffers when public employees fear to voice what they are free to think," said FIRE senior attorney Greg Greubel. "There are more than 23 million government employees across the country and they can't be fired simply because their boss or folks online don't like the opinions they share off the clock."
After serving 20 years in the U.S. Army, including a tour of duty in Iraq, Monica joined the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance in 2016. Since joining the department, Monica has received stellar performance reviews and regular raises.
"I've never backed down from a fight in my life, and I don't plan to start now," said Monica. "I took an oath to defend the Constitution. Now, it's time to stand up for it again."
COURTESY PHOTOS OF MONICA FOR MEDIA
In her private life, Monica is politically engaged and even ran for the Tennessee House of Representatives in 2022 as an independent candidate. In her free time, she enjoys joking around and trading hot takes with her old Army "battle buddies" on Facebook. After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Monica responded to a friend's post about Kirk with the remark, "The way you tap dance for White Supremacist should be studied!"
Monica's post was never intended to go further than two friends amiably sparring over politics as millions of Americans do every day. But the post escaped her personal circle, and she quickly became swept up in the wave of cancellation attempts that followed the Kirk assassination.
Only 15 or so X accounts called for Monica to be fired in response to an unrelated post by the Department on the afternoon of September 12. That includes comments marked as "probable spam," and posts from anonymous accounts like "Bonerville Asskicker" and "NonGMOKaren." But Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Carter Lawrence publicly announced her firing mere hours later, and sent a termination letter to Monica's inbox. Lawrence's letter mentioned no other performance issues whatsoever, nor any disruption to department operations, and made clear he was firing Monica solely for her lone "inflammatory and insulting comment" on Facebook.
"You may disagree with Monica's take on Charlie Kirk. But letting a few angry individuals get a public employee fired for off-the-clock speech, even when it has no impact on the workplace, will inevitably boomerang back on people with views you do support," said FIRE staff attorney Cary Davis. "When public employees are forced into silence for fear of offending someone on the internet, we all lose."
Lawrence's rush to fire Monica violated Supreme Court precedent, which established a three-prong test to determine when a government employee's speech is constitutionally protected and cannot be punished by the state. First, the employee must speak "as a citizen" rather than as an employee. Second, the speech must involve "a matter of public concern." Third, the employee's interest in exercising their right to free expression must outweigh the state's interest in ensuring effective government operations.
Monica's post easily clears all three hurdles:
1. Monica clearly went to great lengths to establish that she was speaking as a private citizen. Her Facebook had a disclaimer that her views were hers and hers alone, and her profile didn't even mention that she worked for the department.
2. Monica's post obviously involved a matter of public concern. The fact that others might vehemently disagree with her view of Kirk doesn't change the fact that it was a major news story with political reverberations across the country.
3. There is no evidence Monica's post had any disruptive effect on the department or her work for it. Lawrence's letter cited complaints about the post by members of the public, but there's no evidence any coworkers complained, or that her opinions on Kirk would in any way impede her ability to investigate financial services fraud. It was hostility to Monica's politics that drove the decision not any legitimate government concern.
FIRE is asking the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to find that Lawrence retaliated against Monica for exercising her clearly established First Amendment rights, and to award her damages and reinstate her to her position. And because Lawrence clearly disregarded her constitutional rights, FIRE is also seeking punitive damages for Monica. Melody Fowler-Green of Yezbak Law Offices is serving as local counsel in the case.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-tennessee-state-employee-sues-after-unlawful-firing-charlie-kirk-post
EU Antitrust Probe into Google's AI Use Risks Locking in the Status Quo, Says Center for Data Innovation
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
EU Antitrust Probe into Google's AI Use Risks Locking in the Status Quo, Says Center for Data Innovation
*
WASHINGTONIn response to the European Commission opening a formal antitrust investigation into Google's use of web and YouTube content for AI services, the Center for Data Innovation issued the following statement from Director Daniel Castro :
The Commission's theory of harm would freeze search innovation in place. By insisting that Google ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release: * * * EU Antitrust Probe into Google's AI Use Risks Locking in the Status Quo, Says Center for Data Innovation * WASHINGTONIn response to the European Commission opening a formal antitrust investigation into Google's use of web and YouTube content for AI services, the Center for Data Innovation issued the following statement from Director Daniel Castro : The Commission's theory of harm would freeze search innovation in place. By insisting that Googleoffer every website an "opt-out" from AI-generated overviews, Brussels is effectively saying the most widely used search engine in Europe must stop using modern AI toolseven as smaller rivals remain free to do so. That is not a recipe for competition; it is a recipe for stagnation. Search will not improve if regulators prohibit leading firms from deploying the very technologies that make results more useful.
The Commission's concerns about YouTube make even less sense. Content creators voluntarily upload videos under terms that already allow Google to improve its services, including through AI training. Calling this coercive simply because YouTube is popular turns basic platform governance into an antitrust violation. And while there is a broader debate about whether companies should restrict AI training through their terms of service, singling out one platform while ignoring others would only distort the market further.
Instead of punishing firms for using AI lawfully and transparently, EU policymakers should focus on enabling Europe's own innovators to compete and allowing European consumers to access leading AI services. Europe will not come out ahead in AI by constraining the companies that are actually building it.
Contact: Nicole Hinojosa, press@datainnovation.org
***
Original text here: https://itif.org/publications/publications/2025/12/10/eu-antitrust-probe-into-googles-ai-use-risks-locking-in-the-status-quo/
CLF Appeals Federal Approval of Manchester Wastewater Permit
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 10 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:* * *
CLF Appeals Federal Approval of Manchester Wastewater Permit
Agency fails to account for forever chemical limits, harm to communities
*
(Concord, NH) - Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is appealing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) issuance of a permit that allows the Manchester Wastewater Treatment Facility to continue discharging toxic PFAS chemicals, also known as "forever chemicals," into the Merrimack River. The appeal, submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board, argues ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 10 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release: * * * CLF Appeals Federal Approval of Manchester Wastewater Permit Agency fails to account for forever chemical limits, harm to communities * (Concord, NH) - Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is appealing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) issuance of a permit that allows the Manchester Wastewater Treatment Facility to continue discharging toxic PFAS chemicals, also known as "forever chemicals," into the Merrimack River. The appeal, submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board, arguesthat EPA failed to comply with the law and its own policies when issuing the final permit.
"Everyone deserves safe, clean water - it's that simple," said CLF Associate Attorney Jillian Aicher. "By ignoring clear evidence that PFAS discharges threaten our waterways, our ecosystems, and our health, the EPA is failing in its most basic duty - to protect our communities and our natural resources. It's essential that EPA step up and fulfill this duty by reducing toxic PFAS pollution."
The EPA finalized the Clean Water Act permit for the Manchester facility without properly considering whether it should set limits for PFAS under the state's water quality standards. The agency also failed to follow its environmental justice policy, which is meant to protect communities overburdened by pollution. The city-owned wastewater treatment facility burns sewage sludge, which contains PFAS, and is not designed to remove PFAS from its air emissions. It also discharges PFAS into the Merrimack River, an important ecosystem and source of drinking water for downstream communities.
CLF is asking the Environmental Appeals Board to find EPA violated the law and its policy in granting the final permit and send the permit back to EPA to properly consider PFAS and environmental justice.
PFAS are known as forever chemicals because they do not break down in the environment or in our bodies. These toxic substances are linked to a growing number of health harms, including cancers, fertility issues, child development disorders, hormonal dysfunction, and damage to the thyroid, liver, and kidneys. A recent study (https://geiselmed.dartmouth.edu/nhscr/mkc/) has raised concern about elevated cases of kidney cancer in Manchester, based on data from 2013 to 2021, and recommends further study.
PFAS are found in wastewater from industrial users sent to Manchester's Wastewater Treatment Facility, the largest wastewater treatment plant in northern New England, and the only one in New Hampshire that incinerates its sewage sludge.
This appeal follows CLF's state-level challenge filed in June with the New Hampshire Water Council.
The appeal can be found here (https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/3DBDCB2524F6F8DE85258D5500754D34/$File/Conservation%20Law%20Foundation%20Petition%20for%20Review%2C%20NPDES%20Permit%20No.%20NH0100447.pdf).
CLF experts are available for further comment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/clf-appeals-federal-approval-of-manchester-wastewater-permit/
Breakthrough T1D-Led Paper Outlines First International Consensus Guidance for Continuous Ketone Monitoring in Diabetes
NEW YORK, Dec. 10 -- Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) a non-profit dedicated to funding type 1 diabetes research, posted the following news release:* * *
Breakthrough T1D-Led Paper Outlines First International Consensus Guidance for Continuous Ketone Monitoring in Diabetes
Framework provides recommendations for effective CKM use for those at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis
*
NEW YORK, Dec. 10, 2025 - Breakthrough T1D, the leading global type 1 diabetes (T1D) research and advocacy organization, announced the publication of a paper in the journal The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology that provides ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Dec. 10 -- Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) a non-profit dedicated to funding type 1 diabetes research, posted the following news release: * * * Breakthrough T1D-Led Paper Outlines First International Consensus Guidance for Continuous Ketone Monitoring in Diabetes Framework provides recommendations for effective CKM use for those at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis * NEW YORK, Dec. 10, 2025 - Breakthrough T1D, the leading global type 1 diabetes (T1D) research and advocacy organization, announced the publication of a paper in the journal The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology that providesthe first international consensus framework for the use of continuous ketone monitoring (CKM) in individuals with diabetes. The paper, " Continuous ketone monitoring for people with diabetes: international expert recommendations on the application of a new technology ", was authored by an international team of experts in the diabetes field, led by Breakthrough T1D Chief Medical Officer, Thomas Danne, M.D., Dr. Ketan Dhatariya, Consultant in Diabetes and Endocrinology at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals and Honorary Professor of Medicine at the University of East Anglia, and Dr. Richard Bergenstal, Executive Director of the International Diabetes Center, HealthPartners Institute. The paper serves as a set of standardized guidelines that healthcare professionals and the entire T1D community can follow as CKM technology becomes available and integrated into broader diabetes care.
Individuals with diabetes can face a life-threatening condition called diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), which occurs when the body breaks down stored fat for energy, generally due to a lack of insulin. This causes ketones to accumulate in the blood, which then becomes acidic, and can lead to death. DKA can occur at any time, often in conjunction with illnesses such as the flu. While ketones can be detected using blood and urine strips, these tools are not widely used, it is difficult to predict when ketone levels may be rising, and the incidence of DKA remains significant. Similar to continuous glucose monitors, CKMs will continuously measure ketones in the body and signal if they are rising. This can help identify and prevent DKA before it occurs and assist individuals in managing their diabetes and insulin therapy safely.
"Continuous ketone monitoring has the potential to be a transformational new technology and tool for those living with diabetes and at risk of the life-threatening complication, diabetic ketoacidosis. The new continuous ketone monitoring guidance will play a critical role in ensuring the entire diabetes community is ready to effectively use the technology, once it is available, to improve health outcomes," said Breakthrough T1D Chief Medical Officer Thomas Danne, M.D. "Breakthrough T1D is grateful to all who were on the consensus panel who provided their expertise and came together to develop practical and actionable recommendations that will advance the field and improve diabetes care for all who face the condition."
Breakthrough T1D convened and led 33 international experts in the field from 14 countries to develop the consensus guidance, which includes recommendations on common terminology for describing ketone levels, visual device elements that should accompany rates of ketone change, alarm thresholds and triggers, ketone education, and more. This consensus effort aligns with Breakthrough T1D's mission priorities and medical affairs goal of accelerating clinical adoption of new treatments and therapies for T1D.
About Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF)
As the leading global type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization, Breakthrough T1D helps make everyday life with type 1 diabetes better while driving toward cures. We do this by investing in the most promising research, advocating for progress by working with government to address issues that impact the T1D community, and helping educate and empower individuals facing this condition.
About type 1 diabetes (T1D)
T1D is an autoimmune condition that causes the pancreas to make very little insulin or none at all. This leads to dependence on insulin therapy and the risk of short and long-term complications, which can include highs and lows in blood sugar; damage to the kidneys, eyes, nerves, and heart; and even death. Globally, it impacts 9.5 million people. Many believe T1D is only diagnosed in childhood and adolescence, but diagnosis in adulthood is common and accounts for nearly 50% of all T1D diagnoses. The onset of T1D has nothing to do with diet or lifestyle. While its causes are not yet entirely understood, scientists believe that both genetic factors and environmental triggers are involved. There is currently no cure for T1D.
***
Original text here: https://www.breakthrought1d.org/for-the-media/press-releases/breakthrough-t1d-led-paper-outlines-first-international-consensus-guidance-for-continuous-ketone-monitoring-in-diabetes/
Aviation Policy News: Air Traffic Controller Staffing and Resignation Claims
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:* * *
Aviation Policy News: Air traffic controller staffing and resignation claims
Plus: How air traffic control reforms are described, the costs of modernization, and more.
By Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy
In this issue:
* Discrepancy in air traffic controller numbers and resignations
* Post-mortem on advanced air mobility
* Update on ATC "privatization"
* Europe's conundrum on air travel
* Scott Kirby is wrong on slots for Newark
* Is the moon race heating up?
* $20 billion more ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Aviation Policy News: Air traffic controller staffing and resignation claims Plus: How air traffic control reforms are described, the costs of modernization, and more. By Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy In this issue: * Discrepancy in air traffic controller numbers and resignations * Post-mortem on advanced air mobility * Update on ATC "privatization" * Europe's conundrum on air travel * Scott Kirby is wrong on slots for Newark * Is the moon race heating up? * $20 billion morefor ATC?
* News Notes
* Quotable Quotes
Controllers Discrepancy
During the government shutdown, we read article after article about the loss of air traffic controllers. Not only were some controllers calling out sick, but some reportedly were taking part-time jobs to make ends meet, and others took the shutdown as an opportunity to retire.
Yet once the shutdown ended, the media were full of news stories, based on updates from the Federal Aviation Administration, that controllers were returning, as USA Today reported on Nov. 16, "FAA Ends Shutdown-Era Flight Limits as Controller Staffing Rebounds." Aviation Daily on Nov. 14 headlined that, "FAA Freezes Flight Cuts as Controller Callouts Decline Rapidly." Within a week or so after the government shutdown ended, airline flights were reported as being essentially back to normal, just in time for Thanksgiving weekend.
There is something wrong with this rosy picture. To begin with, recall that controller staffing pre-shutdown was far below FAA norms, with six-day workweeks and 10- to 12-hour shifts for controllers at some key facilities. If all controllers who were on the roster the week before the shutdown returned to their jobs within the week after it ended, many air traffic control (ATC) facilities would still be seriously understaffed and controllers would still be overworked. Instead of allowing a return to all flight activities as they were pre-shutdown, the FAA could have considered what it would take in terms of targeted flight reductions to reduce the number of six-day controller work weeks and 10-hour shifts.
Adding to my concern are statements by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy during the shutdown. In Politico on Nov. 9, Duffy said the following: "I used to have four controllers a day retire before the shutdown. I'm now up to 15 to 20 a day are retiring, so it's going to be harder for me to come back after the shutdown and have more controllers controlling the airspace. So this is going to live on in air travel well beyond the time frame that this government opens up." (italics added)
Let's do a bit of arithmetic here. The federal government shutdown lasted 43 days. The net increase in retirements, per Duffy, was 11 to 16 controllers per day. At the low end, 11 retirements per day times 43 days equals 473 retirements. On the high end, 16 retirements per day times 43 days equals 688 controllers retired during the shutdown. The average of those two numbers for Duffy's retirement claims is 580 fewer air traffic controllers today than before the shutdown.
So how could air traffic controller staffing possibly be back to pre-shutdown levels? Secretary Duffy owes us an explanation. Perhaps Congress should ask him. If the system is actually staffed with 580 fewer controllers than it had before the shutdown, it's hard to see how they could be safely handling pre-shutdown levels of air traffic.
Post-Mortem on Advanced Air Mobility
This year has turned out to be the time when reality imposed its judgment on the plethora of advanced air mobility (AAM) start-up companies. In a lengthy article in Aviation Week (Oct. 27-Nov. 9), Ben Goldstein summarized the many losers and the handful of survivors.
This trend was already underway in 2024, which saw the demise of Lilium, Rolls-Royce's Electrical unit, Universal Hydrogen, and Volocopter. Then came 2025's deluge of bankruptcies. They include the City Airbus project, Germany's APUS Zero Emission, Spain's Crisalion Mobility, Cuberg/Northvolt, Eviation, Guardian Agriculture, Overair, Supernal, and Textron eAviation.
Left standing are the U.S. big three: Archer Aviation, Beta Technology, and Joby Aviation. All three have decent funding, a path toward FAA certification, and some potential as ongoing businesses, whether only as producers of aircraft or also as operators. The same issue of Aviation Week had another article on the growing number of AAM companies in China, none of which appear to be planning to seek FAA certification. Both Joby and Archer aim to launch actual electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) air service in the United Arab Emirates as early as next year, with or without FAA certification.
Why have we seen so many failed start-ups? It's not because eVTOL (the primary aim of these start-ups) is impossible, because we see the survivors' aircraft flying. One serious problem is the business model. Because battery-powered vertical flight requires a very large amount of power, and batteries are very heavy, an eVTOL's payload and range are both very limited. Instead of the mass-market fantasy of "flying cars" and go-anywhere air taxis, this is looking more and more like a high-end luxury service for niche markets. In addition, most of the failed start-up companies probably had no idea of both the long time and high cost of obtaining FAA certification.
This is why we are seeing non-eVTOL AAM concepts being developed and tested. One alternative is hybrid propulsion, which can significantly increase payload and/or range. Another is including actual wings on some of these aircraft for cruise flight. And once wings are taken seriously, we have seen Electra.aero demonstrate its blown-wing innovation that enables its EL2 to take off and land in less than 150 feet--and it's a hybrid-electric. Its larger EL-9 can handle a 1,000-lb. payload and still land and take off in less than 300 ft. The U.S. Air Force is seriously interested in the EL-9. This kind of aircraft is a hybrid STOL.
Giving up vertical flight and battery-only power are two keys to more viable advanced air mobility. These lessons are being learned the hard way, but that is what competitive technology development requires. Imagine if a central planner like NASA had defined eVTOL as the "one best way" for advanced aerial mobility?
Update on ATC "Privatization"
My ongoing effort to shift the terminology for de-politicizing U.S. air traffic control by ceasing to call it "privatization" (as opposed to a self-funded public utility) has thus far not caught on here in the United States. As I noted in this newsletter, I switched my terminology several years ago to "public utility" because that is what these air traffic control entities are in all serious proposals today.
Since last month's newsletter, I've continued to do interviews, most notably with Scott Simon on Nov. 15 for NPR's Weekend Edition, which mentioned privatization in the online version's headline. The Washington Post editorial board endorsed the idea of corporatization and cited my work in an editorial on Nov. 23, but the headline used the word privatize. Similarly, my Reason colleague Marc Scribner and Cornell Prof. Rick Geddes were interviewed by Dan Levin for Straight Arrow News in a piece that noted the plan would be "more akin to a public utility" but was headlined "The Quietly Powerful Group Keeping US Air Traffic Control Privatization Grounded."
I was pleased to see an earlier op-ed in The New York Times by Binyamin Appelbaum, which explained the FAA's limitations and cited "stand-alone corporations in Australia, Canada, and Germany" without resorting to using privatization. Former U.S. Department of Transportation official Diana Furchtgott-Roth had a good piece in The National Interest headlined "How to Modernize America's Air Traffic Control," but the unfortunate subhead was "Privatizing air traffic control could help prevent flight delays over the holiday season." Oh, well...
As I explained last month, opponents of last decade's House bill to create a U.S. version of nonprofit air traffic control corporation Nav Canada repeatedly attacked this idea as being "for profit" and "dominated by major airlines," neither of which was true. And the strongest opponents then (and now)--private aviation groups AOPA and NBAA--continue to attack air traffic control "privatization" as if that were the case. In fact, nearly all 95 countries that receive ATC services today from user-funded, de-politicized air navigation service providers (ANSPs) are neither private nor for-profit. That is why, two years ago, I began using the term air traffic control public utility, since that is what the vast majority of depoliticized ATC systems are.
So, to this newsletter's readership group, I repeat my request from last month's issue: If you support depoliticizing the low-tech, underfunded Air Traffic Organization, please don't refer to this as "privatization." That helps only the opponents of this much-needed reform miscast what is actually being proposed.
Europe's Conundrum on Air Travel
Much of the discussion of air travel in Europe seems to be driven by environmental groups such as Transport & Environment (T&E), which calls for cancelling airport expansion plans, increasing taxes on airline passengers, and other measures. Most airport expansion projects are still going forward, but in parallel with that, the European Commission announced on Nov. 5 a plan to spend $400 billion of taxpayers' money to greatly expand the current 12,128 km high-speed rail network between now and 2040. The stated goal is to shift travelers from short-haul flights to rail travel.
There is no sign in aircraft sale projections from Airbus and Boeing that air travel will not grow or shrink. T&E warns that if all French airport expansion plans were carried out, 38 million more people would travel through French airports by 2050, compared to a hypothetical no-build scenario. In its Nov. 14 article on this subject, Aviation Daily notes that the current Groupe ADP airport expansion plan would mean an increase by 2050 from 82 million to 105 million annual passengers.
A few European airports are attempting to limit increases in air travel. Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands is still battling airlines over its attempt to reduce the number of annual flights, ostensibly due to noise exposure. In Germany, Vienna Airport recently decided not to proceed with adding a third runway. But those anti-growth efforts are swamped by planned expansions. In non-EU member, the United Kingdom, long-sought runway additions have this year been approved for both Heathrow (LHR) and Gatwick (LGW). The ongoing expansion of Germany's Frankfurt Airport (Terminal 3) will add capacity for between 19 and 24 million annual passengers. And there's also the ADP expansion plan noted above.
Groups like T&E and the European Commission (EC) seem to be ignoring what is going on in the rest of planet Earth's airspace. Air travel in India is growing by leaps and bounds, and many airport expansion projects are underway in that country. In the Middle East--especially Dubai and the United Arab Emirates--air travel is booming. Andrew Charlton, in his December newsletter, reported on the Dubai Airshow in mid-November. He noted that a "small order" for new aircraft in this region is 100, with an option for 50 more.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) reports that Europe accounts for 26.7% of global air travel. So if the EC were to succeed in restricting air travel in its domain, three-fourths of the world would continue expanding air travel: the United States because of its affluence and the developing world (China, India, the Middle East), as their economies continue to grow.
I have written previously that the de facto premise of most climate activists and their followers in government is that every sector of every economy must reduce its share of greenhouse gases (GHGs), regardless of either how costly that is to carry out or the benefits of the activity that generates those gases. If I were an environmental policy central planner, my policy would be to figure out the cost per ton of GHG reduction in every sector of the economy--and focus first on all the low-hanging fruit. My guess is that the cost/ton in aviation would be on the high end, and the economic benefits of air travel would also be high. That would suggest looking for relatively lower-cost air travel measures rather than very costly measures, such as spending $400 billion to expand European high-speed rail.
For background reading on approaching climate change policy rationally, I once again recommend Steven Koonin's important book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, BenBella Books, 2021. Koonin was Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama administration. Earlier in his career, he was a professor of theoretical physics at Cal Tech. He has held numerous governance positions at national laboratories.
Scott Kirby Is Wrong About Newark Slot Controls
By Gary Leff
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby recently laid out the major benefits that fixing air traffic control would mean for improving air service in the United States, reducing delays and cancellations. I don't think the FAA as a service provider can ever actually do it - you need the regulator to be different from the actual air traffic organization. The FAA regulating itself has meant zero accountability for decades.
However, Kirby goes on to argue that there still need to be limits at Newark airport, where United has a hub. His point about "simple math" doesn't imply the solution that he thinks it does.
"Newark, for what it's worth, always should have been capped. I mean it was the only airport left in the world that was a large airport that was over-scheduled that doesn't have slots. It's the only one and it used to have slots and the reality is at Newark the FAA says in the best of times with full staffing on perfect weather day they can handle 77 operations per hour and they were letting it be scheduled at 86 operations per hour for hours in a row. And that is simple math."
We should improve throughput at Newark, because there's a lot of demand for air travel out of Newark. We can't do that because of air traffic control and because we don't build things in the United States well anymore.
However, if Newark is overscheduled, the answer isn't to hand the exclusive right to operate most of the flights to United, blocking competitors and future new entrants, as a free gift (subsidy) from taxpayers. That's what slots are - the right to take off and land at an airport, generally given for free, despite huge economic value. Slot controls allow incumbents exclusivity and block anyone else from competing with them. That airlines have succeeded in regulatory capture to make this standard practice doesn't make it any less bad policy.
Here's the better approach: congestion pricing.
Slots are a blunt rationing instrument (and a subsidy to the incumbent airlines). Since they're "use it or lose it," we get unnecessary flying on small planes hardly anyone wants to fly, just to squat on flight times. Prices encourage airlines to allocate flights to the right aircraft and the right routes that match passenger demand.
Think of a runway like a heavily used road approaching its capacity. As use approaches 100% of capacity, planes have to queue. Each additional flight imposes delay costs on everyone else, but the airline only internalizes its own delay cost. So airlines are incentivized to overschedule.
Slots try to deal with this by capping the number of flights in a period. Congestion pricing says: "You can operate whenever you like, but you must pay the actual total cost of the delay you impose on others."
Slots are a crude cap: "X movements per hour." They're allocated via grandfather rights and use it or lose it. They're adjusted infrequently and administratively. Once you have the slot, the flight becomes "free" regardless of the delay it causes.
Charging per flight that approximates the marginal delay cost to others works better. When the system is uncongested, the price is low or zero. As demand approaches or exceeds capacity, prices rise sharply. Airlines operate a flight in that time slice if they are willing to pay - if the value of the flight to passengers and the airline is greater than the congestion charge.
That way, you get the flights that generate the highest value relative to the delay they cause. You also get natural spreading of flights to shoulders or off-peak times, reducing congestion and lowering their costs. Pricing can encourage the use of larger aircraft ("up-gauging") to spread the cost out across more passengers.
A slot freezes peak delay - a "50 slots per hour" rule means you get 50 flights per hour, regardless of delay and irrespective of whether those are 50 regional jets or widebodies. There's no incentive to move any of those flights 20 minutes to spread out peak loads.
Slots are also bad at handling weather events and air traffic control problems. Those might reduce an airport's capacity from (say) 60 to 35 flights per hour. That's when we get ground delay programs and ad-hoc rationing. Congestion pricing can do the work for you and prioritize the most valuable flights. Instead of stressing the system, airlines contribute towards paying for a better one.
Ultimately, the same price applies to everyone - incumbent airline or new entrant in the market. "Airlines would hate this!" Yes, of course incumbents would. They're getting a valuable property right for free, and instead they'd be charged (though it could be done as revenue-neutral).
You'll likely hear that "congestion charges" will just cement incumbent dominance, which is silly, because that's what the current slot system does. The claim, though, is that incumbents have deep pockets to pay peak charges, while others get pushed out, worsening competition.
* Under slots, incumbents own peak access for free (or were often cheaply acquired in the past). They can sit on grandfathered rights indefinitely. New entrants are often shut out completely.
* If a new entrant sees high value in a particular peak flight, they can buy in. Under a fixed slot regime, there may literally be no access at any price.
* If policymakers still want to support entry (they will, usually for their own constituents rather than the public good), they can offer rebates for new carriers on specific routes and use competition policy to scrutinize predatory practices rather than locking in those practices with slots.
There will also be a class argument that peak times will become "rich people's time slots," with lower-income travelers getting pushed into inconvenient off-peak times or other airports. That's often what happens now, getting pushed to Spirit and Frontier for lower fares at other airports. And lower-income travelers would face fewer delays! In any case, especially if congestion pricing encourages up-gauging, we'll likely see more major carriers with excess capacity to discount - at peak times. But if you want redistribution, then do it explicitly, not via hidden cross-subsidies embedded in slot allocation.
A fair concern is that low-value flights that few passengers value - often on smaller regional jets to low-volume airports - will lose peak-time service. That's because these flights are less valuable! But if we're really going to design policy around these flights, don't do it in a way that also inefficiently allocates flights, causing delays for the entire air system. Make the subsidy cost of these flights explicit rather than burying it.
A system that sets prices by day and time seasonally, by 15 or 30 minute increments, and is published in advance is easy for airlines to plan for. Then, major weather or air traffic control outages can have surge pricing with a capped multiplier (e.g., 2x). This is easy for airlines to deal with - they manage variable fuel pricing and demand risk constantly. And this will lower costs from ground delays.
Newark shouldn't get slot controls. We should abolish them at New York's JFK and LaGuardia and Washington National as well. They're a rationing mechanism that locks in incumbents and treats all flights in the same time window as equivalent, regardless of the systematic delays they create. And they provide no real incentive to move a flight time or up-gauge.
And slots turn scarcity value into privately-owned assets of the airline, rather than revenue streams to improve system capacity. Congestion pricing does the opposite! Anyone can access takeoffs and landings if the value of their flight is high enough to warrant paying peak prices.
Editor's Note: This article is a slightly condensed version of Gary Leff's "View from the Wing" column published Nov. 21, 2025, and is used with the author's permission.
Is the Moon Race Heating Up?
While NASA continues to plan to launch its first SLS/Orion human lunar launch as early as February, some observers (including the editor of this newsletter) are very concerned about risking the lives of four astronauts on a spaceship that has flown only once (in 2022), and whose Orion capsule's heat shield was partly destroyed during re-entry. Instead of fixing the heat shield, NASA is counting on an untested, gentler re-entry path to bring the astronauts back to Earth.
The only reason I can think of for this risky decision is the multi-billion-dollar cost of each SLS/Orion launch. By contrast, because SpaceX and Blue Origin space launchers cost a small fraction of that, they sensibly carry out repeated uncrewed test launches to be sure that when it's time to launch people, every system and subsystem has had ongoing improvements to increase its operability and level of safety.
I'm encouraged to see both Blue Origin and SpaceX talking with NASA about alternative ways to get people and cargo to the Moon and back. Eric Berger reported in Ars Technica (Nov. 13) that NASA's acting administrator, Sean Duffy, asked both companies for more nimble plans for their respective lunar landings.
SpaceX disclosed that it has "shared and are formally assessing a simplified mission architecture and concept of operations that we believe will result in a faster return to the Moon while simultaneously improving crew safety." Could that mean not using the flawed Orion capsules? Berger did not suggest this, but he thinks it might mean working with others beyond those directly involved with Artemis III. He went on to suggest two ideas that might be put forth by SpaceX: expendable Starships and using the company's proven Dragon (presumably instead of Orion). For the former, instead of depending on propellant transfer in orbit (from one Starship to another), the idea would be to use expendable tankers, which would reduce their launch weight and might reduce the number of tanker missions by up to 50%.
Using SpaceX Dragons instead of Orion would increase safety and reduce cost, though Dragons would need a new heat shield for re-entry to Earth from lunar missions. Berger lays out a mission relying on a combination of Starships and Dragons, which is too complicated to summarize here, but none of its steps involves an SLS or an Orion. This would be a major change from using NASA's minimally tested vehicles. It would also appear to eliminate having to use the costly (and behind-schedule) Lunar Gateway.
On Dec. 3, the Wall Street Journal reported on new proposals from Blue Origin. It has already been planned, for next year, to send a Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo mission to the lunar surface. This could be followed by a larger version of the cargo rocket to transport astronauts to the Moon in 2028 for a shorter stay than planned for Artemis III. The modified rocket would use storable propellants, which are intended to eliminate in-space fuel transfers. No details are available on that propulsion system.
NASA, per the WSJ report, "will evaluate proposals for a simpler astronaut landing on the Moon from Blue Origin and SpaceX, as well as any other proposals it might receive." And assuming that Jared Isaacman gets confirmed promptly as NASA administrator, that assessment will be in good hands.
What About that "$20 Billion More" for ATC Modernization?
Aviation media reports late last month focused on DOT Secretary Duffy's call for Congress to provide the "additional" $20 billion for air traffic control modernization that a broad aviation coalition has called for, all of them deeming the $12.5 billion in borrowed money that Congress provided earlier this year as merely a down payment.
Until now, when capital investments in the ATC system were called for, Congress allocated funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, whose dollars come from aviation user fees, primarily the airline passenger ticket tax. Aviation (or at least airlines) has long relied on user-funded infrastructure, for both airports and ATC. Highways are likewise supported largely by user fees, both fuel taxes and tolls.
The balance in the Aviation Trust Fund is expected to be around $20 billion by late 2025, but a large fraction of that will be drawn upon for the FAA's 2026 operating and facilities and equipment budget needs. So what is the responsible answer to the "additional $20 billion" for ATC modernization?
Increase the aviation user fees. At a time when the federal budget is running a $2 trillion annual deficit, there is no justification for aviation to add to that total, which directly increases the national debt to unsustainable levels.
News Notes
Port Authority Plans P3 for Newark Terminal B
Infralogic's Eugene Gilligan reported (Nov. 13) that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's $45 billion capital plan includes using a long-term public-private partnership for its new Terminal B. Gilligan's article noted that infrastructure investment firms have held discussions with Port Authority officials regarding the use of a P3 procurement model for replacing the aging existing terminal. The agency in recent years has used such P3s for new terminals at both Kennedy (JFK) and LaGuardia (LGA) airports. The capital plan also includes a new AirTrain Newark and an "EWR Vision Plan" for revitalizing the airport.
SpaceX Starship Cleared for Cape Canaveral Launches
Politico Space reported (Dec. 5) that the Space Force has cleared SpaceX to launch its huge Starship launch system from its launchpad SLC-37. SpaceX hopes to launch up to 76 Starship flights per year from that site within the next few years. Other launch companies expressed concerns about interference with their own launch plans, but the Space Force accepted SpaceX's plans to identify any new "blast danger areas" that need to be cleared near SLC-37.
First Digital Tower in the Middle East
Hamad International Airport (HIA) in Qatar has received certification for the first virtual/digital control tower in the Middle East. The Virtual Tower was developed by Searidge Technologies, with partners ADB Safegate and NATS, the UK air navigation service provider (ANSP). The vTWR provides 360-degree views of the entire airport, which was not possible from its conventional tower. The new system has two controller workstations in the existing conventional tower and two in HIA's Backup and Approach Training Center.
Blue Origin Lands New Glenn Booster
On its second launch, Blue Origin's New Glenn booster lofted two NASA payloads toward Mars and recovered the reusable booster for the first time. This was the first successful New Glenn booster recovery. Blue Origin plans to use it for many future launches, similar to SpaceX's growing track record with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles.
Nav Canada Breaks Ground for Its First Digital Tower Center
Kingston, Ontario, is the site where Nav Canada has begun construction of an interim digital tower facility. The Kingston Digital Facility (KDF) is intended to lay the groundwork for a future digital tower center that is intended to serve up to 20 airports. Upon completion in 2026, the KDF will initially provide tower services for Kingston and one other airport, as the first digital tower facility in Canada. It is also the first stage in Nav Canada's Digital Aerodrome Air Traffic Services (DAATS) initiative. Nav Canada's technology partner on this endeavor is Kongsberg.
DOT Seeks Information on Dulles Airport Revamp
Responding to a White House request, the US DOT on Dec. 3 issued a Request for Information on plans to "revitalize" Washington Dulles Airport (IAD). The RFI includes the idea of public-private partnerships (P3s), like those that have been used to replace aging terminals at LaGuardia (LGA) and Kennedy (JFK) airports. IAD is an airport I avoid whenever possible, in part because of its slow, dangerous people movers called "mobile lounges," which have no seats and are generally wall-to-wall with standing passengers and luggage. The airport really could use a serious rethink, and it could be a good fit for design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) P3s.
JSX Plans Passenger Service from Santa Monica
Public charter carrier JSX has announced daily flights between Santa Monica (SMO) and Las Vegas (LAS) to begin before the end of December. This will be JSX's first route to use turboprop aircraft (ATR 42-600s). JSX holds options to acquire as many as 25 additional ATR turboprops, if its early routes are successful. Even if it is successful, the SMO-LAS route will not be long-term, since SMO is due to shut down entirely at the end of 2028.
Fengate Plans to Sell its ConRAC
One of the pioneer developer/operators of consolidated rental car centers (Con RACs) is planning to sell its pioneer project at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Infralogic reported (Nov. 26) that Fengate is in negotiations with BBGI Global Infrastructure to sell the LAX ConRAC and a public school P3 in Prince George's County, MD. BBGI, which owns 56 P3s in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was recently taken private by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation.
NASA Bans People from Next Boeing Starliner Flight
Ars Technica reported that NASA has approved renewed missions to the International Space Station for Boeing's ill-fated Starliner capsule, but this first set of new missions will be for cargo only. Assuming this cargo-only mission is a success, Starliner will be approved to fly three passenger missions to the Space Station before the ISS is de-orbited, as planned. The original 2014 NASA contract called for Starliner to operate six crewed flights to ISS.
U.K. Takes Steps to Bolster GPS Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT)
In response to increasing levels of GPS/GNSS spoofing and jamming, the U.K. government has committed pound sterling155 million for three projects. First, pound sterling71 million will be invested in a new enhanced LORAN program, a system with higher power and a far different spectrum than used by GNSS. Second will be pound sterling68 million to continue the development of a National Timing Center aimed at providing nationwide timing that does not rely on GNSS. Another pound sterling13 million will fund a new UK GNSS interference monitoring program.
Eurocontrol Calls for Increased Use of Text Messaging
The 42-government agency Eurocontrol has called for air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and airlines to make significantly more use of controller-pilot-data-link-communications (CPDLC), Aviation Daily reported (Nov. 14). Greater use of text messaging would relieve congestion on voice radio communications channels. Eurocontrol's Paul Bosman reported at a recent conference that in European airspace, flights average only two data link messages per flight, adding, "This technology has been available for 20 years; can't we do better?"
FAA Seeks Input on Replacing ERAM and STARS
On Nov. 20, the FAA released a Request for Information (RFI) about creating a common automation platform that would replace separate systems that manage en-route flights (ERAM) and terminal-area flights (STARS). The Common Automation Platform (CAP) sounds good in principle, and FAA is wise to seek a single, state-of-the-art platform to replace the two older systems, developed during different time frames. FAA noted that it is open to several potential approaches to "re-architecting" existing platforms. Responses are due Dec. 19, which does not provide much time for serious brainstorming.
Lockheed Martin Plans Commercial Orion
Aviation Week (Oct. 13-26) reported that the prime contractor for NASA's Orion moon capsule is planning a commercial version. Lockheed acknowledged NASA's contract for the Artemis moon missions, but with that program likely to be cut short after only a few launches, it is looking for possible commercial customers. I am happy to refer them to last month's article on Orion's potential shortcomings, beginning with its hardly-proven re-entry heat shield. If even half the problems cited by ex-NASA scientist Casey Handmer (in last month's issue) are valid, my advice is caveat emptor.
Blue Origin Partners with Luxembourg Space Agency on Lunar Prospecting
Project Oasis was recently announced by the space launch company in conjunction with Luxembourg's space agency. The plan is to remotely surveil lunar water ice to identify Helium 3, rare earth elements, and other resources that might support lunar production of materials and fuel that would not have to be transported from Earth. To the extent that promising lunar resources are identified, the project's second phase, called Blue Alchemist, will experiment (here on Earth) with turning such raw material into useful materials that could later be produced on the Moon.
Airport P3 Activity in Brazil
In October, airport operator Motiva announced that its Brazilian airport concessions were for sale, with a value estimated at $1.8-2.2 billion. Twelve airport groups initially expressed interest, including the world's second-largest (AENA Airports) and fifth-largest (Vinci Airports). In early November, AENA announced that it was working on a $986 million bond issue for its Brazilian airport P3 concessions. It also announced that its partially-owned Mexican airport company GAP would merge with its strategic partner AMP. It looks as if more airport deals will be forthcoming soon in Brazil.
Stockholm Arlanda Airport OKs Curved Landing Approaches
Aircraft equipped and certified for required navigation performance (RNP-Authorization Required) may be allowed to make continuous descent approaches on curved arrival paths at Arlanda. Swedavia expects that this will lead to more landings per hour and lower aircraft emissions. RNP-AR has been approved by Nav Canada for two airports in that country, Calgary and Toronto. I am not aware of any US airports approved by the FAA for this kind of landing
Newark Controllers Have Two More Years in Philadelphia, Per FAA
When the FAA shifted control of arrivals and departures at Newark from the troubled New York TRACON (N90) to the Philadelphia TRACON, 14 controllers moved to the Philly TRACON. The time period was indefinite, but on Nov. 17, the FAA announced that those controllers would remain at Philly TRACON for two more years.
Quotable Quotes
"The economics of urban air taxis are difficult. An aircraft costing millions must fly many hours per day at high load factors to cover capital and operating costs. Battery energy density limits range and payload. Downwash, noise, and turbulence make rooftop or street-level operations problematic. Wind and weather limits reduce availability. Certification requires thousands of flight hours and proven safety redundancies. Air traffic management for autonomous or semi-autonomous craft is not ready. Public acceptance of low-flying craft over dense cities remains uncertain. . . . Supernal's folding is symbolic. The era of hype is ending. The sector is moving into an attrition phase where many firms will fail, a few will survive, and the market will settle into niches. The original promise of eVTOLs as a mass urban transport solution is receding. The story now is about how a vision of the future met the hard reality of physics, economics, and regulation, and how an industry will be reshaped in the aftermath."
--Michael Barnard, "From Kitty Hawk to Supernal: The Shrinking Future of eVTOLs," Clean Technica, Sept. 11, 2025
"I enjoyed your piece in the Wall Street Journal [on ATC reform]. As someone on the front lines, I can tell you that things are certainly not getting better. The most frustrating part of my day is battling all the chatter on the radio. Many times we can't get a word in edgewise. Meanwhile CPDLC (controller-pilot-data link- communications) just sits unused. It's very rare for controllers to use it for anything other than frequency changes. Many of its numerous functions are not even activated, including free text messages. One concern I have is that the feds are going to spend billions on a new elaborate ground-based system, when a better and less-expensive aircraft AI system may be just around the corner. While I seriously doubt that the ground-based network will be eliminated any time soon, I could see significant reductions in the need for hardware, particularly on the en-route part of the system."
--Greg Ross, email to Robert Poole, May 10, 2025, used by permission. Mr. Ross is a 737 captain for a major U.S. airline.
* * *
Robert Poole is director of transportation policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/air-traffic-controller-staffing-and-resignation-claims/