Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
New Coastwide Menhaden Science Estimates Smaller Population, Indicates Major Catch Reductions Needed
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, Oct. 18 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
New Coastwide Menhaden Science Estimates Smaller Population, Indicates Major Catch Reductions Needed
Fisheries Regulators to Consider New Coastwide Harvest Limits, Chesapeake Bay Management
*
There are fewer menhaden along the Atlantic Coast than previously thought, leading to potential major catch reductions, according to scientific assessments released this week ahead of a fisheries regulators meeting.
Forecasts show that the menhaden catch must be cut in half to provide
... Show Full Article
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, Oct. 18 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
New Coastwide Menhaden Science Estimates Smaller Population, Indicates Major Catch Reductions Needed
Fisheries Regulators to Consider New Coastwide Harvest Limits, Chesapeake Bay Management
*
There are fewer menhaden along the Atlantic Coast than previously thought, leading to potential major catch reductions, according to scientific assessments released this week ahead of a fisheries regulators meeting.
Forecasts show that the menhaden catch must be cut in half to providea better than 50 percent chance of a sustainable menhaden harvest in the future. This comes amidst mounting warning signs linked to menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.
Menhaden are a small fish that are an important food for many species, including osprey, whales, and striped bass. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) menhaden board meets on October 28 to consider the results of this assessment. It will also continue deliberations on how to better manage the menhaden harvest in the Chesapeake Bay.
The new menhaden coastwide stock assessments by the ASMFC take into account the latest science available to estimate the menhaden population from Maine to Florida. These new assessments factor in several updates, including a lower number of menhaden that die naturally, to more accurately estimate numbers of the fish and fishery impacts.
For example, the 2025 assessments find that the biomass of menhaden was 37 percent lower than the previous assessment. As a result, the current catch limits were likely set far too high. New catch limits are needed to correct course.
Menhaden industry giant Omega Protein has previously championed this assessment process when it showed higher numbers of menhaden, leading to higher catch limits. The industry has not yet publicly commented on the latest assessment.
That industry harvests more than 100 million pounds of menhaden annually in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay. The new coastwide assessments released this week do not consider the impacts of concentrating this fishery in the Bay. A separate study to specifically address menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay has been delayed due to Omega Protein's lobbying efforts in Virginia.
There are mounting warning signs linked to menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. Osprey chicks are dying in parts of the Bay where menhaden are traditionally a staple of the bird's diet, according to research by the Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary
The U.S. Geological Survey attributes the osprey decline to a scarcity of food, stating "limited prey availability, their capture or their delivery to nests is seemingly the principal driver of poor reproductive success," in a recent letter to Congress.
There are also plummeting menhaden catches by local watermen who harvest the fish for bait--a separate, much smaller, fishery than the massive industrial effort driven by Omega Protein. The menhaden bait harvest dropped from 5.4 million pounds in 2019 to less than 1 million pounds in 2024, according to data from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
Recent bipartisan polling shows that 92 percent of Virginians want action to leave more menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Forage Campaign Manager Will Poston released the following statement:
"The new menhaden assessment confirms the alarm bells we've been hearing for years. With the latest science showing populations down coastwide and signs of mounting trouble in the Chesapeake Bay, it's time to act.
"To protect menhaden's role in the food web, and meet science-based Ecological Reference Points, fisheries regulators must follow the science and immediately cut the coastwide harvest by at least 50 percent while also beginning the process to give menhaden additional protections urgently needed in the Chesapeake Bay.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/2025/all/new-coastwide-menhaden-estimates-smaller-population-indicates-major-catch-reductions-needed.html
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: New Pacific Trade Highway
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 18 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
A New Pacific Trade Highway
The remapping of global supply chains.
By Jake Scott
When President Trump announced a new 100% tariff on Chinese imports, in retaliation for Beijing's latest export controls on rare earth elements, markets saw only the headline risk. But the real story lies beyond the ticker: a structural reordering of global trade. The world's supply chains, long anchored to the Chinese mainland, are splintering.
Capital is scattering across Asia's periphery,
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 18 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
A New Pacific Trade Highway
The remapping of global supply chains.
By Jake Scott
When President Trump announced a new 100% tariff on Chinese imports, in retaliation for Beijing's latest export controls on rare earth elements, markets saw only the headline risk. But the real story lies beyond the ticker: a structural reordering of global trade. The world's supply chains, long anchored to the Chinese mainland, are splintering.
Capital is scattering across Asia's periphery,and shipping routes that once followed predictable trans-Pacific lines are being redrawn into a new web of uncertainty and opportunity. Alongside an eastward turn worth $100 billion in investment, the trends of the last 30 years of global financial flows are being upended.
The tariffs, nominally intended to protect American industry, have become a catalyst rather than a disruption. China's tightening of export rules on rare earths, a sector that underpins global technology and defense manufacturing, has already caused shipments to fall sharply this autumn. That decline is deliberate: Beijing is weaponizing its market dominance to exert pressure on Washington and signal that supply chains remain a form of leverage. The Trump administration's countermeasures (broad tariffs and new fees on Chinese-built ships docking in American ports, extensively disrupting the transshipment trend of recent years) seek to contain that leverage, yet they also deepen the fragmentation of global commerce.
Rather than simply pushing prices up, these measures are accelerating a diversification that had already begun. Companies that once treated China as the irreplaceable factory of the world are now spreading their risks across what trade analysts call a "China+1" or even "China+N" model.
Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and India are attracting new investment in electronics, textiles, and automotive components as manufacturers seek to route goods through lower-tariff jurisdictions. The result is not a clean decoupling but a messy rewiring. Supply chains have become a geopolitical map of caution: firms are trading efficiency for resilience, scale for redundancy.
The shift is visible not only in production patterns but in capital flows. As direct investment into China cools, regional neighbors are absorbing the spillover. Vietnam's industrial parks are oversubscribed. India, once considered too bureaucratic to rival China, has become a preferred hedge for multinational manufacturers. Even Indonesia and the Philippines are attracting capital to their nascent semiconductor and battery sectors. Japan, South Korea, and Australia, meanwhile, are benefiting from intra-Asian trade and renewed logistics investment.
The diversification of supply has brought with it a diversification of shipping. The old trans-Pacific artery--container ships running directly from Shanghai or Shenzhen to Los Angeles--has been replaced by a tangle of feeder routes linking smaller ports.
Vietnam to California, India to Seattle, Malaysia to Texas: new pathways are forming, each less efficient but more politically secure. As cargo is redistributed, congestion is rising at smaller Southeast Asian ports ill-equipped for the surge. Where once were economies of scale are now a jigsaws of capacity constraints and freight premiums. The UNDP recently warned that the region is entering a period of "disruption, diversification, and divergence," where the old efficiencies of globalization give way to a new hierarchy of regionalization.
Rare earths illustrate the logic of this new order. Despite a truce in this key market that indicated potential collaboration, Beijing's controls have added more elements to its restricted list, while export licenses are now required even for goods containing trace amounts of Chinese material. Western buyers are scrambling to rebuild stockpiles or fund alternative mining projects in Australia, the US, and Africa.
Yet even as these efforts multiply, China retains the advantage in refining and magnet manufacturing, where most of the value--and vulnerability--resides. The commodity is no longer just a raw material but a political instrument, and its trade routes have become strategically sensitive corridors across the Pacific.
Markets will not be grateful for the ongoing politicization of trade commodities, materials, or even corridors in this new multipolar world, and may seek more stable regions instead.
Other sectors are already following suit. Refined metals, semiconductor wafers, and advanced ceramics are all acquiring what analysts now call a "geopolitical freight premium." The price of shipping is no longer determined solely by weight or distance but by risk: sanctions exposure, transit chokepoints, and the prospect of retaliatory tariffs.
The Strait of Malacca, a thin strip of sea between Malaysia and Indonesia connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans through which much of East Asia's energy imports flow, has become emblematic of this anxiety. China's so-called "Malacca Dilemma" (a narrow maritime bottleneck) has only intensified as supply lines diversify. New routes through India and Australia's northern ports aim to dilute that vulnerability, but at the cost of longer, less efficient journeys.
For investors, the geography of opportunity is shifting. The old paradigm of massive centralized production in China feeding global demand is dissolving. In its place is a mosaic of mid-sized markets, each demanding infrastructure, ports, and localized industry. Those who adapt to this multipolar economy will profit not from scale but from foresight: anticipating friction rather than chasing volume. The Pacific is no longer a single oceanic highway connecting two superpowers; it is a network of competing corridors, each with its own risks and rewards.
Tariffs protect domestic industries; or so claim their proponents. In practice, they have exposed how interdependent the global economy has become.
As Washington and Beijing exchange economic fire, it is the periphery--Southeast Asia, India, Australasia--that absorbs the blast and finds new room to grow. The new trade map of the 2020s is not drawn along ideological lines but logistical ones. Where goods can flow freely, capital follows. Where they cannot, prices rise and markets realign. In that sense, Trump's tariffs may yet achieve something their authors never intended, and their opponents never foresaw: the birth of a genuinely diversified trade system connecting Pacific nations, bound less by politics and more by necessity.
* * *
Jake Scott
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/a-new-pacific-trade-highway/
Annual Funded Grants - CRISPR and Prime Editing Technologies
COLUMBIA, Maryland, Oct. 18 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
Annual Funded Grants - CRISPR and Prime Editing Technologies
Funded grants for CRISPR and prime editing approaches.
*
The Foundation Fighting Blindness is proud to announce funding for several projects based on CRISPR and prime editing technologies.
* Stephen Tsang - $200,000
Columbia University
"ARMS2/HTRA1 in non-cell-autonomous oxidative and anti-inflammatory therapeutic targeting"
Drs. Tsang and Olah will use CRISPR to identify the causative allele of AMD pathologies and
... Show Full Article
COLUMBIA, Maryland, Oct. 18 -- The Foundation Fighting Blindness issued the following news on Oct. 17, 2025:
* * *
Annual Funded Grants - CRISPR and Prime Editing Technologies
Funded grants for CRISPR and prime editing approaches.
*
The Foundation Fighting Blindness is proud to announce funding for several projects based on CRISPR and prime editing technologies.
* Stephen Tsang - $200,000
Columbia University
"ARMS2/HTRA1 in non-cell-autonomous oxidative and anti-inflammatory therapeutic targeting"
Drs. Tsang and Olah will use CRISPR to identify the causative allele of AMD pathologies andinvestigate the stress signals of microglia (resident immune cells of the eye,) in AMD that might be treatable as part of a therapeutic strategy to reduce AMD-related cell death. They will also explore whether the presence of at least one low-risk ARMS2/HTRA1 allele maintains oxidative, anti-inflammatory, and overall cellular health in microglia.
* Qin Liu - $100,000
Mass Eye and Ear
"Development of precise correction of c.2299delG mutation in the USH2A gene."
Dr. Liu and her team will investigate the potential for using prime editing to correct the c.2299delG mutation in the USH2A. Traditional gene therapy is difficult due to the large size of the USH2A gene and the cargo capacity of delivery systems (viruses). Prime editing offers a precise method to correct single gene mutations. This research effort will focus on the feasibility of delivering prime editing components via an adeno-associated virus (AAV) to repair this mutation in a humanized mouse model of USH2A disease.
* Peter M.J. Quinn - $100,000
University of Pennsylvania
"Prime editing for Peripherin-2 (PRPH2) inherited retinal dystrophies"
Dr. Quinn is testing a prime editing technique for multiple mutations in PRPH2 using patient-derived retinal organoids. Prime editing is a gene editing technique that splices directly at the site of the mutations and switches out a mutated copy of the gene with a healthy copy. Successful completion of this project will establish a preclinical pathway for proof-of-concept for PRPH2 prime editing therapeutics and lay the foundation for the same strategy to be applied to other IRDs.
* Krzysztof Palczewski - $159,868
The Regents of the University of California, Irvine
"Precision genome editing in humanized mice expressing mutant peripherin-2"
Dr. Palczeski aims to create a mouse carrying the human PRPH2 gene in place of the mouse gene, which will allow researchers to test genome editing therapies for PRPH2-associated retinal diseases.
* Krzysztof Palczewski - $300,000
The Regents of the University of California, Irvine
"Correcting previously untreatable retinal degenerative diseases using twin prime editing"
Dr. Palczewski seeks to advance a novel gene editing technology called twin prime editing for treating a model of Stargardt disease and develop a twin prime editing framework to address other inherited retinal degenerative diseases.
Visit the funded projects page on our website to learn about the full list of funded grants for fiscal year 2025.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fightingblindness.org/news/annual-funded-grants-crispr-and-prime-editing-technologies-3049
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Grant En Banc Rehearing in Constitutional Challenge to FDIC's Structure
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Grant En Banc Rehearing in Constitutional Challenge to FDIC's Structure
"The panel's decision allows agencies to evade constitutional scrutiny and shields structural flaws from timely Article III review."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to revisit a panel's flawed ruling that federal courts lack jurisdiction
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
WLF Asks Fifth Circuit to Grant En Banc Rehearing in Constitutional Challenge to FDIC's Structure
"The panel's decision allows agencies to evade constitutional scrutiny and shields structural flaws from timely Article III review."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to revisit a panel's flawed ruling that federal courts lack jurisdictionto enjoin FDIC enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1818(i)(1). WLF contends that the panel's broad interpretation of the statute's exhaustion scheme improperly delays challenges to agencies' constitutional violations, such as improper removal protections and denial of jury trials.
The case stems from an FDIC enforcement proceeding against former bank executive Cornelius Burgess, alleging fiduciary breaches and seeking fines and industry bans. An FDIC administrative law judge adjudicated the enforcement action without a jury. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction, citing Seventh Amendment and separation-of-powers violations, but the Fifth Circuit vacated that ruling on the theory that district courts lack jurisdiction pending final agency action.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that the appeals court's decision contravenes the canon of constitutional avoidance by raising grave doubts about Sec. 1818(i)(1)'s validity, as it insulates agencies from pre-enforcement review of constitutional flaws. Not only does this erode Article III oversight but it circumvents accountability. WLF urges en banc review to adopt a narrow statutory reading that allows citizens federal-court access and ensures timely judicial checks on agency overreach.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2025/10/16/communicating/wlf-asks-fifth-circuit-to-grant-en-banc-rehearing-in-constitutional-challenge-to-fdics-structure/
[Category: Law/Legal]
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Best Practices to Prevent Misuse of Opioid Settlement Funds
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Best practices to prevent misuse of opioid settlement funds
States should adopt clear guidelines to ensure settlement funds support evidence-based treatment and recovery.
By Layal Bou Harfouch, Drug Policy Analyst; and Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director
To address the damages caused by the growing opioid epidemic, state and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the crisis through misleading
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Best practices to prevent misuse of opioid settlement funds
States should adopt clear guidelines to ensure settlement funds support evidence-based treatment and recovery.
By Layal Bou Harfouch, Drug Policy Analyst; and Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director
To address the damages caused by the growing opioid epidemic, state and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the crisis through misleadingmarketing and inadequate oversight. In response, opioid manufacturers reached a $50 billion settlement with state and local governments, intended to help remediate damages caused. This money offered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery services. However, states have provided little transparency on how they are using these funds, and the limited disclosures available already reveal concerns.
Opioid settlement funds have already been used for concerts, law enforcement equipment, and budget backfilling, among other purposes. These uses fall short of the settlements' intent to remediate the crisis. With billions still to be spent over the next decade, it is crucial to establish better financial controls and reporting structures for the use of these funds to ensure they are deployed transparently, efficiently, and in compliance with their legal restrictions to advance evidence-based interventions proven to save lives.
The opioid epidemic has claimed more than 800,000 lives since 1999. As the crisis intensified, policymakers and the public sought to identify its causes. State and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the epidemic through misleading marketing and inadequate oversight. These lawsuits ultimately led to the national settlement agreements. More than a dozen companies that manufactured, distributed, or aided in the prescription of painkillers, including McKinsey, Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, reached settlements totaling approximately $50 billion, to be distributed to various state and local governments over nearly two decades.
The settlements stipulate that funds must be used to support opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. However, since receiving the funds, many jurisdictions have not provided the transparency, accountability, and prioritization of evidence-based strategies that genuinely address the needs of those most impacted by the crisis. Each state receives a designated portion of the national settlement based on factors such as opioid-related deaths, the volume of opioids shipped, and population size, with funds then subdivided between state agencies and local jurisdictions according to negotiated formulas.
To guide spending, the National Opioid Settlement Agreement includes Exhibit E, which stipulates a non-exhaustive list of approved uses centered on prevention, treatment, and recovery from opioid addiction, and harm reduction programs. States must allocate at least 70% of settlement funds toward these opioid remediation efforts, and some have gone further by committing to use 100% of their funds accordingly. The remaining 30% is allocated as follows: up to 15% for administrative costs and up to 15% for any other purpose.
Core priorities for the use of these funds include developing prevention efforts through supporting different evidence-based education programs; expanding training and increasing access to naloxone, a life-saving opioid overdose reversal medication; increasing education around and the availability of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) such as methadone and buprenorphine or other opioid-related treatment; supporting syringe service programs that reduce the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases through clean syringe distribution; and investing in wraparound services that offer coordinated, comprehensive care for individuals in recovery. Other allowable uses involve peer recovery support, workforce development, care for pregnant and postpartum individuals, and programs addressing the needs of those in the criminal justice system. The strategies listed are evidence-informed and designed to respond to the drivers and consequences of the crisis directly.
While the settlement agreement outlines preferred uses with an emphasis on remediation, the guidelines leave significant room for interpretation--creating wiggle room for states and localities to circumvent evidence-based treatment entirely.
This is what has happened in New Jersey, where state investigators uncovered how the Township of Irvington exploited the flexibility of the guidelines to fund events that had little connection to harm reduction, addiction treatment, or public health.
A report from the New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller revealed that over $632,000 was spent on two "Opioid Awareness" concerts in 2023 and 2024. As reported, thousands were spent on "generators, an ice maker, popcorn machine, cotton candy machine, four flavors of shaved ice, a hot food display stand, and catered food." These events included celebrity performers and DJ sets. One township employee, Antoine Richardson, received $368,500 in unaccounted payments and steered nearly $470,000 in contracts to businesses linked to himself and his wife. The report concluded that Irvington's actions violated the intent of the settlement and referred the matter to several state agencies for further review.
There have been issues elsewhere in how the funds have been spent. Scott County, Indiana, used over $250,000 to pay salaries for health and emergency services staff, effectively freeing up their local budget to buy a new ambulance and build a financial cushion for the health department. This is achieved through supplantation, where new dollars are used to fund existing programs, thereby making more general fund revenues available for governments to spend as they wish. This practice is not explicitly prohibited in Exhibit E of the settlement fund agreements. Still, it serves as a workaround that can undermine the intended goal of building service capacity through these funds. A similar example occurred in New York, where advocates noted that the state shifted millions from its addiction agency's base budget and replaced it with opioid settlement dollars--substituting existing funding rather than using the settlement funds to enhance care. Blair County, Pennsylvania, directed $320,000 toward a long-standing drug court, using the funds in part to cover salary shortfalls for probation officers and aides due to limited state grants and probation fee revenue, rather than investing in new or expanded services.
Other states have directed the money toward law enforcement. Southington, Connecticut, used $18,000 to buy cellphone-unlocking technology for police. Ohio County, Ohio, spent nearly $43,000 on new K-9 and EMT equipment. Michigan counties, including Kalamazoo and St. Clair, purchased jail body scanners, infrastructure that experts argue should be funded through general law enforcement budgets. In West Virginia, $364 million, which is more than half of the state's total opioid settlement spending for the year, went to police vehicles, jail bills, and salaries, while just 6% supported treatment and recovery. Jackson County took this further by using 90% of its $566,000 allocation to expand a first responder training center, including building a shooting range.
Although the opioid settlements stipulate that funds should be used for specific opioid remediation purposes, they contain no binding requirements, enforcement mechanisms, or clawback provisions if jurisdictions misuse the money. Oversight is left entirely to state and local discretion. Each state executed its own Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defining how funds are distributed and what reporting, if any, is required.
As much of these funds currently remain unspent, it is incumbent on state and local governments to enact better financial controls and reporting mechanisms to ensure money is used consistently with its designated purpose--remediating the effects of the opioid epidemic.
Uncommitted settlement funds across states
According to the Johns Hopkins Opioid Settlement Expenditures Tracker, based on currently available disclosures, at least one-third of total settlement funds, estimated at roughly $15 to $17 billion of the $50 billion in national opioid settlements, have not yet been committed for use.
The share of total funds committed varies significantly by state. The tracker estimates that many states have yet to move beyond minimal commitments, with large portions of settlement dollars--sometimes more than 75%--still awaiting direction. By contrast, a handful of states, such as Colorado, Washington, and Delaware, have committed most or all of their funds.
The true share of uncommitted funds is difficult to pin down. Most settlement agreements do not require states or localities to publicly disclose how they spend the funds awarded to them. Twelve states had initially pledged to be "100% transparent," meaning they will report on every dollar of settlement funds and how it is used. Only a few have followed through.
Among the handful of states that provide accessible and detailed descriptions of their uses of the funds is the state of Minnesota, which has a dashboard allowing anyone to track what will be done with the $117 million awarded. The dashboard breaks spending down by county, outlining who received the money, for what purpose, whether the grantee is using an evidence-based program, and the outcome of this spending.
Other dashboards include those maintained by the states of Michigan, New York, and North Carolina. New Jersey and Indiana, instead, publish annual reports outlining county-level spending.
Lessons from the tobacco settlement
The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) is the closest precedent to today's opioid settlements, serving as an important cautionary tale. The MSA was a deal between four major tobacco companies and 46 states (plus D.C. and American territories). In exchange for releasing the companies from future Medicaid lawsuits related to smoking-related illnesses, the firms agreed to modify their marketing practices and make annual payments to the states in perpetuity, tied to cigarette sales.
Although the MSA was intended to offset public health costs and fund smoking prevention, it placed no restrictions on how states used the money. Most legislatures diverted payments into general budgets, infrastructure, or debt service rather than public health.
According to a United States Government Accountability Office Report, from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005, the 46 states party to the MSA received $52.6 billion in tobacco settlement payments. However, only 30% of the funds were allocated to health care, and another 3.5% to tobacco prevention. The rest was split between covering budget shortfalls (22%), debt service on securitized funds (5.4%), infrastructure (6%), education (5.5%), tax reductions (1%), and others.
States are still receiving these settlements. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, states received $6.8 billion from the MSA in 2024.
Several states securitized the future tobacco settlement cash streams, which means selling the right to receive years of cash flows for a smaller upfront amount, while also passing to bondholders the risk that the companies settled with may not honor the agreed-upon future payment streams, or that tobacco sales would be lower than expected.
This practice is already under discussion for opioid settlements. Some municipalities, such as the Wisconsin Counties Association, have considered securitizing their opioid settlement funds, which would enable them to capture upfront the payment stream that extends through 2038 at a discount.
Securitization is problematic because it trades decades of future remediation dollars for a one-time cash infusion at a steep discount. Governments forfeit long-term funding streams that could sustain treatment and prevention infrastructure. The tobacco experience showed that securitization left many states with little or no settlement revenue in later years, even as smoking-related harms persisted.
Local officials may also be tempted to invest opioid bond proceeds, anticipating that market returns will surpass debt service costs--an approach akin to pension obligation bonds, which carries significant risks.
The outcomes of the tobacco settlement provide clear lessons for the use of opioid settlement funds: Absent binding guardrails and rigorous transparency, both state and local governments face strong incentives to divert or front-load funds in ways that undermine their intended purpose.
Policy recommendations for strengthening opioid settlement spending
When governments are entrusted with funds to address the opioid crisis, they take on a moral obligation to act accordingly. That means investing in what works: expanded access to medication-assisted treatment, naloxone distribution and education, syringe service programs, recovery housing models, and other approaches rooted in evidence and outlined in Exhibit E, including the development of potentially novel treatments.
Misallocating these dollars undercuts both public health outcomes and fiscal responsibility. When rehabilitation-eligible interventions are underfunded, communities miss out on life-saving programs like MAT and harm reduction. Instead, overdose deaths rise, and criminal justice systems bear the cost of repeated recidivism. By contrast, well-targeted settlement spending has the potential to save lives, strengthen communities, and ease the burden on public systems.
Below are recommendations to ensure that the awarded funds are used effectively.
1. Discourage supplantation through clear spending principles
Supplantation, or using settlement funds to replace existing public health dollars, weakens the impact of these resources. State budget officials and attorneys general should issue clear guidance encouraging local governments to deploy settlement funds as a supplemental expansion of care rather than an alternate method of financing existing services.
2. Prioritize external providers for efficiency
Governments should prioritize contracting with external providers rather than providing harm reduction services themselves. Building new publicly operated service programs tends to be costly and slow, while specialized providers are likely to deliver evidence-based care more efficiently and at lower cost.
Partnering with external providers also reduces the risk of budget supplantation, ensuring settlement dollars fund new services rather than displace existing expenditures. Service providers who receive these funds should be held accountable for their use and required to provide an independent auditor's report detailing the use of these funds if they exceed a minimum threshold. For instance, recipients of federal grants in excess of $750,000 in any year must complete a federal single audit to account for the use of those funds.
3. Prohibit securitization
States should consider adopting explicit bans on securitizing opioid settlement revenues--that is, selling the right to future payments in exchange for upfront cash.
While securitization may appear to offer immediate budget relief, the tobacco settlement experience has shown that it strips away long-term remediation funding, often resulting in communities losing access to dollars even as their needs persist. Prohibiting securitization ensures that settlement payments remain available over time to sustain treatment, prevention, and recovery infrastructure, rather than being consumed in a single budget cycle.
4. Support voluntary frameworks for evidence-based spending
State governments can offer spending guidelines that prioritize effective, research-based strategies such as medication-assisted treatment, naloxone access, syringe service programs, and recovery housing. These frameworks should be developed with input from people with lived experience and members of the affected community to ensure they reflect real needs and can be adapted to local contexts. Highlighting these approaches helps localities focus on interventions that directly reduce harm and improve recovery outcomes.
5. Increase spending transparency
Local governments should regularly publish clear and accessible data showing how settlement funds are spent and what goals they aim to achieve. This can be achieved through either interactive dashboards, such as those used by the state of Minnesota, or yearly reports, as seen in the states of New Jersey and Indiana.
6. Allocate a portion of funds to innovative and emerging treatments
To drive long-term progress in addiction care, state and local governments should dedicate a portion of opioid settlement funds to support the research, development, and piloting of innovative treatment modalities. This includes exploring the therapeutic potential of ibogaine, a psychedelic alkaloid showing promise in interrupting opioid dependence, and GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially developed for diabetes and weight loss, which are being studied for their ability to reduce drug cravings and compulsive use. While more clinical trials are needed, strategic investment in these areas can help expand the future treatment toolkit beyond traditional approaches. Prioritizing innovation ensures that settlements can remediate current harms and foster breakthroughs that reshape addiction care for the next generation.
7. Invite independent spending reviews
Localities can partner with independent institutions to review how funds are allocated and whether spending aligns with the original purpose of the settlements. These reviews help identify areas for improvement and add an extra layer of accountability without requiring new laws or regulations.
8. Include community voices in spending decisions
People affected by addiction should have a role in shaping how funds are used. Community input ensures that spending decisions reflect local needs and improve outcomes for those most directly impacted.
The opioid settlements present a real opportunity to reshape how states support addiction care. Real impact comes from honest reporting, directing funds toward new and innovative treatment options, and strengthening what already exists on the ground. Many harm reduction and recovery programs already serve their communities, sometimes without formal recognition or support. These funds can help legitimize and expand their reach while empowering new groups to fill gaps where services do not yet exist. When used this way, the money can build sustainable systems that save lives and restore trust. The choices made now will determine whether these funds drive lasting progress or fade into missed potential.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/best-practices-to-prevent-misuse-of-opioid-settlement-funds/
Compared to Standard of Care: Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 Study Reveals TECVAYLI Plus DARZALEX FASPRO Combination Significantly Improves PFS, Overall Survival
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, Oct. 17 (TNSrep) -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Compared to Standard of Care: Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 study reveals TECVAYLI plus DARZALEX FASPRO combination significantly improves PFS and overall survival
According to Johnson & Johnson, results of the Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 study reveal TECVAYLI(R) plus DARZALEX FASPRO(R) combination significantly improves PFS and overall survival.
On Thursday, October 16, Johnson & Johnson announced "positive topline results from the investigational Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 study" via
... Show Full Article
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, Oct. 17 (TNSrep) -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news on Oct. 16, 2025:
* * *
Compared to Standard of Care: Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 study reveals TECVAYLI plus DARZALEX FASPRO combination significantly improves PFS and overall survival
According to Johnson & Johnson, results of the Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 study reveal TECVAYLI(R) plus DARZALEX FASPRO(R) combination significantly improves PFS and overall survival.
On Thursday, October 16, Johnson & Johnson announced "positive topline results from the investigational Phase 3 MajesTEC-3 study" viaa press release (https://www.jnj.com/media-center/press-releases/tecvayli-plus-darzalex-faspro-combination-regimen-significantly-improves-progression-free-survival-and-overall-survival-versus-standard-of-care).
"The study evaluates the efficacy and safety of TECVAYLI(R) (teclistamab-cqyv) in combination with DARZALEX FASPRO(R) (daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj) versus investigator's choice of DARZALEX FASPRO, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) or DARZALEX FASPRO, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received one to three prior lines of therapy," states Johnson & Johnson.
At follow-up after almost three years, treatment with TECVAYLI and DARZALEX FASPRO showed significant delayed progression of multiple myeloma compared to standard treatments. Early results also showed a meaningful improvement in overall survival.
Because of these statistically significant results, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) has recommended "unblinding the study."
IMF Scientific Advisory Member and Consultant Physician in Hematology at the University Hospital of Salamanca in Spain Maria-Victoria Mateos, M.D., Ph.D., said: "TECVAYLI is the most utilized BCMA bispecific in later lines of myeloma treatment, supported by extensive clinical and real-world evidence. These results demonstrate the clinical benefits of TECVAYLI in earlier lines when used in combination, as evidenced by meaningful progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes. TECVAYLI and DARZALEX FASPRO uniquely work together to target both BCMA and CD38 simultaneously, priming and activating the immune system and eliminating myeloma cells."
Global Therapeutic Area Head, Oncology, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine Yusri Elsayed, M.D., M.H.Sc., Ph.D., said: "The MajesTEC-3 study results of TECVAYLI plus DARZALEX FASPRO, two of our most important agents, demonstrate Johnson & Johnson's leadership in developing regimens with complementary and synergistic mechanisms of action for patients with multiple myeloma. We are confident this combination is poised to be a new standard of care option. The increase in progression-free survival and overall survival is another example of how our portfolio is fundamentally transforming how patients with multiple myeloma are treated."
"The overall safety profile of TECVAYLI administered in combination with DARZALEX FASPRO was consistent with the known safety profiles of each monotherapy," further states the press release.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/phase-3-majestec-3-tecvayli-darzalex-results
AmfAR Awards $2.4M in New HIV Cure-Focused Research Grants
NEW YORK, Oct. 17 -- AmfAR-the Foundation for AIDS Research issued the following news release:
* * *
amfAR Awards $2.4 Million in New HIV Cure-Focused Research Grants
Research teams in North America, Africa, and Australia will receive support to test a range of bold and innovative cure strategies
*
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, announced a new round of grants Thursday to research teams across three continents targeting novel HIV cure strategies. It marks the first time amfAR has funded five grants in a single round, reaffirming the organization's commitment to funding bold, innovative
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 17 -- AmfAR-the Foundation for AIDS Research issued the following news release:
* * *
amfAR Awards $2.4 Million in New HIV Cure-Focused Research Grants
Research teams in North America, Africa, and Australia will receive support to test a range of bold and innovative cure strategies
*
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, announced a new round of grants Thursday to research teams across three continents targeting novel HIV cure strategies. It marks the first time amfAR has funded five grants in a single round, reaffirming the organization's commitment to funding bold, innovativeresearch as access to funding has become increasingly limited for researchers.
"amfAR is proud to meet the moment and step up its support for research and the HIV community with this unprecedented suite of five new grants worth a total of $2.4 million," amfAR Vice President and Director of Research Dr. Andrea Gramatica said. "Each of these projects show enormous potential and the brilliant researchers bring out-of-the-box solutions to the decades-old problem of a cure for HIV."
Each grant is worth $480,000 over two years.
A study by Francesco Simonetti, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University hinges on a "self-destruct" mechanism present in cells infected by HIV. Dr. Simonetti, alongside co-investigators Priya Pal, MD, PhD, and Linos Vandekerckhove, MD, PhD, has found an existing HIV drug, efavirenz, can induce cell death (pyroptosis) in these HIV-infected cells and reduce the size of the HIV reservoir. The researchers plan to test how effective the process is and whether new compounds can amplify this effect.
Rachel Rutishauser, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Brad Jones, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, will refine CAR T cell therapy using a new type of engineered T cell called TRAC-HIT. While conventional CAR T cell therapy involves collecting cells from a person's body, genetically modifying them to recognize and target disease, and reinfusing them into the body, Drs. Rutishauser and Jones will reprogram cells inside a person's body. This method should create long-lasting, HIV-resistant immune cells with an approach that could be scaled up to meet global needs.
Mirko Paiardini, PhD, of Emory University is testing the cancer drug tazemetostat's ability to prevent latent HIV from hiding from the body's immune system. This approach has already shown promise in mouse models and will be tested on simian immunodeficiency virus, a close cousin of human HIV infection.
Also targeting the HIV reservoir, Nadia Roan, PhD, of the Gladstone Institutes and Possu Huang, PhD, of Stanford University will unleash an engineered protein they've developed called TRACeR that can map cells harboring HIV that continue producing small amounts of virus despite treatment. TRACeRs can then be converted to molecules that instruct the body's naturally occurring killer T cells to specifically eliminate these cells.
Finally, Sharon Lewin, PhD, of the Peter Doherty Institute and Thumbi Ndung'u, PhD, of the Africa Health Research Institute, will build on previous amfAR-funded research that demonstrated promising results using lipid nanoparticles to reactivate dormant HIV. Once awoken, these cells can be targeted for destruction by the immune system. Drs. Lewin and Ndung'u will now test this approach on HIV subtypes that are more prevalent throughout Asia and Africa, where most people living with HIV reside.
More than 40 million people are living with HIV around the world. While most remain healthy thanks to medications developed through decades of prior HIV research, nearly 10 million people still lack access to them. To be effective, an HIV cure must be scalable, affordable, and accessible to everyone across all subtypes of HIV.
About amfAR
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, is one of the world's leading nonprofit organizations dedicated to the support of AIDS research, HIV prevention, treatment education, and advocacy. Since 1985, amfAR has raised nearly $950 million in support of its programs and has awarded more than 3,800 grants to research teams worldwide. Learn more at www.amfAR.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.amfar.org/press-releases/amfar-awards-2-4-million-in-new-hiv-cure-focused-research-grants/
