Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: Methadone Saves Lives. Why Does the System Make It Hard to Get?
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Methadone saves lives. Why does the system make it hard to get?
Only a fraction of people trying to access treatment for opioid use disorder have access to methadone, the gold standard medication approved to treat addiction.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz
Senior Fellow
October 2, 2026
More than 44,000 people died from opioid overdoses in the United States in 2025. Despite recent declines in overdose deaths, the country remains in crisis. Paradoxically, only a tiny fraction of people trying to access treatment
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Methadone saves lives. Why does the system make it hard to get?
Only a fraction of people trying to access treatment for opioid use disorder have access to methadone, the gold standard medication approved to treat addiction.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz
Senior Fellow
October 2, 2026
More than 44,000 people died from opioid overdoses in the United States in 2025. Despite recent declines in overdose deaths, the country remains in crisis. Paradoxically, only a tiny fraction of people trying to access treatmentfor opioid use disorder (OUD) have access to methadone, the gold standard medication approved to treat addiction. Decades of research have shown that methadone is safe and effective, reducing risk of death from opioid overdose by more than half in some studies. Yet millions of Americans who might benefit from methadone are denied access due to byzantine and punitive rules that limit dispensing to specialized clinics, called opioid treatment programs (OTPs).
In Liquid Handcuffs: Policing and Punishment in Methadone Clinics and the Future of Opioid Addiction Treatment, author Helen Redmond, a licensed clinical social worker, journalist, and advocate, provides a meticulous yet eminently readable history of the regulation of methadone treatment for OUD and its consequences. Redmond's book highlights how methadone ended up in this dystopian regulatory state and how the restrictive policies undermine efforts to beat the opioid crisis.
Alongside this important background, Redmond recounts the experiences and grievances of the people who attempt to navigate the regulatory complexities of the OTP system. Redmond explains how, in practice, these regulations subject patients to onerous and often degrading requirements that dissuade most from seeking treatment.
Approved for opioid addiction by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1972, methadone is designated as a controlled substance, making it subject to the same FDA rules on efficacy and safety applied to all drugs, as well as Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) limits on production and dispensing for controlled substances. That designation, along with law enforcement concerns that it might enter the street drug supply, spawned the restrictive system aimed at avoiding such "diversion." But ironically, simply by making clinic access so impractical, patients often seek methadone outside of the regulated clinic system or turn to street drugs. Redmond argues that policymakers seeking to ease the opioid crisis and curb overdoses should allow methadone to be more widely accessible without undue access barriers.
Some of the barriers Redmond most strongly decries are the requirements that patients must take their doses under staff observation, requiring them to travel to clinics, sometimes daily. Clinics are often far--partially due to state and local regulations limiting clinic numbers and locations--sometimes up to two hours away.
Patients are also subject to urine screenings under observation and sometimes inappropriate demands that have nothing to do with their treatment needs. In a particularly egregious example, one clinic imposed the completely arbitrary requirement that people show they were doing "something positive during the day" to continue to receive treatment.
Redmond provides readers with valuable research about methadone, such as a report by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IoM) from 1995 that concluded, "The effectiveness of methadone treatment of opiate addicts has been established in many studies conducted over three decades. ... Consumption of all illicit drugs, especially heroin, declines. Crime is reduced, fewer individuals become HIV positive, and individual functioning is improved."
Even so, Redmond details stories of patients who liken their experience on methadone to being on probation or parole. One woman was five months pregnant when a flood inundated the city of Boulder, Colo., and her methadone clinic closed. She was told to go to a clinic in Denver, but there was no public transportation running. Another woman lost her job and her access to her methadone because she had some wine during a toast at her grandson's high-school graduation.
Patients using methadone to manage pain, as well as those taking other opioid medications, do not face the same hurdles or humiliation faced by those using methadone for OUD. Buprenorphine (often known by a brand called Suboxone) was approved in 2000 and is considered less effective but less risky than methadone. Thus, Buprenorphine can be prescribed by medical prescribers for at-home use, and millions of people have used it to discreetly treat opioid dependence while maintaining their professional and personal lives.
Forced inconvenience is rooted in the myth of diversion
A key reason patients don't take or stay on methadone is the requirement to use it in a clinic. While "take-home" doses alleviate the inconvenience of showing up every day, that privilege is at the discretion of clinic staff. For decades, federal regulations have required near-daily supervised use for at least the first three months of treatment, with the potential to earn increasing numbers of take-home doses depending on length of stable treatment. Even when patients are allowed take-home doses, visiting family out-of-state, traveling for work, or even going on vacation are practically impossible because at any time a patient can be called to appear in person at the clinic within hours with all the take-home bottles they have been issued to make sure they have not been sold or otherwise misused.
The fear of misuse or sale of clinical-dispensed methadone is, again, the primary justification advanced for imposing such strict rules on methadone access. But Redmond argues these fears are overblown and rooted in moralistic misperceptions that methadone treatment is merely substituting one addiction for another, because methadone is technically an opiate. Redmond points out that methadone does not get users "high," and long-term use is recommended to allow people to be productive members of their communities, as part of their recovery.
Redmond's book digs into this myth with the question, "Who is buying diverted methadone and why?" She posits that it is "not the opioid-naive general public looking to experiment with a narcotic. It is overwhelmingly people who are dependent on an opioid and are not in treatment. One study showed that 34% of people who used diverted methadone were trying to stop using heroin, 10% to reduce a drug habit, 10% because no other narcotics were available, and 9% to avoid withdrawal." In other words, many of those using illicit, diverted methadone might wish to access it legitimately through the clinic system, but cannot because they find the clinic strictures too prohibitive.
Hope for change?
A bill in Congress offers a small improvement to the methadone system. The Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act 2.0 (MOTAA 2.0), introduced by Sens. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would authorize physicians board-certified in addiction treatment to prescribe, and pharmacies to dispense, methadone for OUD treatment directly to patients. There are currently around 6,400 physicians that meet these qualifications, so the legislation would allow some people to get much more effective and convenient treatment. While the bill would do nothing to dismantle the dysfunctional clinic system, it could help demonstrate that expanding the number of medical professionals legally able to dispense methadone is safe.
During the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration issued guidance allowing clinics to offer stable methadone patients up to 28 days per month as take-home doses if state regulations allow it. That rule was made permanent before it was due to expire, but not all states have opted to implement it.
Studies conducted following the new guidance have concluded that take-home dosing didn't increase overdose deaths or diversion, the two reasons always given to limit or deny them. The latest, an August 2026 academic study funded by Pew Charitable Trusts, confirms the lack of harmful outcomes and articulates the many benefits gained from people taking advantage of the relaxed rules.
Redmond's Liquid Handcuffs offers a rare window on the absurdity of many of the methadone restrictions. As she puts it, "In any other field of medicine, deliberately denying someone their life-saving medication as a punishment would be grounds for a lawsuit, disciplinary action, or license suspension."
It seems counterproductive to impose any complicating restrictions on people trying to access opioid addiction treatment. MOTAA 2.0 is far from comprehensive, but its policies are a step in the right direction.
* * *
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/methadone-saves-lives-why-does-the-system-make-it-hard-to-get/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary Entitled 'European Nations Clash Over New Rules-of-Origin Proposals'
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
Made in "Europe"
Mark Nayler
European nations clash over new rules-of-origin proposals.
-
If the EU Commission didn't take itself so seriously, you might think that the so-called Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) had been given its name as a self-deprecating joke. Unveiled in March, the initiative aims to boost the bloc's industrial capacity and decarbonization efforts, in order to compete with China and achieve Brussels's stringent climate goals; but seven months on, its progress through
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 3 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
Made in "Europe"
Mark Nayler
European nations clash over new rules-of-origin proposals.
-
If the EU Commission didn't take itself so seriously, you might think that the so-called Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) had been given its name as a self-deprecating joke. Unveiled in March, the initiative aims to boost the bloc's industrial capacity and decarbonization efforts, in order to compete with China and achieve Brussels's stringent climate goals; but seven months on, its progress throughthe EU's bureaucratic obstacle course is steadily decelerating. Like many EU initiatives before it, the IAA is causing internal division--in this case over the scope of the phrase "Made in Europe." The question at the center of the dispute is whether protectionist measures will help or harm flagging EU industries.
The main idea behind the IAA is simple. Low-carbon and/or EU-made requirements will be placed on products bought through public procurement or auction, or manufactured with the aid of state subsidies. The aim is to channel more of the Euros2.6 trillion ($2.9 trillion) spent annually by European public authorities into strategic sectors such as steel, aluminum, cement, electric vehicles, solar and wind power, and hydrogen technology.
Specific criteria will depend on whether the goal is to increase or maintain a sector's productivity, or to accelerate its decarbonization. Inverters and cells for solar panels, for example, would need to be EU-made within three years of the IAA becoming law; steel, however, could still be bought from outside the EU, but would need to be 25% low-carbon. Brussels wants manufacturing to account for 20% of the bloc's GDP by 2035, compared to 14% at present.
The sweeping deregulation initiative announced by the EU leadership last year is also intended to boost the bloc's competitiveness and put it on a more equal footing with China. According to the EU, its onslaught on red tape has already saved businesses around Euros15 billion ($17 billion), almost halfway to the Euros37.5 billion ($42.5 billion) savings target set for 2029.
Disagreement over the "Made in Europe" requirement, however, threatens to push negotiations over the IAA well into 2027. France interprets the phrase most intuitively, as meaning goods produced within the 27-member union, or at least in countries located on the continent of Europe, which would include around 20 European nations not formally affiliated with Brussels. According to French Industry Minister Sebastien Martin, "[I]t will still be possible to have products with some of their added value coming from elsewhere [i.e. components made outside the bloc], but production must take place in Europe in order to qualify for public support." Controversially, France wants to exclude the UK, which exited the EU in 2020 but retains a free trade arrangement with the bloc. "Fundamentally," said Martin, "there are those who have chosen the European project and those who have decided to leave."
Germany, however, rejects what it sees as the "protectionism and discrimination" of this approach, and favors broader "Made with Europe" criteria. This would include the approximately 80 countries (including the UK) that have free trade agreements with the EU, as well third parties willing to forge reciprocal public procurement arrangements. An opt-in clause such as this, of course, potentially allows any country in the world to enter the "Made with Europe" group, which seems self-defeating. A product assembled in Berlin, say, but 90% constituted by components from Beijing, could just as well be labeled "Made with China" as "Made with Europe." It's hard to see how the IAA will really boost EU competitiveness unless it mandates some degree of positive discrimination toward local industries.
That said, Berlin's proposal speaks to concerns that a substantial restriction of the market for the EU's public bodies would reduce competition within the bloc, raise costs for businesses and consumers, and damage multinational supply chains, especially for car manufacturers. The UK's Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said that excluding Britain from the "Made in Europe" club would jeopardize shared investment and a trading relationship worth Euros80 billion ($90.1 billion).
EU origin requirements might also strain some of the bloc's domestic industries, by suddenly creating a demand that outstrips supply capacities. According to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association, "Limited supply will remain the key constraint to expanding the number of cars that would be eligible for the 'Made in the EU' incentives." The IAA, apparently, will contain exemptions for companies that can't comply with "Made in Europe" requirements without significant cost increases; but the danger is that such exemptions become so numerous that they dilute the IAA's practical impact.
Germany's stance is aligned with that of the EU Commission, which recently signaled its intention to broaden out the union itself. In the annual State of the Union address last month, attended by Canadian president Mark Carney, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen proposed that Canada become an "associate" member of the EU. It was surely a suggestion made with the IAA in mind, as well as a snub to Donald Trump, who called the idea "laughable." Von der Leyen has yet to provide details of what exactly an "associate member" would look like, or state whether a similar invitation will be extended to the US when Trump is replaced by a president of whom Brussels approves.
Spain, meanwhile, has proposed what it says is a "more granular" compromise, in which the "Made in Europe" group would feature three tiers. The top tier would consist of the 27 EU member states; the second of members of the European Economic Area (the EU plus Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Norway) and other "trusted" partners; and the third of countries with free trade or public procurement arrangements with Brussels, possibly including the UK (a point on which Madrid hasn't been specific). On closer inspection, though, this isn't as much of a compromise as it appears, at least without details about how the tiers would actually work: it is essentially a restructuring of Germany's proposal, incorporating as it does a rejection of the restrictions favored by France.
Some analysts claim that the debate over "Made in Europe" is largely redundant, as the European industries targeted by the IAA import from just a handful of countries. Still, the dispute highlights the challenges to be overcome if the act is to foster closer competition with China--namely, bolstering domestic demand without cutting off key partners, and ensuring that compliance loopholes don't result in a policy that is effectively voluntary. Potentially, though, the IAA could inject some much-needed dynamism into European industry, especially in conjunction with Brussels's deregulation drive.
* * *
Mark Nayler
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain. He writes regularly for The Spectator and Times Literary Supplement and is working on a biography of the philosopher Bryan Magee, due to be published by Bloomsbury (London) in 2028.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/made-in-europe/
The Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust, The Nemours Foundation, and State of Delaware Launch Historic Agreement to Advance Childhood Health
JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Oct. 2 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
The Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust, The Nemours Foundation, and State of Delaware Launch Historic Agreement to Advance Childhood Health
*
WILMINGTON, DE, October 2, 2026 - The Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust, The Nemours Foundation, and the Delaware Attorney General's Office today announced a landmark agreement among the Trust, the State of Delaware, the State of Florida, and The Nemours Foundation, committing $950 million over 11 years to promote the health and well-being of Delaware's children
... Show Full Article
JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Oct. 2 -- Nemours Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
The Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust, The Nemours Foundation, and State of Delaware Launch Historic Agreement to Advance Childhood Health
*
WILMINGTON, DE, October 2, 2026 - The Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust, The Nemours Foundation, and the Delaware Attorney General's Office today announced a landmark agreement among the Trust, the State of Delaware, the State of Florida, and The Nemours Foundation, committing $950 million over 11 years to promote the health and well-being of Delaware's childrenfor generations to come.
The agreement establishes the Alfred I. duPont Charitable Fund for Delaware's Children, a new grantmaking arm that will fund nonprofit programs focused on children's health and well-being in Delaware.
"This collaboration directly delivers on Mr. duPont's vision," said Thomas G. Kuntz, Chairman of the Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust. "Children's health is our founder's enduring legacy, and we remain committed to advancing that mission. By creating this new fund, we're continuing to invest in what matters most: a future where all of Delaware's children can achieve and thrive."
The Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust is one of the nation's largest philanthropic supporters of children's health. Since 1980, it has distributed more than $5 billion to The Nemours Foundation, in support of Alfred I. duPont's vision of healthier lives for children. Those investments have provided generations of Delaware's Children with access to high-quality pediatric care, advanced innovation, and supported Nemours' growth into one of the nation's largest pediatric health systems. For more than 90 years, Nemours has cared for Delaware's children, providing a comprehensive range of pediatric services, from primary and preventive care to the most advanced specialty, surgical, and life-saving treatments.
"Alfred I. duPont was the greatest philanthropist in the history of our state, and his dying wish was a bequest to Delaware's kids," said Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings. "Our office has worked for roughly 50 years, through seven attorneys general, in two states, to fulfill that dream. His vision has already delivered the region's gold standard for children's healthcare; this collaboration dramatically expands his impact on Delaware. This resolution between the parties represents a watershed moment for the future of every child in our state."
"This agreement reflects the enduring power of the vision Alfred I. duPont set in motion nearly a century ago. Delaware holds a special place in that story," said R. Lawrence Moss, M.D., FACS, FAAP, President and CEO of Nemours Children's Health. "We are proud and grateful that the vision born in Delaware continues to flourish here, inspiring new possibilities and helping build a healthier future for children and families for generations."
The establishment of the Alfred I. duPont Charitable Fund for Delaware's Children marks a new chapter of cooperation between the Trust, the State of Delaware, and Nemours and a shared commitment to improving outcomes for Delaware's children.
The fund will be governed by a committee of directors, including three committee directors appointed by the Trust and one committee director appointed by the Governor of Delaware. Grantmaking activities will continue beyond the $950 million, 11-year funding commitment and will include distributions of at least $237.5 million to Nemours' Delaware initiatives, ensuring a continued connection to its roots.
About the Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust. Established in 1935 from the estate of industrialist and philanthropist Alfred I. duPont, the Trust's mission is to alleviate human suffering. As stewards of Mr. duPont's will and his vision for healthier lives for children, the Trustees preserve the Nemours Estate and provide resources to its sole qualified beneficiary, The Nemours Foundation, which operates Nemours Children's Health. Aspiring to be the most impactful charitable organization focused on children's health, the Trust has grown into one of the nation's largest charitable foundations, enabling Nemours Children's Health to become a global leader in pediatric care.
The Nemours Foundation is one of the nation's largest multistate pediatric health systems, which includes two free-standing children's hospitals and a network of more than 80 primary, specialty, and urgent care practices. Nemours seeks to transform the health of children by adopting a holistic health model that utilizes innovative, safe, and high-quality care while also caring for the health of the whole child beyond medicine. Nemours also supports research, education, advocacy and prevention programs to the children, families and communities it serves. For more information, visit Nemours.org.
***
Original text here: https://nemours.mediaroom.com/TrustAgreement
TPPF Amicus Brief Supports Challenge to Misguided EPA Standards
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 2 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Amicus Brief Supports Challenge to Misguided EPA Standards
*
AUSTIN -Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Environmental Protection Agency's hasty revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to conduct a thorough scientific review of the NAAQS every five years. In 2023, the Biden administration conducted an off-cycle review that led to a
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 2 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Amicus Brief Supports Challenge to Misguided EPA Standards
*
AUSTIN -Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Environmental Protection Agency's hasty revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to conduct a thorough scientific review of the NAAQS every five years. In 2023, the Biden administration conducted an off-cycle review that led to a25% tightening of the standard for a specific particulate matter. TPPF's brief argues the EPA did not fulfill the Clean Air Act's requirements. Instead, the EPA focused on a narrow set of recent studies while failing to consider other peer-reviewed research challenging the assumptions behind the standard in question.
"EPA tightened the NAAQS PM2.5 standard because it ignored peer-reviewed data that was not consistent with its predetermined result," said TPPF Senior Attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich. "That is the epitome of bad science. Just as importantly, it's not authorized by the Clean Air Act."
"Our system rests on the presumption that administrative agencies are going to pay attention to the information that's out there before making decisions. EPA admitted that it didn't do that here," said TPPF Attorney Laura Beth Latimer. "And unless the Supreme Court steps in, the effect on the economy could be disastrous."
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-amicus-brief-supports-challenge-to-misguided-epa-standards
Coalition Sues Trump Administration Over Rule Making Cars Less Fuel Efficient
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 2 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Coalition Sues Trump Administration Over Rule Making Cars Less Fuel Efficient
October 2, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) joined a coalition of environmental and consumer protection organizations that filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging the Trump administration's final rule rolling back federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, a move that will make new vehicles less fuel efficient, increase gasoline consumption, and drive up costs for American drivers already
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 2 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Coalition Sues Trump Administration Over Rule Making Cars Less Fuel Efficient
October 2, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) joined a coalition of environmental and consumer protection organizations that filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging the Trump administration's final rule rolling back federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, a move that will make new vehicles less fuel efficient, increase gasoline consumption, and drive up costs for American drivers alreadyfacing high gas prices.
The lawsuit challenges the administration's attempt to weaken longstanding fuel economy requirements that have helped reduce gasoline consumption and save drivers money at the pump. The rollback comes as families are already struggling with record-high gas prices, with transportation ranking as the second-largest household expense after housing, accounting for roughly 17% of average household spending.
"The Trump administration is steering us toward cars that burn more gas to travel the same miles, draining family budgets along the way," said James Crowley, senior attorney at CLF. "As the needle drops toward empty, more grocery and rent money goes into the tank, while more pollution fills the air we breathe. We're taking this administration to court because families can't afford to be steered backward."
The existing fuel economy standards, which the Trump administration has weakened, would have saved 64 billion gallons of gas. Even before the current rise in gas prices, they were set to deliver $35 billion in savings to consumers over the lifetimes of the vehicles covered. However, the final rule weakens those standards, allowing manufacturers to produce a fleet of vehicles in model year 2031 that are less efficient than the model year 2024 vehicle fleet that is already on our roads.
The administration's own projections show that Americans will be forced to spend over $1,600 more on fuel over the life of these life-efficient vehicles, and NHTSA estimates this final rule will result in an increase of over 121 billion gallons of fuel consumption through 2050.
"We're taking the Trump administration to court for this reckless rollback that prioritizes Big Oil and automaker profits over American families, " said Katherine Garcia, Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All Director. "It is unlawful for Trump to turn back the clock on fuel-efficient cars forcing drivers to waste more money on gas and communities to breathe toxic air. The Sierra Club is proud to stand with our coalition partners in defending our right to cleaner, more affordable vehicles."
"With gas prices at historic highs, Trump picked the worst possible time to roll back federal mileage standards," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air. We'll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We're asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto."
"Consumers need more fuel efficient choices when considering new cars, and they deserve vehicles that get more miles per gallon and miles per dollar," said Robert Weissman, co-President of Public Citizen. "Trump's lawless push to roll back key safeguards on fuel economy will pollute our air, and line the pockets of oil and auto CEOs. We are confident of stopping Trump's CAFE standards rollback."
"The Trump administration's rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices," said Andy Su, Senior Transportation Attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. "We're going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive."
Experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/coalition-sues-trump-administration-over-rule-making-cars-less-fuel-efficient/
As Treasury Rates Rise, Voters Deeply Concerned about $40 Trillion Debt and Impact on Cost of Living
NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- The Peter G. Peterson Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
As Treasury Rates Rise, Voters Deeply Concerned about $40 Trillion Debt and Impact on Cost of Living
*
As inflation and interest rates continue to rise following the national debt surpassing $40 trillion, the September U.S. Fiscal Confidence Index remains near a two-year low at 38. The latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation survey released today shows that five weeks before Election Day, voters connect America's worsening fiscal outlook to their personal financial condition and are looking for candidates
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- The Peter G. Peterson Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
As Treasury Rates Rise, Voters Deeply Concerned about $40 Trillion Debt and Impact on Cost of Living
*
As inflation and interest rates continue to rise following the national debt surpassing $40 trillion, the September U.S. Fiscal Confidence Index remains near a two-year low at 38. The latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation survey released today shows that five weeks before Election Day, voters connect America's worsening fiscal outlook to their personal financial condition and are looking for candidateswith a plan to stabilize the debt.
The new national survey, jointly conducted by Democratic firm Global Strategy Group and Republican firm North Star Opinion Research, finds:
* 92% of voters (including 95% of Democrats, 90% of independents and 91% of Republicans) are concerned that the national debt's effect on inflation is increasing the cost of living, including prices for groceries, energy, housing, transportation, and other goods and services.
* 89% of voters (including 94% of Democrats, 87% of independents and 87% of Republicans) are concerned that the national debt is contributing to higher borrowing costs, such as credit card interest, car loan rates, and mortgage rates.
* 95% say they are more likely to support a candidate with a plan to address the debt, including 97% of Democrats, 93% of independents and 95% of Republicans.
* 84% say a candidate having a plan to address the national debt is a factor in deciding their support in the 2026 election, including 86% of Democrats, 80% of independents and 87% of Republicans.
* 71% of voters (including 66% of Democrats, 81% of independents and 70% of Republicans) say they would consider supporting a candidate from a political party they do not usually support, if that candidate had a clear plan to address the debt.
* 94% of voters want Senate candidates this year to clearly explain their plans to prevent automatic Social Security benefit cuts, with virtually unanimous agreement in each age bracket and across party lines.
"As Election Day approaches, Americans are looking for leaders who understand that stabilizing our debt outlook is critical to addressing the affordability crisis," said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation. "Financial markets are sending a message in the form of higher interest rates, reflecting deep unease about our fiscal trajectory. With Social Security set to reach insolvency in just six years, the next Senators and President we elect will be in office when huge automatic cuts kick in. For many reasons, now is the time for leaders to take our growing debt seriously and act on the many solutions available to put our nation on a stronger path."
September's U.S. Fiscal Confidence Index shows widespread agreement (85%) that the president and Congress should spend more time addressing the national debt. Large majorities also agree that the debt should be a top-three priority for our leaders (81% agree/14% disagree), including among 78% of Democrats, 79% of independents and 87% of Republicans.
The Fiscal Confidence Index measures public opinion about the national debt by asking six questions in three key areas:
* CONCERN: Level of concern and views about the direction of the national debt.
* PRIORITY: How high a priority addressing the debt should be for elected leaders.
* EXPECTATIONS: Expectations about whether the debt situation will get better or worse in the next few years.
The survey results from these three areas are weighted equally and averaged to produce the Fiscal Confidence Index value. The Fiscal Confidence Index, like the Consumer Confidence Index, is indexed on a scale of 0 to 200, with a neutral midpoint of 100. A reading above 100 indicates positive sentiment. A reading below 100 indicates negative sentiment.
Fiscal Confidence Index Key Data Points:
* The September Fiscal Confidence Index value is 38\. (The August value was 38. The July value was 39.)
* The current Fiscal Confidence Index score for CONCERN about the debt is 33, indicating deep concern about the debt. The score for debt as a PRIORITY that leaders must address is 19, indicating that Americans want elected leaders to make addressing long-term debt a high priority. The score for EXPECTATIONS about progress on the debt is 61. The Fiscal Confidence Index is the average of these three sub-category scores.
The Peter G. Peterson Foundation commissioned this poll by Democratic firm Global Strategy Group and Republican firm North Star Opinion Research. The online poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters nationwide between September 14 and September 16, 2026. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
Detailed results can be found online at www.pgpf.org/FiscalConfidenceIndex.
***
Original text here: https://www.pgpf.org/press/2026-9-fci-press-release/
AHF to Mark 40 Years of Global Impact with World AIDS Day Concert in L.A. Nov. 30th
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 2 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
AHF to Mark 40 Years of Global Impact with World AIDS Day Concert in L.A. Nov. 30th
*
(October 01, 2026) LOS ANGELES, CA - AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the world's largest, non-profit public health organization providing direct HIV/ADS services to over 3.3 million clients across the globe, will celebrate 40 years of impact during its annual World AIDS Day concert commemoration. The event, which is free and open to the public, is scheduled for the evening of Monday, November 30, 2026, at the
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 2 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
AHF to Mark 40 Years of Global Impact with World AIDS Day Concert in L.A. Nov. 30th
*
(October 01, 2026) LOS ANGELES, CA - AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the world's largest, non-profit public health organization providing direct HIV/ADS services to over 3.3 million clients across the globe, will celebrate 40 years of impact during its annual World AIDS Day concert commemoration. The event, which is free and open to the public, is scheduled for the evening of Monday, November 30, 2026, at theKia Forum in Inglewood, California. RSVP to AHFWAD.org for tickets.
Commemorated annually on December 1st, World AIDS Day is an international observance held to raise awareness of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, show support for people living with HIV, and remember those who have died from AIDS-related illnesses. Since, 2016, AHF's World AIDS Day commemoration, under the slogan of Keep the Promise, has been presented in cities across the country, including Dallas, Atlanta, New York, Washington, D.C. and Houston. To heighten broader public awareness to the on-going impact of the global epidemic, and the work still to be done, the organization has previously worked with acclaimed director/choreographer, Debbie Allen to produce the show and over the last decade, partnered with a diverse array of performing artists such as Mariah Carey, Ricky Martin, Janet Jackson, Patti LaBelle, Jennifer Holliday and Gladys Knight to perform at the annual event.
AHF is returning to the Kia Forum to present this year's commemoration and celebrate its 40th anniversary. AHF held its event at the iconic venue in 2021 when celebrating the organization's 35th anniversary, which featured Christina Aguliera and Jennifer Hudson.
According to recent statistics from U.N. AIDS, there are over 41 million individuals living with HIV and 1.2 million have been newly diagnosed. Domestically, approximately 1.2 million people live with HIV in the U.S., and about 13% of them do not know they have it, according to HIV.gov.
Founded in 1987, AIDS Healthcare Foundation started as a network of hospices and grassroots advocacy in Los Angeles. It was originally known as the AIDS Hospice Foundation before changing its name to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in 1990. To date, AHF has healthcare and wellness centers in 50 countries and 19 domestic locations including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. AHF provides direct HIV/AIDS services to over 3.2 million individuals in care.
AHF is in the final planning stages of this year's event. Event details, including headlining artist and other program participants, will be announced in mid-October. To learn more about AHF and the 2026 World AIDS Day event, visit ahf.org
AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the world's largest HIV/AIDS healthcare organization, provides cutting-edge medicine and advocacy to more than 3.2 million individuals across 50 countries, including the U.S. and in Africa, Latin America/Caribbean, the Asia/Pacific Region, and Eastern Europe. In January 2025, AHF received the MLK, Jr. Social Justice Award, The King Center's highest recognition for an organization leading work in the social justice arena. To learn more about AHF, visit us online at AIDShealth.org, find us on Facebook, and follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok.
Located in Inglewood, California, the Kia Forum is the only arena-sized venue in the country dedicated to music and entertainment, delivering a superior experience for artists and fans alike. The iconic venue hosts a diverse range of premier events, featuring the biggest names in music and entertainment, award shows, combat sports, and more. Fans at the Kia Forum enjoy approximately 8,000 square feet of event-level hospitality offerings, including merchandise and food and beverage options. A tinted glass wall separates this concession area from the arena, ensuring fans do not miss a moment of the show. A 40,000-square-foot outdoor terrace wraps around the perimeter of the building and offers comfortable furnishings and food and beverage options from some of SoCal's most celebrated brands. Designed with entertainers and performers in mind, Kia Forum Backstage includes star-caliber dressing rooms that provide unparalleled comfort. The Kia Forum received Pollstar's "Arena of the Decade" award in 2022 and was named the top West Coast arena in 2025 by Pollstar and Billboard magazines. thekiaforum.com | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/10/ahf-to-mark-40-years-of-global-impact-with-world-aids-day-concert-in-l-a-nov-30th/
