Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Virginia Governor's Cuts to Environmental Education Harms Students
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, March 29 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Virginia Governor's Cuts to Environmental Education Harms Students
Governor Youngkin's cuts to environmental education from the state budget this week casts doubt on whether Virginia students can adequately meet state education standards, remain competitive with neighboring states, and solve complex challenges facing the future of the state.
Governor Youngkin cut $500,000 in environmental literacy funding from the state budget Monday. The existing limited funding in the budget fails to address
... Show Full Article
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, March 29 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Virginia Governor's Cuts to Environmental Education Harms Students
Governor Youngkin's cuts to environmental education from the state budget this week casts doubt on whether Virginia students can adequately meet state education standards, remain competitive with neighboring states, and solve complex challenges facing the future of the state.
Governor Youngkin cut $500,000 in environmental literacy funding from the state budget Monday. The existing limited funding in the budget fails to addressthe critical need for robust environmental literacy among Virginia's youth. The state's current allocation of just 30 cents per student for environmental education is alarmingly inadequate.
This figure places Virginia far behind neighboring states, falling 89.2% below Maryland's investment of $2.78 per student and 48.3% below Pennsylvania's 58 cents per student.
This disparity is particularly troubling given that environmental education principles are integral to Virginia's state education standards, inspire stewardship and reconnect young people to Virginia's local rivers, streams, and other natural resources. According to Stanford research, environmental education has a positive impact on student achievement not only in science but in math, reading, and social studies.
Del. Alex Askew released the following statement:
"This funding cut is a disservice to our students and a step backward for environmental stewardship and STEM education. It is imperative that we equip our young people with the tools and hands on learning to understand and protect our natural resources. Research shows environmental education improves critical thinking as well as student achievement across core subjects. We must urge the legislature to reinstate this crucial funding and prioritize environmental education."
Jay Ford, CBF Virginia Policy Manager, released the following statement:
"Investing in environmental education is investing in the future of Virginia. By neglecting to adequately fund these programs, we are depriving our students of the knowledge and skills necessary to address the complex challenges facing our Commonwealth. This shortsighted decision compromises our ability to cultivate informed and responsible citizens who can safeguard the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed."
"CBF strongly urges legislators in the Virginia General Assembly to reconsider this decision and reinstate adequate funding for environmental education during the veto session on April 2."
Vanessa Remmers
Virginia Communications & Media Relations Manager, CBF
vremmers@cbf.org
804/258-1567
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/2025/virginia/virginia-governors-cuts-to-environmental-education-harms-students.html
Kentucky Legislature Put the REINS on Unelected Bureaucrats
NAPLES, Florida, March 29 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability issued the following news release on March 28, 2025:
* * *
Kentucky Legislature Put the REINS on Unelected Bureaucrats
FGA praises the passage and veto override of the REINS Act, championed by Rep. Wade Williams and Sen. Matt Nunn
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) commends State Rep. Wade Williams and Sen. Matt Nunn for their leadership in advancing critical transparency and accountability reforms in Kentucky through the REINS Act. This proactive legislation ensures that Kentuckians receive the representation
... Show Full Article
NAPLES, Florida, March 29 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability issued the following news release on March 28, 2025:
* * *
Kentucky Legislature Put the REINS on Unelected Bureaucrats
FGA praises the passage and veto override of the REINS Act, championed by Rep. Wade Williams and Sen. Matt Nunn
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) commends State Rep. Wade Williams and Sen. Matt Nunn for their leadership in advancing critical transparency and accountability reforms in Kentucky through the REINS Act. This proactive legislation ensures that Kentuckians receive the representationthey deserve.
Despite the Governor's veto, Kentucky lawmakers knew just how important this reform was--they overrode the veto with a decisive 80-20 vote in the House and 31-7 vote in the Senate, securing a major victory for government accountability. Kentucky joins 11 other states in a national movement to rein in administrative overreach and return lawmaking authority to the people's elected representatives.
"Kentuckians deserve a government that works for them, not around them. This bill is a major step forward in restoring the balance of power and ensuring that unelected bureaucrats aren't the ones calling the shots for Kentucky families," said Emma Garelick, State Affairs Director at FGA. "Through the leadership of Rep. Williams and Sen. Nunn, Kentucky is taking an important step forward for greater accountability and lower costs for families."
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is a non-profit, multi-state think tank that promotes public policy solutions to create opportunities for every American to experience the American Dream. To learn more, visit TheFGA.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://thefga.org/press/kentucky-legislature-put-the-reins-on-unelected-bureaucrats/
Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, March 29 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Do cell phones cause cancer?
With our dependence on technology at an all-time high, cell phones have become almost an extension of our bodies. Whether in our hands or our pockets, many of us use cell phones as our go-to way to quickly access information or just pass the time.
Over time, many have wondered about whether frequent or continuous exposure to radiofrequencies from cell phones are damaging our DNA, and in turn, increasing our cancer risk. Let's take a closer look.
Where does the concern
... Show Full Article
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, March 29 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Do cell phones cause cancer?
With our dependence on technology at an all-time high, cell phones have become almost an extension of our bodies. Whether in our hands or our pockets, many of us use cell phones as our go-to way to quickly access information or just pass the time.
Over time, many have wondered about whether frequent or continuous exposure to radiofrequencies from cell phones are damaging our DNA, and in turn, increasing our cancer risk. Let's take a closer look.
Where does the concerncome from?
According to the Pew Research Center, 98% of U.S. adults now own a cell phone. Cell phones emit radiofrequency radiation, also known as cell signals, in the areas around them. For many cell phone users, this means the devices are emitting a signal around the head, neck, brain and other parts of the body.
Does the radiation from cell phones cause cancer?
Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation, which does not directly damage DNA. Although DNA damage can lead to cancer, there is no evidence that the radiofrequency from cell phones causes such damage.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute and others, there has been no identified link between brain, neck, head, breast - or any other type of cancer. Even with our dependence on cell phones increasing, the incidence of cancers has been stable. However, because studies look at trends over time in large groups instead of specific, smaller groups based on usage, data is limited.
Which cancer types are people concerned about when it comes to cell phones?
Brain cancer is the main concern because we sometimes hold cell phones close to the head and brain. There is also concern for other head and neck cancers for the same reason.
Some question whether sleeping in close proximity to their phone can increase the risk of brain cancer. Others are curious about breast cancer risk if they carry a cell phone in their bra or rest their phone on their chest. However, these concerns are unfounded because proximity to cell phones does not increase cancer risk.
Is the cancer risk from cell phones greater for children?
Children's bodies and nervous systems are not fully developed, putting them at a higher risk for some health problems. Some may be concerned that this makes children more susceptible to damage from radiation emitted by cell phones, but according to the NCI, data from studies of children with cancer does not suggest children are at an increased risk of cancer based on cell phone use. Non-ionizing radiation applies the same to children as it does to adults.
Do Bluetooth earbuds or over-ear headphones pose a cancer-causing risk?
No; Bluetooth uses non-ionizing radiation and emits radiofrequency at significantly lower levels than cell phones.
READ ALSO | My house had high levels of radon, here's how I fixed it (https://preventcancer.org/article/my-house-had-high-levels-of-radon-heres-how-i-fixed-it/)
While you don't need to worry about your cell phone giving you cancer, there are a lot of steps you CAN take to reduce your cancer risk. Research shows that up to 50% of cancer cases and about 50% of cancer deaths are preventable with the knowledge we have today.
Here are eight ways to reduce your cancer risk or detect cancer early, which leads to better outcomes.
* * *
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/cell-phones-cancer/
Third AT&T-BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges, Challenges Thousands in Illegal Strike Fines
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, March 28 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Third AT&T-BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges, Challenges Thousands in Illegal Strike Fines
Newest charge challenges union boss $5,300 strike fine demand, while other workers challenge CWA union officials' restrictive dues collection tactics
Miami, FL (March 28, 2025) - Henry Gonzalez, an employee of AT&T-BellSouth in Miami, has just hit the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union in his workplace with federal charges - the third worker to
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, March 28 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Third AT&T-BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges, Challenges Thousands in Illegal Strike Fines
Newest charge challenges union boss $5,300 strike fine demand, while other workers challenge CWA union officials' restrictive dues collection tactics
Miami, FL (March 28, 2025) - Henry Gonzalez, an employee of AT&T-BellSouth in Miami, has just hit the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union in his workplace with federal charges - the third worker todo so in just a month. Gonzalez's charges, which were filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, describe how CWA union officials are wrongfully targeting him with thousands of dollars in disciplinary fines for not participating in a strike.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law and investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices. Under federal labor law, union officials can mete out internal strike discipline only on employees who are formal members of the union. A worker who ends his union membership before exercising his right to continue working during a strike action cannot be punished by the union hierarchy. Gonzalez maintains that he resigned his union membership, yet union bosses still slammed him afterward with illegal fines in excess of $5,000.
In addition to preventing union bosses from imposing discipline on workers who have abstained from union membership, federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors protect workers' right to freely maintain or end union membership.
Freedom to resign union membership is also protected at the state level in Florida by the state's Right to Work protections, which forbid union officials from forcing private sector workers to join or pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. This is in contrast to forced-unionism states, in which union bosses can require all employees in a workplace, even those who are not union members or who are otherwise opposed to the union, to financially support some union activities.
Within the past month, Miami-based AT&T-BellSouth employees Sofia Hernaiz and Amanda Marc have also filed unfair labor practice charges against the CWA union. Hernaiz and Marc, who have also opted out of union membership, both maintain that union officials are enforcing confusing "window periods" that restrict to just a few days per year when workers can revoke their consent to union dues deductions. Marc's charge maintains that window periods violate federal labor law because they force unwilling workers to subsidize unwanted unions. Hernaiz's charge also reports unlawful post-strike discipline similar to Gonzales'.
"Principled, independent-minded workers at AT&T-BellSouth are increasingly deciding that they will not take CWA union officials' arbitrary restrictions and coercive 'discipline' sitting down," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Big Labor union bosses and their cronies on the NLRB have for decades been trying to contort federal labor law to favor their own power and influence over workers' freedom, especially during the Biden Administration. Foundation-backed workers in Florida and across the nation are fighting to reverse this trend."
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Mar 28, 2025 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/cwa-att-miami-3-03282025/
TPPF Files Opening Brief at Fifth Circuit in New Braunfels Short-Term Rentals Case
AUSTIN, Texas, March 28 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Files Opening Brief at Fifth Circuit in New Braunfels Short-Term Rentals Case
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) filed their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the City of New Braunfels' unconstitutional ban on short-term rentals (STRs). This case will determine whether local governments can disregard fundamental property rights based on vague assertions rather than substantive evidence.
"For over five years, our clients have been forced
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, March 28 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Files Opening Brief at Fifth Circuit in New Braunfels Short-Term Rentals Case
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) filed their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the City of New Braunfels' unconstitutional ban on short-term rentals (STRs). This case will determine whether local governments can disregard fundamental property rights based on vague assertions rather than substantive evidence.
"For over five years, our clients have been forcedto fight for their right to use their homes as they--and generations before them--always have," said Chance Weldon, Director of Litigation at TPPF. "The Fifth Circuit has already made it clear that local governments must do more than just provide conclusory statements to justify stripping property owners of their rights. The district court's refusal to follow this directive undermines constitutional protections and emboldens government overreach."
The case centers on the City of New Braunfels' decision to outlaw STRs in residential areas, despite them being a common residential use of property. Even after the property owners showed that short-term rentals don't produce more nuisances than other uses of people's homes, the Court still ruled in favor of the city.
"The City's position boils down to 'we say so, therefore it is,'" said Christian Townsend, Attorney at TPPF. "If that is all it takes to satisfy rational basis review, then constitutional property rights are effectively meaningless. The Constitution demands more, and the courts must enforce that requirement."
TPPF argues that local opposition alone cannot justify an unconstitutional restriction on private property rights. If a city wishes to ban a traditional residential use, it must at least provide substantive, fact-based reasoning rather than vague claims about "preserving residential character."
The Texas Public Policy Foundation remains committed to defending private property rights and limiting government overreach. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for property owners across Texas and beyond.
To read more about the case, click here (https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-secures-victory-at-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-in-marfil-v-new-braunfels-case).
To watch TPPF's interview with plaintiff Rafael Marfil, click here (https://www.texaspolicy.com/property-rights-short-term-rentals/).
Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit free-market research institute based in Austin that aims to foster human flourishing by protecting and promoting liberty, opportunity, and personal responsibility. The Center for the American Future defends the Constitution through legal opposition to government overreach. The Center launches legal challenges at the administrative, district, and appellate court levels on behalf of ordinary people whose lives, liberty, and property are threatened by government action in defiance of the Constitution.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-files-opening-brief-at-fifth-circuit-in-new-braunfels-short-term-rentals-case
SLF Supports Florida Landowner in SCOTUS Brief Protecting American Property Rights
ROSWELL, Georgia, March 28 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
SLF Supports Florida landowner in SCOTUS brief protecting American property rights
Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), an organization of top attorneys that regularly defend Americans' constitutional rights, joined a coalition of organizations to file an amici (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court in support of a Florida landowner's property rights in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (https://www.slfliberty.org/case/lozman-v-city-of-riviera-beach/).
Florida landowner Fane Lozman's
... Show Full Article
ROSWELL, Georgia, March 28 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
SLF Supports Florida landowner in SCOTUS brief protecting American property rights
Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), an organization of top attorneys that regularly defend Americans' constitutional rights, joined a coalition of organizations to file an amici (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court in support of a Florida landowner's property rights in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (https://www.slfliberty.org/case/lozman-v-city-of-riviera-beach/).
Florida landowner Fane Lozman'splans to develop his residentially zoned waterfront property were halted when the City of Riviera Beach rezoned it as a "special preservation" district. The new ordinance imposed a total ban on residential structures, listing as exceptions: "None." The brief warns that "in many jurisdictions, local officials can destroy the economic or social value of a property through re-zoning and downzoning ordinances."
SLF's brief emphasizes that the American Founders "believed that secure property rights are an important constraint on the arbitrary exercise of government power." The City of Riviera Beach left Lozman with a worthless property that had no value because of his inability to develop anything on it due to the city's ordinance. The ability to develop one's land is not just an economic interest but a fundamental liberty: "Liberal land use rules give Americans the freedom to order their private lives: to build churches... and to make land improvements for multigenerational living, a home school, or a home business."
The brief highlights how Riviera Beach "selectively used ripeness doctrine to bar Lozman from court," arguing his case was brought too late in district court, only to claim it was too early on appeal. These legal contradictions show that local governments "engage in gamesmanship that profoundly injures many Americans' property and constitutional rights."
SLF urges SCOTUS to affirm that clear categorical zoning ordinances are "final decisions" under the law. The brief concludes: "It is implausible that landowners seeking to preserve their property rights must navigate such uncertainty in our constitutional system, where property rights are enumerated and fundamental."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.slfliberty.org/slf-supports-florida-landowner-in-scotus-brief-protecting-american-property-rights/
Coalition Urges Trump Administration to Protect Americans From Pollution
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 28 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Coalition Urges Trump Administration to Protect Americans from Pollution
Groups urge White House council to preserve regulations allowing public input on power plant and industrial site placement
A broad range of national, statewide, and local civil rights, environmental justice, and environmental organizations and Tribal nations are calling on the Trump Administration to preserve environmental regulations for Americans in a public comment letter to the White House Council on Environmental
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 28 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Coalition Urges Trump Administration to Protect Americans from Pollution
Groups urge White House council to preserve regulations allowing public input on power plant and industrial site placement
A broad range of national, statewide, and local civil rights, environmental justice, and environmental organizations and Tribal nations are calling on the Trump Administration to preserve environmental regulations for Americans in a public comment letter to the White House Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ).
"No matter where we live--whether it's New Bedford, Boston, or Baton Rouge--most of us want the same basic things: clean water, clean air, and healthy families," said Britteny Jenkins, Vice President of Environmental Justice at Conservation Law Foundation. "That's what the environmental justice protections in NEPA are all about--making sure communities have a real say in decisions that impact their lives. They ensure people have power--not just pollution--in their neighborhoods. Across the country, we're coming together because we all deserve a fair shot at fighting for what matters most--and that starts with being heard."
The Trump administration moves to roll back portions of nearly five decades of rules under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in an Interim Final Rulemaking decision. NEPA, which is widely known as the "magna carta" of environmental laws, ensures that the public is able to engage in decisions that affect Americans and our environment like the placement of power plants, oil and gas infrastructure, industrial facilities, and highways and bridges.
In the public comment letter, the groups write that the Administration's actions go against the United States' commitments to advance environmental justice through NEPA and other means. The groups argue that the CEQ's Interim Final Rule:
* Will create confusion across agencies and decentralize regulations, ultimately harming the American people
* Will make it harder for Americans to have a voice in infrastructure and industrial projects in their communities
* Ignores the need to create a safe and healthy environment, and protect our people from adverse environmental decisions
Ultimately, the CEQ and the federal government have a duty to uphold equity, transparency, and accountability in federal decision-making to protect Americans from environmental harm. Rescinding the environmental justice components of NEPA will make it harder for historically excluded communities to be part of environmental decision-making processes.
The public comment letter is available here. The organizations that drafted the public comment letter include Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE); Abre' Conner, Center for Environmental and Climate Justice, NAACP; Gregg Macey, Center for Land, Environment & Natural Resources, UC Irvine School of Law; Conservation Law Foundation; Marianne Engelman-Lado, Director, and Layne Whitted, Research Assistant, Environmental Justice Initiative, NYU School of Law; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; and Stephanie Safdi, Supervising Attorney, Environmental Justice Law and Advocacy Clinic, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization.
Additional statements around the matter are below.
"Black Americans and communities of color are 75% more likely to live in communities near industrial facilities - such as chemical or power plants - and are disproportionately affected by toxic emissions, traffic, noise, and odors, and should have the opportunity to weigh in on these types of decisions" said Abre' Conner, Director of NAACP's Center for Environmental and Climate Justice Strategy. "Lacking decision-making power and access to solutions by the people most harmed perpetuates these environmental injustices. Without the environmental justice regulations in NEPA, even more communities across the country could be harmed by hazardous waste polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe. Having community-based stopgaps can also stop centuries-old problems from being the quick answer when we can build innovation into our solutions. We need environmental justice protections so our communities can engage in discussions about environmental decisions that affect us the most."
"Environmental justice responsibilities under NEPA exist regardless of Administration," said Gregg Macey, Director of the Center for Land, Environment & Natural Resources at UC Irvine. "They stem from Congress and judicial opinion, not from executive order. EPA planning and implementation documents under both Democratic and Republican Presidents make this clear. And as overburdened communities have made clear hundreds of times, agencies can't carefully consider the consequences of their actions with incomplete or cursory - let alone nonexistent - evidence, including the social and economic impacts that result from physical changes to the human environment."
"For decades, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities have borne the brunt of environmental hazards, breathing in polluted air, living near toxic waste, and facing the worst effects of climate change," said Lourdes M. Rosado, President and General Counsel, LatinoJustice PRLDEF. "NEPA has served as a key tool for advocates to combat these injustices. Rolling back NEPA's regulations is an outright attack on communities of color. LatinoJustice demands that the Administration withdraw these changes and uphold its responsibility to protect all of our communities."
Experts are available for further comment.
Media Contact
Mike Naughton
press@clf.org
617/850-1709
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/coalition-urges-trump-administration-to-protect-americans-from-pollution/
