“I Was Losing Pieces of My Childhood:” a Former Child Farmworker Urges Action to End Child Labor in a Speech to Be Remembered

/in Blog, Featured Home - Workers Rights, Thought Leadership/by

By Reid Maki, NCL Director of Child Labor Advocacy & Coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition

The recent 6th Global Conference on the Elimination of Child Labour included high-ranking officials from over 100 governments, the ILO, trade groups, and employer groups. I heard many speeches from child labor experts with decades of experience, but former NCL intern Jacqueline Aguilar, only 23 and a recent college graduate, gave by far the most compelling and poignant remarks. In 2023, Jacky interned for me at the Child Labor Coalition, a program of the National Consumers League.  She came to us through a remarkable program for former Migrant Head Start students led by the National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association, a member of the Child Labor Coalition.

Jacky spoke on a panel with a half-dozen government officials and a trade unionist. She recalled her experiences in the United States as a child laborer in agriculture. Members of the Child Labor Coalition are concerned that, in any given year, there may be as many as 300,000 minors working in agriculture. They work legally at tasks most adults cannot do because of gaps in child labor law that apply to agriculture. These exemptions allow children to work unlimited hours in the fields (if they aren’t missing school) beginning at the age of 12.

Jacky spoke from the heart about the impact child labor has had on her life and those of her peers from migrant families. Her remarks reminded us of why we were at the conference and impressed the attendees that we must act urgently to protect the 138 million children trapped in child labor.

Jacky started: “When people hear ‘child labor,’ they imagine something far away. A different country. A different life. But I am standing here to tell you it happened. In our communities. In our fields.”

“My parents worked in the fields every single day to provide for us,” recalled Jacky.  “I remember waiting by the door as a little girl for my dad to come home. When he put his hand on my cheek, I would feel how rough it was: cracked, dry, hardened by the earth. I used to wonder why his hands felt like that. Now I know. Those hands were not meant to be that way. They were shaped by survival.”

“At 11 years old, I stepped into those same fields. 11,” she continued.  “While other kids were worrying about homework or sleepovers, I was waking up at 4:00 in the morning. It was still dark outside…By 5:00 a.m., I was in the lettuce rows. The fields were endless. My hands wrapped around a hoe that felt too heavy for my body. The metal burned my palms. Blisters formed and broke. My feet ached from standing for hours. The morning dew soaked through my shoes, and the cold crawled up my legs.”

“There was no one asking how old I was. No one asking if I was tired. No one asking if I was okay. We had 30 minutes for lunch. 30 minutes sitting in the dirt. No cold water. No shade. Just the understanding that we needed to move faster. I wasn’t building character. I was losing pieces of my childhood.”

Like many farmworker families, Jacky’s was touched by cancer. “My father was diagnosed with lung cancer,” she said. “He had been in agriculture since he was seventeen years old,” she recalled.  “I think about the pesticides he inhaled. The dust that settled deep into his lungs. The chemicals that were part of his everyday air. My mother’s body gave out, too. Years of lifting heavy sacks of potatoes tore her shoulder until she couldn’t lift them anymore. I watched my parents sacrifice their health for us. And when my father had to move three hours away for treatment, I stayed behind. I was still in school. But I worked the potato harvest so we could survive, and I could help support my family. “

Jacky recalled one day in particular: “One morning, it started snowing while we were in the field, and the snow collected on the dirt, on the crops, on our shoulders. My fingers went numb. My socks were soaked. I couldn’t feel my toes. I remember standing there, staring at the ground, silently begging for someone, anyone, to say, ‘Go home.” That’s enough.’ But no one said anything. And that silence… it teaches you something. It teaches you that your pain is normal. That your exhaustion is expected. That your childhood is negotiable. I didn’t lose my childhood in one moment. I lost it in early mornings. In blistered hands. In missed school events. In falling asleep over homework because my body couldn’t take anymore.”

Jacky wasn’t alone. She saw other farmworker children suffer. “I watched classmates disappear from school. Smart kids. Funny. Full of light. They didn’t transfer schools. They transferred to full-time labor. And no one called it a crisis,” she recalled.  “No child should have to choose between education and survival. No child should feel responsible for keeping their family afloat. No child should stand in freezing snow waiting for permission to stop working.”

Speaking before an audience of government officials from all over the world, Jacky implored them to do more to end child labor: “To our ministers, policymakers, and public leaders, I am asking you to see us. Strengthen protections for children. A child in a field deserves the same protection as a child anywhere else. Enforce the laws. Visit the fields. Ensure there is clean water, real breaks, and protection from harmful chemicals. Support families with living wages, healthcare, and financial stability so children are not pushed into labor out of desperation. Train schools to recognize working children not as lazy or distracted but as exhausted. And include survivors in your decisions. We know where the system fails because we experienced the failure.”

“I am proud of my parents. I am proud of where I come from. But I should not have had to grow up that fast,” said Jacky. “There are children, right now, standing in rows of crops before the sun rises. Their hands are blistering. Their backs are aching. Their childhood is slipping away quietly. And most people will never know their names. Please do not let their silence continue because child labor does not just take childhoods. It takes futures. And we cannot afford to keep losing them. This happened. I survived it. And I’m not going to whisper about it.”

In three decades of advocacy and four Global Child Labor conferences, I’ve never heard a speech more eloquent or powerful.

Jacky speaks for children in child labor everywhere—not just the 300,000 children who work in agriculture. In recent years, thousands of unaccompanied minors, have come to work in the U.S.  Many ended up working in auto parts factories, the graveyard shifts in meatpacking facilities, or late nights at fast food restaurants. Yet children working in the U.S. are a small fraction of the global reality: 138 million children are engaged in labor worldwide. Jackie Aguilar’s story gives a voice to all of them.

Jacqueline Aguilar is a recent graduate of Adams State University in Colorado, where she lives and works. Jacky interned for the Child Labor Coalition in the summer of 2023 at the National Consumers League.

Progress at Risk as Global Leaders Confront the Ongoing Child Labor Crisis

/in Blog, Featured Home - Workers Rights, Thought Leadership/by

By Reid Maki, NCL Director of Child Labor Advocacy & Coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition

In Marrakech, Morocco, on Wednesday morning, the 6th Global Conference on the Elimination of Child Labour opened at the Palais des Congrès to a palpable air of excitement.

About 1,300 government leaders, employer groups, union leaders, and advocates against child labor attended the conference, organized by the government of Morocco with logistical assistance from the International Labour Organization (ILO). It is the first such international child labor conference since the one held in Durban, South Africa, in May of 2022.

As the Director of Child Labor Advocacy for the National Consumers League and the coordinator of the Child

Labor Coalition, this is my fourth quadrennial global child labor conference. Wednesday’s opening plenary began with a status check, highlighting the remarkable progress in reducing child labor, with estimates dropping from 246 million to 138

million last year. That’s phenomenal progress, but uncertainty hung in the air about what the future holds. The Trump administration’s cancellation of US AID poverty-reduction programs and $550 million in cuts to child labor and labor grants administered by the U.S. Department of Labor International Affairs Bureau in early 2025 has been an ongoing concern for child labor advocates, who fear a reversal of progress toward eliminating child labor.

Despite progress, advocates stressed the unfinished work: the global target to eliminate child labor by 2025 was missed, and 138 million children remain affected. As one speaker put it, ‘the number is simply not acceptable.’

Both the morning and afternoon plenaries featured ministers from several governments, ILO officials, and the International Trade Union Confederation discussing progress and future directions. Participants highlighted that reductions in child labor occurred across all continents where it was prevalent. The largest decrease was a 43% drop in Asia. Globally, the number of children in hazardous child labor fell from 79 million in 2020 to 54 million in 2024. However, speakers also noted a troubling rise in the proportion of child laborers who are between five and eleven years old.

Speakers urged identifying gaps in current efforts and emphasized the need to expand effective remediation—underscoring a united call to action.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Kailash Satyarthi addressed participants via video, urging the world to take “tools and guns out of children’s hands” and replace them with “pens and books.” He warned that recent years have seen a troubling decline in “moral accountability” and called for a “resurgence of compassion,” which he described as the transformative force needed to meet global child labor reduction goals. He also urged the ILO to mobilize heads of state committed to ending child labor into a special task force, aimed at building a stronger and more coherent “framework of action.”

“We must be bold,” said Satyarthi.

The conference continues until Friday afternoon, with officials and advocates sharing the strategies they have found most successful.

 

Voices, Urgency, and Hope at the National Health Council Annual Meeting

/in Blog, Featured Home - Health, Thought Leadership/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL CEO

Have you heard of Alpha-1 Disorder? I hadn’t either until I had a conversation with the Alpha-1 Disorder team that’s gathered in Ft. Lauderdale for the National Health Council Annual Meeting. I love coming to this gathering because of the energy and drive behind the diverse patient groups and companies working to develop treatments and cures. Lisa Bercu, our Senior Health Policy Director, and I are here talking with and learning from colleagues across the health care spectrum.

Back to Alpha 1 or Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD) it’s a genetic condition that can cause damage to the lungs and/or the liver and is often misdiagnosed as COPD. There is no cure for Alpha-1, but symptoms can be managed with treatment. The Foundation is here and exists to advocate for research, more effective treatments and cures, and benefits for patients with Alpha 1.

Tracy Garner from Easter Seals is describing what lies ahead for Medicaid patients whose benefits will be slashed, as called for in HR 1, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” that Congress passed in 2025. One in four people in the US identifies as having a disability. One-third of those receive Medicaid benefits. That will have a huge impact on these patients.

Tracy and her team are working with states and their over seventy affiliates to hold meetings with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state Medicaid administrators.

Ashlie White’s with the American Orthotic and Prosthetic Association. Her patient base is made up of amputees, and her challenge is ensuring that they get the Medicaid coverage they need, as many of them are on the program. The slashing of Medicaid could be devastating to these patients.

Cheryl Wicks’ group, Mosaic, provides support to 5,000 people with disabilities, mental and behavioral needs, and autism. I asked her what she thought legally about Sheltered Workshops for people with disabilities, where they get to go to work but get paid subminimum wage. NCL has never thought those Sheltered Workshops were a good thing, as they take advantage of people with disabilities, having them work for dirt cheap wages on the theory that at least they are getting out of the house or home. She agreed and used a term I had never heard – Community Integrated Employment, which means people with developmental and intellectual disabilities have jobs like everyone else that pay the legal minimum wage and work out much better. They are at grocery stores or pharmacies, stocking shelves or doing other similar work. Walgreens is particularly outstanding as an employer of people in her community. Hear, hear!

I cannot possibly capture the impact and dedication I feel among these patient advocates and the companies that develop the drugs and cures to treat the conditions described above, and so many more.

American Exceptionalism 2.0 – Turning Nutrition Guidance on Its Head

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, Director of Food and Nutrition Policy at the National Consumers League

“American exceptionalism,” the idea that the United States is a unique nation rooted in democracy and liberty, dates back to the country’s founding. In fact, the colonial writer Thomas Paine described America as an exceptional civilization in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense.

But now, there is a different form of American uniqueness – American exceptionalism 2.0 – that is not lofty and puts the U.S. at odds with the health recommendations of most other nations. Grounded in the view of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that “we need to stop trusting the experts,” American exceptionalism 2.0 assumes past scientific evidence was wrong and America needs a reset in health and environmental policy. Over the past year, sweeping changes have followed, impacting the health of the nation – from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) erasing decades of climate and air pollution rules to HHS reducing the number of vaccines recommended for children from 11 to 18 without following established procedures for making such changes.

The newest result is the release of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans- 2025-2030, which HHS Secretary Kennedy and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins assert is “the most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in decades.” They are right.

Sidestepping the 400-plus page 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report finalized in December 2024, the Secretaries dismissed its findings and assembled a different panel of scientists, seven of whom had ties to the dairy and meat industries. The resulting report omits more than half of DGAC’s recommendations and presents an upside-down food pyramid that nutrition and public health organizations says fails to translate nutrition science into clear dietary guidance.

To be clear, some aspects of the dietary guidelines are widely supported. They retain recommendations to drink more water, eat more fruits and vegetables, and choose whole over refined grains. The big call-out is the recommendation to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages –because these products have little nutritional value, and have high amounts of salt, sweeteners, and unhealthy fats. According to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 55 percent of Americans’ calories come from ultra-processed foods, increasing the risk for diet-related chronic diseases.

Yet, NCL joins other consumer, public health, and medical societies in raising the alarm that ending what the Trump Administration calls “the war on protein” and promoting red meat and full-fat dairy will push consumers beyond recommended limits for sodium and saturated fats. Nutrition experts caution that advising people to consume 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight daily – meaning eating protein at every meal – would double the previously recommended daily allowance of 0.8 grams.

The new guidelines also abandon longstanding advice on drinking alcohol, which previously recommended limiting daily consumption to one or two drinks, with an explanation of what this means for beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Instead, they use vague language such as “consume less alcohol” without distinguishing between men and women, who metabolize alcohol differently, or cautioning against underage drinking.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), justified the approach, calling alcohol a “social lubricant that brings people together.”  But, putting people’s social life ahead over public health ignores the that excessive alcohol use contributes to about 178,000 deaths annually; causes various cancers, heart and liver diseases, and other chronic conditions; and costs the U.S. economy approximately $249 billion each year, according to the CDC.

Since 1980, the Dietary Guidelines have been issued every five years to impart the latest science-based dietary advice. But this time, HHS and USDA threw out the old rulebook.

As RFK Jr. said at the press conference I attended, “medical orthodoxies have to be challenged.” But challenging science without credible, evidence-based justification raises serious concerns—especially when powerful industry interests, including beef, dairy, and alcohol lobbies, were prominently present and seemingly influential in shaping this new, upside-down dietary guidelines pyramid. This approach risks prioritizing politics and profit over public health.

For American consumers, the stakes could not be higher. These changes threaten to weaken long-standing public health protections and undermine trust in science-based guidance. NCL will continue to raise these concerns and advocate for policies grounded in sound science, transparency, and consumer well-being. The real question now is whether this break from scientific norms will improve public health—or put it at risk. Time will tell.

My 11-Year-Old Got the HPV Vaccine — Here’s Why It Matters for Cancer Prevention

/in Featured Home - Health, Thought Leadership/by

By Lisa Bercu, NCL Senior Director of Health Policy

Last week, my 11-year-old received her first HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine. Like most kids, my daughter doesn’t love getting shots, but I talked it up for months in advance. I explained the HPV vaccine helps prevent cancer, which could otherwise rear its ugly head years or even decades down the road. And, that she may be spared many of the health risks and worries that so many women of my generation grew up with, including dealing with abnormal pap smears and invasive follow-up procedures. With that in mind (and knowing she would be rewarded with ice cream later!), she bravely rolled up her sleeve and got her vaccine.

That moment came against the backdrop of a significant and troubling policy shift. Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, made several changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. These changes were not driven by new scientific evidence. Instead, they reflect a departure from decades of established research, elevating ideology and misinformation in ways that will increase confusion for families, disrupt access to routine immunizations that have been given to children for years, and reduce public confidence in vaccines that are proven to be safe and effective.

These changes include altering the recommendations for the HPV vaccine. The CDC is now recommending a single dose instead of the two doses previously recommended. While there is growing evidence that one dose may be sufficient to protect people against HPV-related cancers, there isn’t sufficient evidence to support that change yet, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continue to recommend the full series of doses for adolescents.

HPV Vaccine = Cancer Prevention

During Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, it’s worth underscoring a critical fact: HPV vaccination is cancer prevention.

HPV is extremely common, with more than 200 strains, and it is transmitted through intimate skin-to-skin contact (e.g., sex). Most people will be infected with at least one HPV type at some point in their lives, and certain types can lead to cancer. The HPV vaccine protects against the types that cause the vast majority of cervical cancers, as well as other cancers such as throat, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and some head and neck cancers. According to the American Cancer Society, the HPV vaccine, when given at the recommended ages, can prevent more than 90% of HPV-related cancers.

The HPV vaccine can be given to children starting at age 9, with routine vaccination at 11 or 12. The recommended dosing schedule is as follows:

    • 9-14 years: 2-dose series across a 6–12-month period
    • 15 years or older: 3-dose series across a 6-month period

While the HPV vaccine is typically given to preteens, adults up to age 45 can get it. Vaccinating at the recommended age not only strengthens immune response but also ensures protection before potential exposure to HPV and before cancer can begin to develop. Importantly, this guidance applies to both boys and girls. HPV can cause cancer in men, as well including anal, penile, throat, and head and neck cancers. The vaccine works. According to the CDC, among young adult women, infections with HPV types that cause most HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 81%. And among vaccinated women, the percentage of cervical pre-cancers caused by the HPV types most often linked to cervical cancer has dropped by 40%.

Unfortunately, following the changes to the CDC’s recommendations, insurance coverage of the HPV vaccine is in flux. Most private insurers are expected to continue covering all doses of the vaccine through 2026 at no cost to patients, but coverage of the second and third doses after 2026 remains uncertain. Under the Vaccines for Children program, coverage of the first dose is expected to continue, while coverage of second and third doses is currently unclear.

What You Can Do

You can help ensure children get the protection they need:

    • Talk with your child’s healthcare provider about the HPV vaccine at the recommended ages. If your child is eligible for the HPV vaccine now, talk to your healthcare provider as soon as possible, as insurance coverage may change.
    • Review and share trusted information from organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics.
    • Advocate for policies that uphold science-based vaccine recommendations.
Nancy Glick

New Options, Lower Costs, and Advice for Consumers Taking GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, NCL Director of Food and Nutrition Policy

As 2026 gets underway, findings from the Pew Research Center estimate that three in ten Americans – more than 100 million people – started January with resolutions to save more money, get healthier, lose weight, spend more time with family and friends, and quit smoking.  Yet, only about 9 percent of Americans will ultimately keep their resolutions, according to the Pew findings. In fact, studies project that 23 percent of people quit their resolution by the end of the first week, and 43 percent quit by the end of January.  

Usually, resolutions to lose weight are where many Americans fail. But this year, the goal of achieving a healthier weight is increasingly possible. Here are some reasons why: 

    • Americans with obesity now have the option of being treated with the first GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) weight loss weight pill. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2025, the so-called Wegovy© pill is indicated for people with obesity (BMI 30+) and those with overweight (BMI 27+) and at least one weight-related chronic condition. Containing the same active ingredient, semaglutide, as the widely used weekly GLP-1 injectable weight-loss treatment, the pill is taken once daily on an empty stomach, has comparable side effects (such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting) to injectable semaglutide, and also achieves similar weight-loss results. Specifically, in clinical trials, the pill achieved an average loss of 14 percent of a person’s body weight over 64 weeks when combined with diet and exercise. 
    • The FDA-approved weight loss pill is more affordable for consumers whose insurance does not cover obesity medication. Although pill prices vary depending on insurance coverage and dosage, for self-pay patients (without insurance), the cash prices range from $149 to $299 per month. This is because the pill form of semaglutide is cheaper to produce and does not require refrigeration. Moreover, the pill is widely available with a prescription from a qualified medical professional at over 70,000 U.S. pharmacies and via telehealth providers working with the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, such as GoodRx and WeightWatchers.
    • The cost of injectable weight-loss drugs has dropped significantly. In May 2025, manufacturers of the popular GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, Wegovy© (semaglutide) and Zepbound© (tirzepatide), announced large price reductions for their injectable GLP-1 drugs, making it possible for “self-pay” consumers to access these FDA-approved medicines. Then, in November 2025, the drugmakers reached an agreement with the Trump Administration to set Medicare and Medicaid prices at $245 a month, including a $50 copay for many Medicare patients, significantly expanding access to these weight-loss and diabetes drugs for millions. 
    • The federal government is working on a pathway for Medicare and Medicaid to cover GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. On December 23, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the BALANCE ( Better Approaches to Lifestyles and Nutrition for Comprehensive Health) Model, a voluntary program where CMS will work with Medicaid programs, Medicare insurance plans (Part D plans), and drugmakers to determine the best way to reduce net prices for GLP-1 medications, cap out-of-pocket costs, and standardize coverage criteria so people with Medicare and Medicaid coverage will have access to these treatments in the future. Under the program, CMS will waive the current Part D coverage exclusion for weight-loss medications, meaning GLP-1s will be included as a basic benefit of participating plans, and CMS will test different prices negotiated with manufacturers, the use of rebates to keep costs aligned with coverage terms, and cost-sharing options. CMS will begin testing different payment systems for Medicaid plans as early as May 2026 and for Medicare Part D starting in January 2027. Related to the BALANCE model, CMS will also conduct a payment demonstration starting in July 2026 that will allow eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries to have coverage for GLP-1 drugs with an out-of-pocket cost of $50 a month.  

Because these developments translate into greater access to safe and effective FDA-approved GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, NCL recommends that consumers rethink their treatment decisions with a focus on drug safety. In February 2025, NCL issued a consumer alert with guidance from the FDA and obesity medicine specialists regarding the use of untested compounded GLP-1 drugs, possible counterfeits and fakes, and products sold online that the FDA warned could cause harm. Now that more FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs are readily available, NCL offers this updated advice:  

    • Before seeking treatment with a GLP-1 drug, talk to your doctor or health provider to determine if you are a candidate for treatment based on your risk factors and degree of obesity. 
    • When possible, the FDA recommends that patients opt for FDA-approved GLP-1 medications and fill prescriptions at a state-licensed pharmacy.
    • Because GLP-1 drugs are serious medicines that carry risks as well as benefits, it is best to obtain a prescription from your doctor or a health professional you know.
    • Be aware of the differences between FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs and products sold online that claim to be “the same” as these medicines, only cheaper and more convenient. Unlike FDA-approved medicines, compounded GLP-1 drugs and products promoted as alternatives to FDA-approved versions – such as oral supplements and patches – do not go through the FDA’s rigorous review process to ensure safety, effectiveness, and quality. Moreover, there are differences in how these products are manufactured, and their ingredients may come from undisclosed sources. The FDA warns that taking these products increases the risk of dosing errors and exposure to contaminants.  
    • Medical organizations warn that microdosing GLP-1s – meaning intentionally taking a smaller dose than the FDA-approved, on-label regimen – is an experimental practice that raises significant safety and effectiveness concerns. Although some telehealth companies claim that microdosing is a healthy way to lose weight and reduce metabolic risk, FDA does not approve or provide guidelines for “microdosing” GLP-1 medications and there is no clinical evidence from large-scale trials to support the safety or effectiveness of microdosing as a standard practice for weight loss or other claimed benefits.
    • In situations where you choose a telehealth option, beware of prescribing practitioners who do not take your personal history, do not diagnose the degree of obesity with appropriate evaluation measures, or prescribe a GLP-1 drug without ongoing monitoring.
    • Before ordering a GLP-1 drug through an online pharmacy, follow the FDA’s tips to spot the warning signs that the website may be unsafe, such as the online pharmacy is not licensed in the US or by a state board of pharmacy, or it offers deep discounts that seem too good to be true.  

The Biloxi Lawsuit Isn’t Just Another “Hotels vs. Short-Term Rentals” Fight

/in Featured Home - Consumer Protection, Thought Leadership/by

By John Breyault, NCL Vice President, Public Policy, Telecom & Fraud

When cities crack down on short-term rentals, the headlines often scream “Airbnb vs. Hotels!” — but the story is bigger than a platform feud. Behind the zoning rules and permit limits lies a high-stakes battle over who gets to control the lodging market, and whether “consumer protection” is just a cover for keeping competition out. A recent lawsuit in the Deep South may seem local, but it highlights a national trend with real consequences for travelers, homeowners, and communities alike.

At first glance, Airbnb’s recent lawsuit against the city of Biloxi, Mississippi, looks like the latest episode in the long-running hotels vs. short-term rentals war. Cities pass restrictive ordinances. Platforms sue. Hotels cheer from the sidelines. Rinse, repeat.

But this case is bigger than a zoning dispute. It raises a fundamental question about the future of competition in the travel lodging market — and whether “consumer protection” is being used as a shield for market protectionism.

Airbnb and a Biloxi property owner allege that the city, heavily influenced by the local hotel-industry trade association, implemented restrictions designed not to protect neighborhoods but to kneecap competitors. Biloxi banned short-term rentals in many residential areas and later capped permits citywide at just 75 properties — a ceiling so low that it effectively freezes out meaningful competition.

Biloxi isn’t an anomaly. In recent years, hotels have deployed lobbyists in cities like New York and Chicago to limit short-term rental competition, often under the guise of protecting housing stock or neighborhoods.

Other short-term rental platforms, such as Vrbo (formerly HomeAway), Booking.com’s home-rental business, and regional home-sharing services are also part of this broader lodging-market dynamic. These platforms have introduced competition into a hotel industry that, over the past 10–15 years, has undergone deep consolidation. Today, just a handful of mega-brands dominate global hotel markets through ownership, franchising, or branding deals. When so few companies hold so much power, local regulations can become levers to shut out newcomers.

Short-Term Rentals Serve Consumers — and Communities

Short-term rentals (STRs) are more than an “Airbnb vs. hotels” story. For many travelers — families on a budget, groups of friends, or extended-stay guests — STRs offer flexibility, affordability, and value that hotels often struggle to match. They help keep lodging markets competitive, preventing hotels from hiking prices unchecked.

STRs also benefit local homeowners seeking extra income — especially in popular vacation spots or near college campuses when demand surges. In small towns around major sporting events or seasonal tourism, STRs can provide lodging when hotel rooms are booked out or priced through the roof.

Communities also deserve a voice. Some neighborhoods worry about noise, safety, or over-tourism; others worry about long-term housing loss. Smart regulations can balance these concerns without eliminating STRs entirely or favoring incumbents.

Short-Term Rentals Are Not a Panacea

STRs need thoughtful regulations. Anyone who has lived next to an unregulated party house — with rolling suitcases at 2 a.m., overflowing trash, or revolving-door renters — knows the concerns are real. STRs have caused nuisances, safety issues, and reduced long-term housing in some cities.

There are also consumer-facing horror stories: misleading listings, last-minute cancellations, “bait-and-switch” properties, and amateur hosts who fail to maintain basic safety standards. Platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo have economies of scale, but enforcement remains uneven, and small hosts often lack resources to follow best practices. STRs are far from perfect.

Transparent Pricing and Real Competition

Hotel pricing has long been opaque. Hidden costs — resort fees, amenity charges, “service” or “destination” fees — often don’t appear until checkout, making it hard for consumers to compare options. That kind of “drip pricing” distorts markets and misleads travelers.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Junk Fees Rule addresses this. As of May 2025, all lodging providers — hotels and short-term rental platforms alike — must disclose total prices up front. Transparency allows travelers to compare real costs and enables STRs to compete fairly rather than letting hotels exploit confusion.

This aligns with broader consumer-protection efforts, including state-level actions and advocacy by organizations such as the National Consumers League, which have challenged opaque hotel fee practices.

Toward Smart Regulations That Encourage Competition

We need regulations — but the right kind. The Biloxi lawsuit, along with the broader pattern in New York and Chicago, shows the risk of blanket bans or restrictive caps that eliminate lodging options in favor of legacy operators. Local governments should pursue rules that:

  • Ensure STRs meet safety, health, and nuisance standards;
  • Provide transparent permitting and accountability;
  • Maintain a sustainable number of rentals so STRs remain viable;
  • Incorporate community input — without letting incumbents rig the system.

Federal rules, such as the Junk Fees Rule, are also critical. By standardizing pricing disclosure, they help travelers compare hotels and STRs on a level playing field and discourage deceptive resort fees.

We should welcome — not fear — competition. Multiple lodging options — hotels, inns, and STRs — keep prices down, service quality up, and innovation alive. Overly restrictive regulations, especially those influenced by hotel-industry lobbyists, undermine this dynamic.

If we care about affordability, fairness, and consumer choice, lodging policy must focus on transparency, sensible safety rules, and real community input — not protectionism dressed up as “consumer protection.”

Guest Blog: Lives on the Line: Dialysis Patients Fight for Innovative Medicine

/in Blog, Blog, health, Featured Home - Health/by

By Katie Riley, Vice President of Communications, Alliance for Aging Research

For many older Americans with kidney failure, life isn’t just about surviving the next dialysis session, it is about protecting their hearts, keeping their transplant hope alive, and preserving dignity and independence.

When kidneys stop working and patients rely on dialysis, phosphorus levels build up. That small-but-dangerous imbalance massively raises the risk of cardiovascular events and can threaten someone’s eligibility for a transplant.

Enter a lifesaving tool: oral Phosphate Lowering Therapies (PLTs). These medications help keep phosphorus under control and are especially important for older adults, including those on fixed incomes or using nursing-home care. But a federal policy change at the start of 2025 cut off easy access. Under the new rule, oral-only PLTs were moved into the ESRD payment bundle meaning many patients outside dialysis centers or in nursing homes have to jump through hoops to get access to them.

That policy shift is more than inconvenient…it’s harmful. Reports reveal that aging dialysis patients in nursing homes are being denied coverage altogether, resulting in higher phosphorus levels, greater risk of heart problems, and shrinking transplant chances.

Patients across the country have been impacted by the bundle and are sharing their concerns with policymakers and the public. Here are a few of their stories:

CKD care is not always straightforward, and encompassing every patient into a single fixed-payment bundle system takes away the key patient and provider relationship, where decisions are made to save lives, not time.

Ensuring that older adults can get the treatments they need to manage chronic conditions like kidney failure demands action.

The solution to this problem is simple. Medicare must reverse the decision to include oral-only Phosphate Lowering Therapies into the ESRD Bundle and restore coverage access to Medicare Part D. This change would immediately expand treatment options, reduce avoidable harm, and help keep thousands of older Americans eligible for transplant.

But the call for action is not just coming from advocates or clinicians, it is coming directly from patients. Their experiences are clear, consistent, and urgent. They are telling us what is at stake: their health, their independence, and their chance at a better life. Policymakers must listen.

Seniors and kidney patients deserve policies shaped by the realities they live every day not by technical payment decisions that ignore those realities. We urge the administration to return to a patient-centered Medicare approach that respects individual needs and ensures that older adults can age with health, dignity, and hope.

The East Wing Was More Than a Building — It Was a Legacy of Women’s Leadership

/in Thought Leadership/by

By Maggie Oliverio, NCL Media Relations Associate

As a child, I always dreamed of living in Washington, working in politics, making a real difference, and having a life like the ones my favorite characters in books, movies, and television shows led. I idolized women like our first ladies —Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama —as well as working women in Washington, like Judy Smith, Representative Jan Schakowsky, and Diane Sawyer.

In 2023, it was finally my time. I had graduated from college and was elated to start my first job on Capitol Hill. In my role, I had the opportunity to take part in many extraordinary experiences, but the most joyous was the White House. The East and West Wing, Rose Garden, Executive Office building, and yes, even the private bowling alley.

The East Wing was one of those places: pale light, quiet footsteps, portraits watching from the walls, time slowed as you walked in. It felt like a bridge between the ceremonial and the practical, between the pageantry of the presidency and the daily work of the people who kept the place running. So, when I learned that the East Wing would be reduced to rubble to make room for a ballroom, I was devastated. How could that be possible? I was just there a mere 10 months ago, touring with my friends, admiring the First Lady’s portraits and holiday lights. This wasn’t just a building being torn down. It was history—personal and national—being erased with startling speed.

Built during World War II under Franklin Roosevelt, the East Wing’s above-ground structure was created partly to conceal an underground emergency bunker system. Over time, the East Wing evolved into something more than an architectural appendage. It became the domain of the First Ladies, a space where women—often dismissed as presidential appendages — ran complex portfolios, crafted policy initiatives, and built their own leadership teams. For decades, some of the most influential work affecting American families, education, public health, and military families happened in those rooms.

For someone like me, who came into government service believing deeply in the power of female representation, that mattered. Our first ladies are not ornamental; they are public servants. These hard-working women have given up privacy, personal dreams, and peace of mind to serve a role that demands grace under relentless scrutiny.

When the ballroom project was first introduced, we were assured that the East Wing would be preserved. That promise evaporated the moment the demolition equipment rolled in. The American people understand homes need repairs and renovations, but this was not a facelift. We were lied to. The East Wing wasn’t renovated—it was demolished; its structure and symbolism treated as disposable.

Buildings carry stories. The East Wing was full of them: Roosevelt’s wartime bunker construction, Jackie Kennedy’s restoration plans, Laura Bush’s library and literacy work, Nancy Reagan’s social office machine, and Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Team. Even the less visible staff—ushers, schedulers, policy aides, military social aides—left their fingerprints. It held generations of American life inside its walls.
The administration says the new ballroom is privately funded, and on paper, that may be true. The construction costs—hundreds of millions—are being covered by a mix of Trump’s money and a network of donors but “cost to the taxpayer” isn’t just about a line in the federal budget.

There are other costs, less obvious but more corrosive:
· Security costs, which inevitably fall to taxpayers, will rise with a new, larger, more complex structure.
· Maintenance of the expanded footprint will fall to federal budgets long after the donors’ checks stop clearing.
· Oversight shortcuts taken during the rapid approval process set precedents that future administrations will inherit—and taxpayers will pay for those mistakes.

A privately funded government building is never truly free. Who gets invited to give? Whose interests align with the White House? What foreign actors see as a “donation” is an investment with expected returns?
These aren’t abstract concerns. They strike at the heart of the very system the East Wing represented: public service rooted in institutional and historical continuity, not personal favor.

For me, the loss is both political and personal. The knowledge that a place where women led, organized, strategized, and influenced national conversations has been erased. There is something eerily prolific for our current climate that a place that held so much history—specifically women’s history—was removed out of preference, not necessity. Out of vanity. And with no public input, even though this was truly the people’s house.

This one stings, and it should, for every taxpayer, every young girl who dreamed of walking those historic halls once inhabited by our First Ladies, and every American who believes in “for the people, by the people.”

          

Nancy Glick

A Call Not to Make Americans Hungry Again

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, Director of Food and Nutrition Policy

1968 was a pivotal year in U.S. history, and not only for the anti-war protests and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. That same year, CBS News aired “Hunger in America,” a Peabody-winning documentary that opened the eyes of Americans to the fact that over 10 million people – nearly 20 percent of the public – were suffering from hunger and malnutrition in a land of plenty. 

Later that year, a group of 25 religious, labor, legal, medical, and other professionals, including the Citizens’ Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition, published a scathing report documenting widespread hunger and malnutrition across the country. Called “Hunger U.S.A.,” the report identified 282 “hunger counties,” especially in areas like Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and Native American reservations, and described the dire conditions for people experiencing hunger,  made worse by federal programs that discriminated against the poor and favored agricultural companies.  

The report and the documentary shocked the nation, prompting significant public and political pressure that led President Richard Nixon to convene the first-ever White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health in Washington in December 1969. Attended by 5,000 delegates representing various interest groups, the conference produced more than 1,800 recommendations to improve anti-hunger programs. The conference was also the stimulus for Congress to pass landmark legislation – such as the 1974 Food Stamp Act, the 1975 School Breakfast Program and Summer Food Program, and authorization of the Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) – that now make it possible for more low-income families to have a healthy diet.   

Fast-forward 56 years after the White House Conference , and the nation is staring at the possibility of another wave of massive hunger in America. Despite how much has changed over the last five decades, an estimated 47.4 million Americans now experience food insecurity, including over 13 million children. The consequences for malnourished people are wide-ranging. Adults experience more severe illnesses, disability, muscle wasting, and chronic diseases, while children may face stunted growth, developmental delays, learning difficulties, and reduced cognitive function. 

Given this reality, one would think that reducing hunger in America would be a priority for the White House and members of Congress. Yet, passage of the President’s One Bill Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in July shows this is not the case. OBBBA cut $186 billion in funding for roughly one in eight people in the U.S. who buy groceries with help from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamp program. When the cuts take effect in 2027, the Urban Institute projects that 22.3 million families will lose some or all of their SNAP benefits. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 3.2 million adults will be cut from the SNAP program in a typical month due to expiring exemptions. This includes 1 million older adults, 800,000 parents, and 1.4 million adults in areas with insufficient jobs.  

But now, nearly 42 million people could lose their SNAP benefits this year – as early as November 1. This reason is an ongoing fight in Congress over how to end a federal government shutdown, where food-insecure Americans are being used as pawns. Senate Republicans insist that Democrats vote to approve a “clean” budget spending bill with no changes. In contrast, Democrats want the bill to include an extension of expiring tax credits that will make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans and to reverse Medicaid cuts.  

The haggling has been ongoing since October 1, when the government shut down, and efforts to reach a compromise have failed. Thus, the Trump Administration is using continued funding for SNAP benefits as a pressure tactic to raise the ante on Senate Democrats. This took the form of the USDA announcing on its website on October 26 that “the well has run dry,” and there will be no SNAP benefits issued on November 1. 

What the USDA didn’t say is that the department has access to a nearly $6 billion contingency fund that paid for SNAP benefits during past government shutdowns. Many Congressional Democrats and Republicans had encouraged the Trump administration to use this funding to preserve food stamps through November, as the government was expected to remain closed. But the Trump administration declined, even though USDA said weeks ago that it could reprogram money to prevent benefit cuts. 

People receiving SNAP benefits should not be used as a bargaining chip in a game of chicken between Republicans and Democrats. Therefore, Democratic attorneys general and governors from 25 states filed a lawsuit in federal court on October 28, arguing that the federal government had a legal obligation to maintain funding for food stamps, which Congress made permanent in the 1960s.  

Soon, we will know if the federal court sides with state attorneys general and governors and compels USDA to use its contingency fund so nutritionally vulnerable Americans will continue to have enough food. If not, over 40 million children and adults can only hope that cooler heads will prevail, that Democrats and Republicans will come to the negotiating table, that the shutdown will end, and that SNAP benefits will be restored.  

But no one should declare victory. This is a dark moment in our history.