The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has advanced Linda McMahon’s nomination for Secretary of the US Department of Education (ED). The HELP panel voted 12-11 to approve McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and co-founder of the America First Policy Institute. According to the Hill, McMahon is almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate. President Trump has directed McMahon to dismantle ED, which includes funding for poor school districts and children with disabilities, in addition to holding a student loan portfolio estimated to be worth $1.6 Trillion. A number of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, oppose the nomination. DOGE already fired dozens of workers from the small agency.
Tag: Education
-
A ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter in Defense of DEI, by Shaun Harper
Dear Colleague:
The U.S. Department of Education’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter last week that overflowed with misrepresentations of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in our nation’s educational institutions. The threat of losing federal funding has understandably spooked many of you. It is clear to others and me that inciting such fear, as opposed to actually holding institutions accountable for doing right by students and employees whom racial discrimination most persistently harm, was the aim of the Department’s letter.
I am writing to publicly furnish guidance that I have privately offered to principals, superintendents, college and university presidents, education governing board members, and journalists over the past seven days. But before doing so, I start with a question that I posed in this Forbes article more than a year ago: “What sense does it make to know something is a lie and to have examples of what’s actually true, yet deliberately hide those truths for fear of what liars might do?” Much of what was conveyed in the Department’s letter was largely untrue—at best based on anecdotes, not on credible evidence systematically collected from surveys of students and employees, or from rigorous analyses of discrimination reports disaggregated by race.
To be sure, persons (no matter how small in number) who experience discrimination, harassment, abuse, and other forms of injustice deserve protections and remedies from their educational institutions and the federal government. But the Department’s letter insists that it is white and Asian students who are most on the receiving end of these experiences. A corpus of evidence published over five decades makes irrefutably clear that Asian American, Black, Indigenous, Latino, and multiracial students and employees most often experience racism on campuses. Paradoxically, the Department’s letter calls for the elimination of policies, offices, programs, and activities that aim to address those historical and contemporary norms. This is guaranteed to result in more discrimination, harassment and abuse. In addition, racialized opportunity and outcomes disparities that disadvantage people of color will widen and new racial inequities will emerge.
Here are 11 actions I recommend for higher education institutions that are truly committed to anti-discrimination and anti-racism:
- Maintain mission fidelity: Many college and university mission statements have long included language about fostering inclusive learning environments, preparing students for citizenship and work in a diverse democracy, and other values that qualify as DEI. If and when the Department probes an institution, you must be prepared to show how and why various DEI efforts are essential for mission actualization.
- Show your work: The Department’s letter will compel many of you to hide, rename, or altogether discontinue DEI initiatives. I insist on doing the opposite. Now is the time to showcase DEI activities to confirm that they are not the racist, divisive, discriminatory, and anti-American activities that obstructionists erroneously claim.
- Show your racial equity data: Transparency about racial disparities in student outcomes and various employee trends should be used to justify the existence of DEI policies and programs. Black undergraduate men, for instance, are often at the bottom of most statistical measures of educational progress and performance; my and other scholars’ research confirms that it is not because those students were undeserving of admission or are academically less capable. Data like these could help justify the need for Black male student success initiatives.
- Show racial discrimination data trends: Educational institutions are required to have reporting and investigation processes for claims of racial discrimination. As previously noted, the Department’s letter makes is seem as if white and Asian students are being most routinely discriminated against. It might just be that your campus data shows something different. It is important to present year-over-year trends, as opposed to a one-time snapshot. These data could be used to justify the existence of various DEI policies and programs.
- Assess the campus racial climate: The National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates (NACCC) is a suite of peer-reviewed, expert-validated quantitative surveys that are administered to every student or employee at a participating institution, including white people. Whether you use the NACCC or some other data tool, now is the time to formally assess the climate to determine if and how persons from different racial groups are experiencing the institution. The NACCC has been administered on hundreds of campuses over the past six years—very few white respondents have reported what the Department’s letter alleges. It is important for institutions to provide climate survey data about which groups most frequently encounter discrimination, harassment, abuse, and exclusion.
- Rely on evidence: A dozen highly respected researchers contributed to Truths About DEI on College Campuses: Evidence-Based Expert Responses to Politicized Misinformation, a report published last March. This document is just one of several hundred research-based resources (including peer-reviewed studies published in top academic journals) that confirm the educational and democratic value of DEI in higher education. You should use these evidence-based resources to justify the continuation of your institution’s policies and programs.
- Insist on evidence: DEI attackers make numerous untrue and exaggerated claims about what is occurring on campuses. Educational leaders have the right to insist that outside accusers furnish evidence of widespread discrimination, harassment, and abuse. Data sources must be rigorous, trustworthy, and verifiable. One-off examples and small numbers of anecdotes ought not be accepted as evidence of pervasive wrongdoing. Imagine if someone told lies about you as an individual person—you would demand proof. Institutions that have committed themselves to DEI deserve this, too.
- Articulate consequences: As the federal government, state legislators, and others scrutinize campus DEI efforts, it behooves leaders and employees not only to amplify the value of these policies and programs, but also to forecast what would occur in their absence. For example, how the discontinuation of a first-year transition program for Indigenous students would widen first-to-second-year persistence rate disparities between them and peers from other racial groups. Or how financially devastating lawsuits would be to institutions if less attention was paid to improving the workplace climate for the groups of employees whom years of investigations data confirms experience the highest levels of discrimination and harassment on campus.
- Ensure reporting equity: The Department’s letter includes a link to this webpage where “anyone who believes that a covered entity has unlawfully discriminated may file a complaint with OCR.” It is important for white and Asian American, as well as for Black, Indigenous, Latino, and multiracial people to know this reporting site exists. If it is distributed through only a limited number of cable news and social media channels, then there is a chance that those who experience discrimination most often will not be aware of its existence. It is similarly important to remind students and employees of how to access campus-level reporting resources.
- Humanize DEI professionals: As many DEI professionals were being fired from their federal jobs last month, I recognized their humanity in this TIME article. I specifically noted the following consequences for them: “Some of these workers now won’t be able to afford daycare for their kids or elder care for their aging parents. Others have children in college whose tuition payments are suddenly in limbo because of politics. Some will lose their healthcare benefits. Too many of these workers will struggle to find other jobs because of the false narratives that are being told about DEI.” Professionals who do DEI work everywhere, including in higher education, deserve greater protections from their employers. These innocent people deserve colleagues like you who use your platforms to communicate threats to their lives and careers.
- Form coalitions: The tone of the Department’s letter is serious. It has many people scrambling on their individual campuses. We need institutions to come together to collectively strategize, defend their DEI commitments, push back and sue. Attempting to do this in isolation will not yield the macro-level outcomes that our democracy and its educational institutions deserve. Last fall, I launched the National DEI Defense Coalition. So far, hundreds of scholars, leaders, and DEI professionals have contributed. In the next few weeks, I will publicly announce ways for others to participate. But meanwhile, please leverage existing networks (professional associations, athletic conference memberships, and so on).
These are not the only ways institutions can defend DEI policies and programs, but my hope is that they provide some helpful guidance in response to the Department’s letter as well as to other politicized misinformation, disinformation and anecdotal exaggerations about who is being most frequently discriminated against on campuses.
For Democracy,
Shaun Harper
-
This week in 5 numbers: Education Department’s DEI crackdown sparks outcry
We’re rounding up recent stories, from a letter attempting to prohibit colleges’ diversity initiatives to an analysis of graduates’ earnings over time.
-
College presidents stay mostly silent on Trump
In his first month, President Donald Trump has upended federal research funding and taken aim at race-conscious programs amid a flurry of executive orders and other actions.
While some higher ed associations and universities have responded with lawsuits, college presidents, for the most part, have watched in relative silence. Some have released statements on changes to their institutions’ federal funding or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, but those announcements have mostly been vague, with little mention of the political forces driving the changes. Few college leaders have publicly criticized the president’s efforts to overhaul the sector to match his vision.
The muted or mostly nonexistent response comes as campuses have increasingly grappled with how to navigate political events since last spring’s pro-Palestinian protests, when students demanded their leaders speak up about the war between Israel and Hamas. That seems to have quelled interest in taking institutional positions. Any pushback college leaders voiced during Trump’s first term has been largely replaced by silence.
The Presidents Speaking Up
Still, there have been some notable exceptions to the trend.
Michael Roth at Wesleyan University and Patricia McGuire at Trinity Washington University—two notoriously outspoken presidents—are among those who have voiced alarm about Trump’s attacks on the sector.
Roth has written op-eds calling on his fellow college presidents to “weigh in when they see the missions of their institutions” and the health of their campus communities “compromised.” He also shared his thoughts on speaking up at the American Council on Education conference last week, noting that he tries “not to speak about the president directly” but rather the need to stand up for institutional values when they are threatened by external forces, such as Trump.
McGuire remains an outspoken presence on social media and in interviews.
Other leaders have spoken forcefully to their constituents about Trump’s interference.
Following a recent and widely panned Dear Colleague letter that declared race-conscious programming, resources and financial aid illegal, Case Western Reserve University president Eric Kaler wrote in a message to campus that “this expansion to include all aspects of campus life appears to be a gross overreach of the Supreme Court decision and may be challenged in the legal system.” He added that the university “will remain firmly committed to our core values.”
Some presidents at minority-serving institutions have added their voices to the mix.
David Thomas, president of Morehouse College, a historically Black institution, told CNBC last month that Trump’s attempted freeze on federal funding represents an “existential threat.” He also called out an executive order targeting diversity, equity and inclusion, telling MSNBC that “we must be a point of resistance to that effort to essentially teach untruths.”
Thomas, who is retiring in June, suggested a second Jim Crow era was coming, which he called “a reaction to the progress of people of color and others who have been disenfranchised.”
Presidential Silence
But as most presidents have remained silent, some critics have blamed institutional neutrality, the concept that universities should refrain from making statements on social or political issues. The movement seemed to boom last year as pro-Palestinian protests spread nationally and students often called on presidents to make public statements.
Roth, speaking at ACE, cast institutional neutrality as “a vehicle for staying out of trouble.”
The American Association of University Professors has also taken a critical view of institutional neutrality, writing in a lengthy statement earlier this month that it “conceals more than it reveals.”
Joan Scott, professor emerita at the Institute for Advanced Study who was part of the AAUP group that crafted the statement on institutional neutrality, is also critical of presidential silence in the face of what she described as an attack by the Trump administration on higher education.
“I think there is no question that the target is the university mission as we’ve known it, and that very few people are speaking up,” Scott said. “And in fact, I would say that institutional neutrality is being used as a kind of protective stance for those administrators who are not speaking up.”
A frequent refrain from campus leaders who have adopted institutional neutrality is that they would speak up when the core institutional mission is threatened, which experts argue is happening. However, most presidents are not speaking up despite perceived threats to the core mission.
Inside Higher Ed contacted 10 universities with institutional neutrality policies, all among the wealthiest in the nation, with multibillion-dollar endowments. Only Yale University provided a statement, though some others shared prior messages from their presidents to the campus communities regarding the federal funding freeze and Trump attacks on DEI. Of those messages, none directly connected their concerns to the Trump administration or said what was driving federal actions.
“The university is working to understand the scope and implications of the recent [Dear Colleague] letter and remains committed to the mission, to the principles of free expression and academic excellence, and to supporting the community,” Yale spokesperson Karen Peart wrote by email. “President [Maurie] McInnis and Provost [Scott] Strobel sent a message to the Yale community that addresses recent developments from the federal government. President McInnis has also shared a message to the community about the university’s commitment to the research mission.”
Yale did not answer specific questions sent by Inside Higher Ed.
Scott believes presidents are conducting a balancing act—one she views as cowardly. She argues that many are more concerned about “short-term risks,” such as an increase to the endowment tax or the loss of federal funding, than “the long-term risk” that “higher education as we’ve known it disappears or is put on hold” through the remainder of Trump’s four-year term.
“What we’re watching is a struggle on the part of university administrators to balance some commitment to the mission—the attacked mission of the university—and some anxiety about the funding that keeps the mission going, even as the mission is being undermined,” Scott said.
Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression group, takes a more charitable view of college presidents remaining mum on Trump’s actions.
Speaking up is fraught with risks, Young argues, ranging from punitive actions by the Trump administration to pushback from trustees. Instead, he thinks leaders should organize a unified sector response.
“If you’re looking to individual presidents to face off against the power of the U.S. government, you’re looking in the wrong place,” Young said.
He believes associations are leading the fight and urges them to collaborate more, arguing that organizations need to stick together to flex collective strength. That’s the only way “higher ed will be strong enough to be able to respond effectively,” he said.
But just because presidents aren’t speaking up doesn’t mean they have to cower, he said.
“I think the one thing that’s easy is that presidents shouldn’t overinterpret the law,” Young emphasized. “They shouldn’t comply in advance. You look at the Dear Colleague letter—it’s very clear in the letter that it does not have the force of law. There is an attempt here to scare presidents, and they should avoid being scared into doing things that aren’t required.”
He stressed the importance of maintaining normalcy and core values on campus. One area where college presidents could improve is on their internal messaging, he said. As political pressures mount on higher ed, it’s vital that administrators communicate with constituents “to reassure them that they have their backs.”
-
Voodoo doll study explores why scientists get harassed
What can voodoo dolls tell us about the public’s distrust of, and aggression toward, scientists? A new paper has attempted to find out.
Despite a growing fear that global attitudes have hardened toward scientific research, including instances of violence, “virtually nothing is known” about those likely to attack scientists, according to the study, published in Scientific Reports.
The paper, which examined about 750 responses across two different studies, claims to be the first to identify factors associated with an increased likelihood of harassing scientists.
Researchers tested their theories by offering participants a bonus payment of 1 pound ($1.27), which they could gift to themselves or donate to the Union of Concerned Scientists, and by asking them to sign a petition against the harassment of scientists.
Out of the total of £359 ($455) offered, participants opted to donate £69.79 ($88). The study found that political ideology was the best predictor for who would donate, with right-wing individuals contributing less.
The paper also asked those taking part to express their aggression by sticking pins in a digital voodoo doll of a stereotypical scientist—an “old-age male with a lab coat and equipment.”
Participants were asked to “release negative energy” by clicking their mouse, with a higher number of “pins” indicative of more aggressive behavior. It found significant positive correlations with five variables—conspiracy mentality, science cynicism, relative deprivation, threat and attitudes toward harassment.
Lead author Vukašin Gligorić, a Ph.D. researcher in the Department of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam, said across the two studies, distrusting worldviews, political ideology and perception of threat were associated with more approving attitudes toward harassment of scientists.
Notably, the paper found that science cynicism—the belief that scientists are incompetent and corrupt—also drives approval of scientists’ harassment.
In addition, perceiving scientists as threatening, as well as dark personality traits, such as psychopathy and narcissism, contributed to approving harm.
The paper concluded that highlighting reasons why people should trust scientists and not be threatened by them is the most promising way to counter such behavior.
The antiscience movement is a growing trend in some countries, Gligorić told Times Higher Education.
And he said that changing these attitudes will be challenging, because scientists are viewed as part of the “establishment,” which many people around the world are dissatisfied with.
“To address this, I believe scientists should engage more directly with the public … rather than for private or corporate interests, which erode trust.
“Ultimately, people are cynical about the political and economic systems we live in, and they sometimes blame scientists as part of that system. Therefore, scientists should also be critical of and work to improve the system itself.”
-
STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology has dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria and supporting documents, a move made in response to federal pushback on DEIA, according to an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed.
“Recognizing the heightened scrutiny of higher education and accreditation—including recent directives and legislation in the United States—the ABET Board of Directors recently approved the removal of all references to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) from our accreditation criteria and supporting documents,” officials wrote in the email.
ABET did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
The move comes as President Donald Trump has turned campaign trail rhetoric against DEI into policy, issuing an executive order early in his term that took aim at what the administration called “illegal” DEI initiatives without specifying what would violate federal civil rights laws.
“These changes were made in response to the significant challenges many institutions, academic programs, and industry partners face in implementing and sustaining DEIA initiatives,” ABET officials wrote in the email announcing changes to their accreditation criteria.
The accrediting body also appeared to delete the DEIA page on its website that was active until at least last week, according to an archived copy that is accessible via the Wayback Machine.
ABET currently accredits programs at 930 colleges, according to its website.
-
Federally run tribal colleges reel from staff cuts
Native American education advocacy groups are calling on the Trump administration to spare Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute from employee cuts, after the Office of Personnel Management ordered federal agencies to lay off most probationary employees.
The two tribal colleges are the only ones operated by the Bureau of Indian Education rather than tribal nations, making them vulnerable to the administration’s federal workforce reductions.
At Haskell Indian Nations University, about 40 people have already lost their jobs across campus departments, out of about 160 employees, according to a Monday letter from the Haskell Board of Regents to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The board urged in the letter that the university be exempt from the staff cuts. The Lawrence Times reported that the institution has had to postpone or cancel some campus events. Meanwhile, roughly 20 employees were laid off at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, out of a staff of about 100, according to Indian Country News.
Pearl Yellowman, the former vice president of operations at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, who was recently laid off, told the Native American news outlet that one department has only a single employee left.
“Our students are going to say, ‘Where’s my instructor?’ ‘What happened to my class?’ ‘What’s going on?’ ‘Is my future of being a student OK here?’ ‘Where’s my tutor?’ ‘What happened to this person?’ ‘Are my scholarships in jeopardy?’ ‘Is my financial aid in jeopardy?’” Yellowman told Indian Country News.
Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, said in a news release that “there are legitimate concerns that workforce reduction at these institutions will eliminate vital services and much-needed educational programs the students need to complete their degree programs.”
Jason Dropik, executive director of the National Indian Education Association, emphasized in the release that the Bureau of Indian Education has a “federal trust obligation to educate Native youth.”
“Significant workforce reductions will negatively impact students and have long-term educational consequences for our Tribal Nations,” he said.
For Haskell, this isn’t the first time the university’s status as a federally run tribal college has been a source of tension. Kansas lawmakers have recently debated about whether Haskell should be under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education at all.
U.S. senator Jerry Moran and Representative Tracey Mann of Kansas announced plans late last year to propose legislation to remove federal control of Haskell, arguing the institution would be better run by a new university Board of Regents. The plan, backed by the then-president of the Haskell board, came after a tense congressional hearing regarding student and employee complaints about the university, which were revealed in a report by the bureau.
After the recent staff cuts, Dalton Henry, president of the Haskell Board of Regents, recognized these policymakers and the Bureau of Indian Education for “working to reduce the impact of these changes.”
“We are grateful for their attention to this issue,” Henry said in a news release.
-
Richard Bland wins total autonomy from William & Mary
Richard Bland College is one step closer to total autonomy, the Progress-Index reported.
The public two-year college in Virginia, established in 1960 as an extension campus of William & Mary, has always been governed by its parent institution’s Board of Visitors. Now both houses of the State Legislature have passed a bill that establishes an independent, nine-member Board of Visitors for Richard Bland—a longtime goal of the college’s administrators.
The legislation now awaits Governor Glenn Youngkin’s signature.
“Governor Youngkin has demonstrated his commitment to growth and prosperity in Petersburg, and his support of RBC’s independence will add to that legacy,” said Richard Bland president Debbie Sydow.
While the college has always operated independently of William & Mary, efforts to set up its own board have been ongoing for over a decade.
Sydow called the new legislation “momentous, especially as RBC is poised to deepen and expand its strategic partnerships.”
-
I Am Captcha: ‘Ghost’ Students and the AI Machine
I Am Captcha: ‘Ghost’ Students and the AI Machine
justin.morriso…
Fri, 02/21/2025 – 03:00 AM
Adam Bessie and Jason Novak capture the higher educator’s dilemma in the age of generative AI.
-
NIH faces pivotal hearing amid layoffs, grant freeze
As mass layoffs and suspended grant reviews at National Institutes of Health sow more chaos for the nation’s once-cherished scientific enterprise, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Friday morning on whether to extend a temporary block on the NIH’s attempt to unilaterally cut more than $4 billion for the indirect costs of conducting federally funded research at universities, such as hazardous waste disposal, laboratory space and patient safety.
If the cuts move forward, they will “destroy budgets nationwide,” higher education associations and Democratic attorneys general, along with medical colleges and universities, argued in court filings this week. “But the consequences—imminent, certain, and irreparable—extend far beyond money, including lost human capital, shuttering of research projects and entire facilities, stalling or ending clinical trials, and forgoing advances in medical research, all while ending the Nation’s science leadership.”
The NIH refuted that claim in court filings, arguing that the plaintiffs “do not establish that any irreparable impacts would occur before this case can proceed to the merits.”
Friday’s hearing comes two weeks after the NIH’s Feb. 7 announcement that it will cap indirect research cost rates at 15 percent, which is down from an average rate of 28 percent, though some colleges have negotiated reimbursement rates as high as 69 percent.
The National Institutes of Health is one of the largest sources of funding for research at the universities and colleges and has supported breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. In fiscal year 2024, the agency sent about $26 billion to more than 500 grant recipients connected to colleges. About $7 billion of that went to the indirect expenses—a source of funding that universities argue is crucial but still doesn’t cover the full cost of conducting research.
Federal data shows that in fiscal year 2022, universities contributed approximately $25 billion of their own institutional funds to support research, including more than $6.2 billion for the federal government’s share of indirect costs that it did not reimburse.
Nonetheless, Elon Musk, the unelected billionaire bureaucrat President Donald Trump has charged with heading the nascent Department of Government Efficiency, characterized NIH reimbursements for universities for indirect research costs as “a rip-off.” Meanwhile, the academic research community warned that such drastic cuts—which Trump failed to get congressional approval for during his first term—would hamper university budgets, local economies and medical breakthroughs.
Within days of NIH’s directive, a federal judge put the rate cut on hold after 22 state attorneys general sued the agency, joined by numerous higher education research advocacy organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the American Council on Education. Across three separate lawsuits, they argued NIH doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the cap and that its guidance was “arbitrary and capricious,” among other points.
Although the nationwide injunction gave colleges a brief reprieve from the cuts, which briefly took effect Feb. 10, university administrators have spent the last two weeks sounding the alarm about the estimated losses and other impacts. Some Republicans in Congress have also opposed the plan, saying it violates language in federal legislation that bars NIH from modifying indirect costs.
‘Irreparable Injury’?
In its motion for the dismissal of the injunction filed on Feb. 14—a day before the NIH fired some 1,000 workers—lawyers for the agency argued that the federal district court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case and only federal claims court should hear the case, because the plaintiffs “are effectively seeking damages for breach of contract—the regulations incorporated into their grant agreements.” They also claimed that the NIH “ran afoul of no statute” and that the plaintiffs “have failed to show that they would suffer an irreparable injury” without a temporary restraining order.
“Where declarants assert that reducing funds is likely to harm research or clinical trials,” the motion said, “they generally do not assert that those harms are imminent as opposed to eventual reductions in their capacity that would occur from sustained diminished funding after a ruling on the merits.”
The motion went on to claim that the NIH’s capping of indirect cost rates seeks to “further its mission of advancing public health in a manner reflecting wise stewardship of the public money entrusted to it,” claiming that indirect costs are “difficult” for NIH to oversee. “To be clear, the Supplemental Guidance will not change NIH’s total grant spending; rather, it simply reallocates that grant spending away from indirect costs and toward the direct funding of research.”
But that’s not how the NIH publicly framed the indirect cost cap in a post on the social media site Musk owns that said the policy change will “save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”
And in a response filed earlier this week, the plaintiffs argued that the NIH’s policy change “bears no rational connection to NIH’s stated goal” in its court filings, because nothing in the NIH’s notice to cap indirect costs “directs more money to direct expenses.” The response also argues that the NIH has not provided adequate evidence to support its assertions that indirect costs are “difficult to oversee” and implored the court to reject the NIH’s attempt to “deprive Congress of its power of the purse.”
Mass Layoffs, Grant Reviews Still Suspended
While the temporary injunction has halted the rate cap for about two weeks, it hasn’t stopped Trump and Musk from destabilizing federal science agencies in other ways. Over the past week, thousands of mostly probationary employees—ranging from top-ranking agency officials to grant administrators who help grantees ensure their projects are compliant with federal regulations—across numerous science agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lost their jobs.
“The majority of what people who work for those agencies do is get the grant money out the door,” said Carrie Wolinetz, a science and health policy consultant who worked for the NIH between 2015 and 2023. “Because the layoffs took place across job categories, any of those critical positions could be affected. It’s hard to imagine that’s not going to have some impact on the ability of those agencies to fulfill its mission of getting those grants out the door.”
And even before the layoffs and indirect cost cap directive, the NIH had already derailed its operations by temporarily pausing communication and grant reviews last month. Although the courts put those orders on hold, Nature reported Thursday that nearly all NIH grant-review meetings remain suspended.
When the reviews finally do resume, the process will likely face even more challenges with fewer agency employees.
“The fewer people, the greater the bottleneck,” Wolinetz said. “Uncertainty itself causes delays. When people are confused, afraid and worried after watching their colleagues being dismissed, all of that just causes a slowing down of the entire system.”
On Wednesday, hundreds of scientists, federal workers and their supporters rallied outside of Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C., wielding signs with phrases such as “Leash That DOGE,” “Fight for Science” and “America Needs NIH Scientists” and speaking out against cuts to science funding. (The rally was part of a national day of action to oppose the research funding cuts and layoffs.)
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of HHS headquarters Wednesday.
“It is important that we understand exactly what is at stake right now,” Kailyn Price, a neuroscience doctoral student at George Washington University, told the crowd. “Cutting indirect costs is like telling a football team to do their work with only the players and the coach—no lights for the field, no physical therapist for the players, no water for the showers.”
She said casting indirect costs as an unchecked and unnecessary burden on taxpayers is all part of the government’s plan to turn the American public against scientists and their work.
“They want you to be angry and misinformed, incensed and ignorant,“ Price said. “Trump and his unelected billionaire backers want you to look at the people like us—making $20, $30, $40,000 a year, working late nights through the weekends because we believe that much in the work that we do—as the enemy.”
And the federal workers who remain at the agencies that support university research may not be there for long, either.
“Messaging from the agency is changing on a daily basis. Everyone is internally freaking out,” one still-employed NIH scientist told Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity. “I’m applying for other jobs, and most people are hedging their bets and sending out other applications, assuming they could get let go.”
The chaos at the NIH, including the firings and the potential for billions in funding cuts, means “there just won’t be the same number of scientists coming out of American universities,” the NIH researcher said. “On the bright side, though, there is the rest of the world.”
The cuts “are also adversely affecting important agency functions, such as support for research security at universities,” Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the AAU, said in an email.
“Cutting key research security offices at the NSF and NIH will make it more difficult for universities and our science agencies to implement new congressionally mandated research security requirements aimed at protecting sensitive information and data from competitors at a crucial time when we are trying to stay at the forefront of global scientific leadership.”