Tag: faces

  • Harvard Medical Researcher Detained by ICE Faces Charge

    Harvard Medical Researcher Detained by ICE Faces Charge

    The Harvard Medical School research associate and Russian native detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement three months ago and sent to Louisiana now faces a criminal charge—for allegedly trying to smuggle frog embryos into the U.S.

    The Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office announced the charge in a news release Wednesday, saying it could mean “a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a term of up to five years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.”

    Prosecutors allege that after the researcher, Kseniia Petrova, arrived from Paris at Boston’s Logan International Airport, a law enforcement canine “alerted its handler to the defendant’s checked duffel bag on the baggage carousel.” The release said Petrova “initially denied carrying any biological material in her checked baggage.”

    Petrova’s lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, said in a statement Thursday that “less than two hours after the Vermont judge set a hearing on Kseniia’s release, she was suddenly transferred from ICE to criminal custody. This is not a coincidence. It is an attempt by the government to justify its outrageous and legally indefensible position that this scientist working for the U.S. on cures for cancer and aging research has somehow become a danger.”

    The government said in court Wednesday that it intends “to deport Kseniia to Russia,” Romanovsky said, “where it knows she will face grave danger for opposing the Putin regime.”

    He said he expects Petrova will be transferred to Massachusetts in the next few weeks. Romanovsky has previously said Petrova was transporting “a non-hazardous scientific sample,” for which authorities could’ve merely fined her instead of detaining her and revoking her visa.

    Source link

  • National Science Foundation faces lawsuit over 15% indirect research cap

    National Science Foundation faces lawsuit over 15% indirect research cap

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

      Dive Brief:

    • A group of universities and higher education associations is suing the National Science Foundation over its new cap on reimbursement for indirect research costs for all future college grants.
    • In court documents filed Monday, the plaintiffs — led by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities — allege the unilateral 15% cap, which took effect May 5, violates the law in “myriad respects” and that its effects will be “immediate and irreparable.”
    • The new lawsuit follows two other legal challenges over similar caps implemented by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy — both of which have been blocked, at least temporarily.

    Dive Insight:

    NIH implemented the first federal cap on indirect research costs in February. Colleges and higher ed groups sued, and a federal judge permanently blocked the agency’s plan last month. 

    In the ruling, the judge said NIH unlawfully implemented the cap and violated constitutional prohibitions on applying new rules retroactively. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the case is ongoing.

    Next came the Energy Department. In April, the agency announced the same 15% cap on indirect research costs, alleging the plan would save taxpayers $405 million annually. Again, colleges sued, and a federal judge blocked the plan — albeit temporarily — while the lawsuit moves forward.

    The ACE, AAU and APLU are plaintiffs in both cases.

    Now NSF has introduced its own cap, to the chagrin of colleges and higher ed experts. When announcing the 15% cap, the agency argued the move would streamline and add transparency to the funding process and “ensure that more resources are directed toward direct scientific and engineering research activities.”

    But the new lawsuit argues that NSF’s policy echoes the other agencies’ attempts, to deleterious effect.

    “NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons, and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies,” it said. 

    Like the lawsuits against NIH and Energy Department’s policies, the plaintiffs allege that the NSF’s cap oversteps the agency’s authority.

    “It beggars belief to suggest that Congress — without saying a word — impliedly authorized NSF to enact a sweeping, one-size-fits-all command that will upend research at America’s universities,” it said.

    In fiscal 2024, Congress gave NSF $7.2 billion to fund research and related activities. In turn, the agency funded projects at 1,850 colleges — more than 1 in 4 of the higher education institutions in the U.S. eligible to receive federal dollars.

    That year, NSF awarded Arizona State University, one of the plaintiffs, 172 awards worth a total of $197.5 million in anticipated and obligated funding, according to court documents. Prior to the NSF’s new policy, the institution negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs in fiscal 2026. 

    The University of Illinois, another plaintiff, received just over $129 million in NSF funding in fiscal 2024 — making the agency its biggest funder — and negotiated an indirect research funding rate of 58.6%.

    The university said in court documents that it has received the most NSF funding of all U.S. colleges for six years in a row, and it is poised to lose more than $23 million a year if the agency’s new cap is allowed to continue.

    The college plaintiffs are:

    • Arizona State University.
    • Brown University, in Rhode Island.
    • California Institute of Technology.
    • The University of California.
    • Carnegie Mellon University, in Pennsylvania.
    • The University of Chicago.
    • Cornell University.
    • The University of Illinois.
    • Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    • The University of Michigan.
    • The University of Minnesota.
    • The University of Pennsylvania.
    • Princeton University, in New Jersey.

    The lawsuit also cited an attempt by the first Trump administration to cap rates for indirect research at a federal agency. In 2017, the White House proposed cutting the cap to 10% for all NIH grants. Congress – then under Republican control as it is now — “identified serious problems immediately” and took “swift and bipartisan” action against the proposal, the lawsuit said.  

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley Faces Foreign Gifts Investigation

    UC Berkeley Faces Foreign Gifts Investigation

    The Education Department is investigating the University of California, Berkeley, regarding compliance with a federal law that requires colleges to disclose certain foreign gifts and contracts.

    It’s the first such review launched since President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at increasing transparency over the “foreign influence at American universities.”

    A notice of the investigation and corresponding records requests were sent to UC Berkeley on Friday morning after the department found that the university’s disclosures might be incomplete.

    “There have been widespread media reports over the last several years of Berkeley’s very substantial—in the hundreds of millions of dollars—receipt of money from foreign governments, in this case, particularly China,” a senior Education Department official said on a press call Friday. But while the development of “important technologies” has been shared with foreign nations, the funding that made it possible “has not been reported to the department, as it’s required by law,” in Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, the official added.

    Under Section 117, colleges and universities must report twice a year all grants and contracts with foreign entities that are worth more than $250,000. The department opened a similar review into Harvard last week.

    UC Berkeley administrators will have 30 days to respond with the requested records. From there, the Department of Education’s general counsel, in partnership with the Departments of Justice and Treasury, will “verify the degree to which UC Berkeley is or is not compliant.” (Unlike with Harvard, the Department of Education did not disclose the specific records it had requested from Berkeley.)

    “The Biden-Harris Administration turned a blind eye to colleges and universities’ legal obligations by deprioritizing oversight and allowing foreign gifts to pour onto American campuses,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a news release. “I have great confidence in my Office of General Counsel to investigate these matters fully.”

    Trump and congressional Republicans have been trying to crack down on the enforcement of Section 117 since the first Trump administration. Already this year, House Republicans passed a bill, known as the DETERRENT Act, which would lower the general threshold required for reporting foreign donations from $250,000 to $50,000. Gifts from some countries, like China and Russia, would have to be reported no matter the value. The Senate has yet to move forward with the bill. 

    When asked how Trump’s executive order differentiates itself from the DETERRENT Act, the department official said the legislation would be “entirely consistent with the EO’s directives” and that the department is “very supportive” of congressional Republicans’ efforts.

    “The EO basically just says, enforce the law vigorously, return to enforcement of the law, stop the nonsense and work with other agencies to do it,” the official explained. “So whether the reporting requirement is for $250,000 or more per year or the lower threshold, our approach will be the same.”

    Inside Higher Ed asked the department if there would be more investigations but has not yet received a response.

    Source link

  • McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

    McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s crackdown on Harvard University and other colleges during a contentious appearance Tuesday on CNBC’s Squawk Box as she faced questions about the government’s decision to freeze universities’ federal funding.

    Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen, the morning talk show’s hosts, grilled McMahon during the 12-minute segment about whether freezing billions in grants and contracts was due to valid civil rights concerns or unjustified political and ideological standards; they suggested it was the latter. (Harvard sued Monday over the funding freeze, which followed the university’s decision to reject the Trump administration’s sweeping demands.)

    But McMahon reiterated that, for her, it was a matter of holding colleges accountable for antisemitism on campus—not an alleged liberal bias.

    “I made it very clear these are not First Amendment infractions; this is civil rights,” she said. “This is making sure that students on all campuses can come and learn and be safe.”

    Harvard argued in the lawsuit that some of the demands—like auditing faculty for viewpoint diversity—do not directly address antisemitism and infringe on the private institution’s First Amendment rights.

    Sorkin echoed Harvard’s argument during the interview and questioned McMahon about the lawsuit’s claims.

    “The question is whether viewpoint diversity is really about free speech,” he said. 

    In defense, McMahon said that “this letter [of demands] that was sent to Harvard was a point of negotiation … and it was really not a final offer.” She added that she hoped Harvard would come back to the table. (Trump officials told The New York Times that the April 11 letter was sent by mistake.)

    “We would like to be able to move forward with them and other universities,” she said.

    McMahon later reiterated her argument that this was a civil rights matter and said, “I think we’re on very solid grounds” regarding the lawsuit.

    But Kernen countered that requiring universities to hire conservative faculty members is just as bad as historically maintaining liberal ones, calling the act “thought control.”

    “It’s the other side of the same coin, isn’t it?” he said.

    McMahon said it’s fair to take a look at some faculty members.

    Near the end of the interview, Sorkin asked McMahon about her end goal if universities lose their federal funding and tax-exempt status. (The IRS is reportedly reviewing Harvard’s tax-exemption.)

    “We have not said that the tax exemption should be taken away, but I think it’s worth having a look at,” McMahon said. “I think the president has put all the tools on the table and we should have the ability to utilize all of those particular tools.”

    Source link

  • Harvard University faces funding ultimatum from Trump administration

    Harvard University faces funding ultimatum from Trump administration

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Harvard University on Thursday received a list of wide-ranging demands from the Trump administration tying the Ivy League institution’s federal funding to its complete compliance.
    • Among the requirements are that Harvard review and change programs and departments that the Trump administration described as “biased” and that “fuel antisemitism,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by Higher Ed Dive. It also calls for the university to make “meaningful governance reforms” that will selectively empower employees “committed to implementing the changes” demanded in the letter.
    • The demands came the same week the Trump administration put $9 billion of Harvard’s federal grants and contracts under review. The government alleged the probe stemmed from reports that the university failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitism.

    Dive Insight:

    The three federal agencies behind the letter — the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. General Services Administration — said the list of nine demands represent “broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform” that Harvard must enact “to remain a responsible recipient of federal taxpayer dollars.”

    Their letter called on Harvard to eliminate all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and prove it does not offer preferential treatment based on race, color or national origin in admissions or hiring “through structural and personnel action.” It also called for increased scrutiny of student groups and a comprehensive mask ban, with exemptions for religious and medical reasons.

    But the agencies, operating as members of President Donald Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, offered few details on how Harvard could meet the demands.

    For example, the letter did not outline which programs or departments it considered biased, nor did it say whether Harvard or the task force would determine which ones needed reform. It also didn’t describe how Harvard officials could determine why someone is wearing a mask.

    The Education Department declined to answer questions on Friday. HHS and GSA did not respond to requests for comment.

    Thursday’s letter marked the first time Harvard officials saw the demands, according to a university spokesperson, who did not respond to further questions. The letter did not set a hard deadline for the ultimatums, instead calling for Harvard’s “immediate cooperation.”

    Before the Trump administration issued its demands, Harvard President Alan Garber acknowledged antisemitism exists on campus and said he had experienced it directly “even while serving as president.”

    “We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism,” he wrote in a Monday message to campus. “We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom.”

    Many members of the Harvard community, however, had a stronger response.

    As of Friday afternoon, over 800 Harvard faculty members had signed a letter dated March 24 calling on the university’s governing boards to publicly condemn attacks on universities and “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.” More than 400 alumni of the university have so far signed their own version of the same letter.

    The demands made of Harvard echo the situation faced by one its Ivy League peers, Columbia University, last month.

    The federal task force is threatening billions in federal funds and grants at Columbia, and it has canceled $400 million worth thus far. When the Trump administration sent Columbia a then-unprecedented list of demands, the university quickly capitulated — to the consternation of faculty and academic freedom advocates alike. 

    The Trump administration lauded Columbia’s compliance as a “positive first step” for maintaining federal funding but has not publicly announced that it has restored the $400 million in canceled grants and contracts.

    “Columbia’s compliance with the Task Force’s preconditions is only the first step in rehabilitating its relationship with the government, and more importantly, its students and faculty,” the task force said in a statement at the time.

    Shortly after, the university’s interim president resigned after less than eight months on the job.

    Source link

  • Columbia University faces ultimatum from Trump administration to keep federal funding

    Columbia University faces ultimatum from Trump administration to keep federal funding

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Columbia University received a daunting laundry list of tasks Thursday from the Trump administration: Suspend or expel protesters. Enact a mask ban. Give university security “full law enforcement authority.”

    The Ivy League institution must comply with these and other demands by March 20 or further endanger its “continued financial relationship with the United States government,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by multiple news sources. 

    Last week, the Trump administration’s newly created Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism canceled $400 million of Columbia’s federal grants and contracts, alleging the university had failed to take action “in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It also noted that Columbia has $5 billion in federal grant commitments at stake.

    The stunning move came only four days after the task force opened an antisemitism investigation into the university.

    On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education also sent warnings to 60 colleges — including Columbia — that it could take punitive action if it determines they aren’t sufficiently protecting Jewish students from discrimination or harassment.

    In Thursday’s letter, Trump administration officials said they expected Columbia’s “immediate compliance” after which they hope to “open a conversation about immediate and long-term structural reforms that will return Columbia to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.” 

    The letter’s edicts are just the latest in a series of decisions made by the Trump administration and Columbia officials that have put the well-known New York institution into a tailspin.

    Strong language, few details

    Officials at the Education Department, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. General Services Administration sent Columbia Interim President Dr. Katrina Armstrong nine policy changes the Trump administration expects the university to make to retain federal funding.

    The agencies — all of which are part of the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force — accused Columbia of failing “to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment,” along with other alleged violations of civil rights laws. 

    But despite the high stakes, the task force’s demands are ambiguous. 

    For example, its letter orders the university to deliver a plan on “comprehensive admissions reform.”

    “The plan must include a strategy to reform undergraduate admissions, international recruiting, and graduate admissions practices to conform with federal law and policy,” it said.

    The task force’s letter offers no further insight into what it expects Columbia to change or how it believes the university is out of line with federal standards.

    The letter goes far beyond what is appropriate for the government to mandate and will chill campus discourse.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    The GSA directed an emailed request for comment to the Education Department. Neither the Education Department nor HHS responded to inquiries Friday.

    The task force also ordered the university to ban masks that “are intended to conceal identity or intimidate others,” while offering exceptions for religious and health reasons. But it did not give criteria to determine why someone is wearing a mask.

    “We are reviewing the letter from the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and General Services Administration,” a spokesperson for Columbia said Friday. “We are committed at all times to advancing our mission, supporting our students, and addressing all forms of discrimination and hatred on our campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil rights watchdog, criticized the federal officials’ demands Friday. 

    While the group has been critical of Columbia’s handling of student protesters, it said the letter does not follow “the normal procedure for revocation of federal financial assistance for violations of Title VI.” Title VI refers to the law barring discrimination on race, color and national origin at federally funded educational institutions. 

    “While these include some policy steps that Columbia should already have taken, the letter goes far beyond what is appropriate for the government to mandate and will chill campus discourse,” FIRE said in a statement.

    A change in due process

    The Trump administration’s task force is demanding Columbia complete ongoing disciplinary proceedings against pro-Palestinian protesters who occupied campus buildings and organized encampments last year. The university must dole out meaningful discipline — meaning expulsions or multi-year suspensions — the letter said.

    The same day the task force’s letter is dated, Columbia announced it had issued “multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocations, and expulsions” related to the occupation of Hamilton Hall.

    In April 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters occupied the university’s Hamilton Hall after then-President Minouche Shafik announced Columbia would not divest from companies with ties to Israel. 

    Source link

  • Columbia University Faces $400 Million Federal Funding Cut in the Wake of Antisemitism Concerns

    Columbia University Faces $400 Million Federal Funding Cut in the Wake of Antisemitism Concerns

    Dr. Katrina ArmstrongColumbia University is grappling with significant financial challenges after the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced $400 million in cuts to federal funding, a development that Interim University President Dr. Katrina Armstrong says will “touch nearly every corner of the University.”

    The task force described the cuts as a consequence of Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students” and warned that this represents only the “first round of action,” with “additional cancellations” to follow.

    This announcement comes just four days after the task force revealed it would consider stop work orders for $51.4 million in contracts between Columbia and the federal government and conduct a “comprehensive review” of more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments to the institution.

    In her communication to the Columbia community, Armstrong acknowledged that the cuts would have an immediate impact on research and critical university functions, affecting “students, faculty, staff, research, and patient care.” Federal funding constituted approximately $1.3 billion of Columbia’s annual operating revenue in the 2024 fiscal year.

    “There is no question that the cancellation of these funds will immediately impact research and other critical functions of the University,” Armstrong wrote in en email to the campus community, while emphasizing that Columbia’s mission as “a great research university does not waver.”

    The situation at Columbia highlights the increasing tensions between academic institutions and the Trump administration, particularly regarding how universities respond to claims of antisemitism on campus. Since October 2023, Columbia has been at the center of pro-Palestinian student protests, drawing federal scrutiny, especially from the Trump administration.

    President Trump recently stated on Truth Social that “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests.”

    Armstrong, who assumed her interim position following former University President Minouche Shafik’s resignation in August 2024, described Columbia as needing a “reset” from the “chaos of encampments and protests.” She emphasized that the university “needed to acknowledge and repair the damage to our Jewish students.”

    Armstrong affirmed the university’s commitment to working with the federal government on addressing antisemitism concerns, stating: “Columbia can, and will, continue to take serious action toward combatting antisemitism on our campus. This is our number one priority.”

    Armstrong, however, did not outline specific plans for how Columbia would adapt to the significant loss of federal funding, instead focusing on the university’s broader mission and values.

    “Antisemitism, violence, discrimination, harassment, and other behaviors that violate our values or disrupt teaching, learning, or research are antithetical to our mission,” Armstrong noted. “We must continue to work to address any instances of these unacceptable behaviors on our campus. We must work every day to do better.”

    The situation at Columbia raises important questions for higher education institutions nationwide about balancing free speech, campus safety, and federal compliance in the age of the Trump presidency. As universities increasingly face scrutiny over their handling of contentious social and political issues, the consequences—both financial and reputational—can be severe.

    Armstrong called unity within the Columbia community to maintain the university’s standing and continue its contributions to society.

    “A unified Columbia, one that remains focused on our mission and our values, will succeed in making the uncommonly valuable contributions to society that have distinguished this great university from its peers over the last 270 years,” she said. 

    Source link

  • NIH faces pivotal hearing amid layoffs, grant freeze

    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.”

    Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Saint Augustine’s U faces ticking clock to fix finances

    Saint Augustine’s U faces ticking clock to fix finances

    Approaching a critical vote on its accreditation status next month, Saint Augustine’s University has made controversial moves in recent months to stabilize its shaky financial position, but so far none have paid off, putting the beleaguered institution in a more precarious position.

    First, the historically Black university in North Carolina took out a $7 million loan last fall that many critics have described as predatory given its 24 percent interest rate and 2 percent management fee. The university also put real estate up as collateral in case of a loan default.

    Then, in November, SAU officials also struck a $70 million deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, a fledgling Florida company, to lease its campus and develop university property for 99 years. The deal would have provided a much-needed financial lifeline for the cash-strapped university that needs to urgently fix its finances before the accreditation review. (The college was previously stripped of accreditation due to university financial and governance issues but appealed.)

    But that lifeline is in legal limbo after the North Carolina attorney general declined to sign off on the deal Monday.

    The North Carolina attorney general’s office, which reviewed the deal due to state law on the transfer of assets from a nonprofit, announced it would not approve the arrangement with 50 Plus 1 Sports as written due to a lack of “sufficient documentation to support the proposal” and concerns that the payout “is too low to justify transfer of the lease rights” for SAU’s campus, which is appraised at $198 million. The attorney general’s Office also expressed concerns about SAU’s “ability to continue to operate.”

    Ongoing Financial Struggles

    Saint Augustine’s has faced rising pressures since December 2023 when it fired then-president Christine McPhail, who subsequently lodged a gender-based discrimination complaint against the board. That same week the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges announced it had voted to strip SAU’s accreditation due to board and finance issues.

    (SAU lost an appeal to that decision but won a reprieve in court in July before SACSCOC voted again in December to strip accreditation. The accreditor will vote on SAU’s appeal next month.)

    Since early 2024—under the guidance of interim president Marcus Burgess—SAU has navigated a series of challenges in a bid to stay afloat. In February, it was hit with a $7.9 million tax lien. That same month, local officials encouraged SAU to explore a merger with nearby Shaw University, another HBCU. Months later, SAU board chair Brian Boulware cast the proposal as an aggressive effort to ramrod a partnership. (Local officials have denied his account.) In May, a group called the Save SAU Coalition sued Boulware and other trustees, alleging malfeasance and self-dealing by the board.

    That case was later dismissed due to a lack of standing.

    Enrollment has also plummeted, falling from more than 1,100 students in fall 2022 to a head count of around 200 students last fall, according to recent estimates. SAU has also announced major staff reductions.

    As its financial pressures added up, Saint Augustine’s borrowed $7 million from Gothic Ventures, an investment firm, and secured a $30 million line of credit. The deal, which came with a 24 percent interest rate and a 2 percent loan management fee, sparked alumni protests in the fall.

    Mark DeFusco, a senior consultant with Higher Ed Consolidation Solutions and sector finance expert, told Inside Higher Ed the terms of the Gothic Ventures loan were “crazy” and “irresponsible.” DeFusco agreed with the description of the loan as “predatory.”

    SAU officials have defended the agreement, writing that the deal is “crucial for maintaining educational services” and securing the loan contradicted “claims of irresponsibility in financial dealings” leveled by critics. SAU has cast criticism of the deal as a “smear campaign.”

    Earlier this month, two local publications, INDY Week and The Assembly, reported that last fall SAU turned down a more favorable loan offer of $19.5 million with a 9 percent interest rate. That offer, from Self-Help Credit Union, stipulated that two board members, including Boulware, resign, and would have included purchasing the existing Gothic Ventures loan. The university balked at the attached conditions.

    To DeFusco, the board resignations as part of the loan conditions were a reasonable request.

    “There are provisions in leadership for all kinds of lending. And with all due respect, it was a wise provision, because you have a board that’s allowed [financial issues] to go on for several years now. This isn’t something new,” DeFusco said. “They haven’t broken even for at least five years from what I could see in their records, and their accrediting body was going to close them down, except for that arbitration. And now they’re about to close them down again.”

    Continued financial struggles ultimately led SAU to a deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, which describes itself on its website as a financing and development firm. That agreement, according to a university statement, would “generate a $70 million upfront investment” from the company.

    But the North Carolina attorney general’s office shut down that proposed deal.

    Beyond the lack of documentation on the proposal and the low payout, Assistant Attorney General Kunal Choksi also raised questions about the university’s due diligence of the deal.

    “SAU’s board and trustees were obligated to perform due diligence on whether 50+ can meet its obligations under the transaction and has the experience to develop revenue-generating property on the leased land,” Choksi wrote in a letter shared with Inside Higher Ed.

    Choksi added that the attorney general’s office had requested “sufficient proof that 50+ has the financial ability to comply with its obligations to SAU and avoid default with its financiers” and “details about similar deals 50+ has developed, including deals with other universities, or the company’s audited financial statements.” Choksi indicated in his letter that SAU had not yet provided those details on the proposal.

    In a Tuesday statement, SAU officials said little about the concerns raised by the attorney general about the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal or its ability to operate. Instead, university officials took aim at Self-Help Credit Union.

    SAU noted concerns “about the process that led to the recent rejection” of the agreement. Specifically, they pointed to a meeting between Marin Eakes of Self-Help Credit Union and alleged that the attorney general’s letter reflected comments made by Eakes in unspecified media coverage and alleged the 50 Plus 1 Sports proposal was shared without SAU’s consent.

    SAU officials wrote in the statement that they “suspect that the Attorney General’s Office used Mr. Eakes’ counsel and input to subsequently influence their decision. Such interference by Self-Help raises significant concerns about fairness. It suggests their attempt to weaponize the NC Attorney General’s Office to obstruct the approval process for the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal.”

    An Unknown Partner

    With the North Carolina attorney general’s office shutting down the 50 Plus 1 deal, SAU has little time to fix its finances ahead of a looming vote on its accreditation status in late February.

    And questions about both the deal and the company linger.

    Information on 50 Plus 1 Sports is sparse and it is unclear, as noted by the attorney general’s office, whether the nascent company has the resources to back the deal. Little is known about 50 Plus 1 Sports, which unsuccessfully big on a $800 million stadium development deal in St. Petersburg, Fla., in early 2023. The firm was not selected for the project amid questions from local officials about how it would finance the deal and a lack of experience as a lead developer.

    In its St. Petersburg proposal, 50 Plus Sports listed a $1.4 billion deal to develop a sports and entertainment district for the University of New Orleans among its reference projects. However, a UNO spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email it is not “moving forward with the project.”

    Monti Valrie, founder and CEO of 50 Plus 1 Sports, did not respond to a request for comment.

    What’s Next for SAU?

    The attorney general’s office did leave the door open to reconsider the deal. But the university would have to provide more details to the office, including evidence that SAU conducted due diligence on 50 Plus 1 Sports and its finances.

    SAU officials noted in their statement that “despite these challenges, SAU remains committed to working collaboratively with the Attorney General’s Office. We believe transparency and open dialogue are essential in securing the funding for our university’s sustainability and growth.”

    But SAU is facing a ticking clock to get that information to the attorney general or rework the deal. University officials have said that the deal needed to close by Jan. 31. Otherwise, “SAU risks failing to demonstrate financial sustainability” before its appeal hearing next month, according to a university statement.

    But DeFusco wonders if SAU’s finances are too far gone to fix.

    “Their finances are so bad they may be criminal,” he said, pointing to payroll and tax issues. (The university also allegedly failed to maintain worker’s compensation for employees recently.)

    As pressure mounts, DeFusco believes the board needs more scrutiny for SAU’s financial problems, arguing “they missed it for years” as the university slipped deeper into the red.

    “Now the question is, is the board acting as a fiduciary?” DeFusco said.

    Source link

  • Brown faces $46 million budget deficit

    Brown faces $46 million budget deficit

    Brown University, one of the nation’s wealthiest institutions, is facing a $46 million structural deficit, prompting efforts to limit growth in hiring and doctoral programs.

    “Without changes to the way Brown operates, the structural deficit is expected to continue to deepen significantly, including a deficit next year that would grow to more than $90 million, with steady increases in subsequent years. Although the current deficit of $46 million is only 3% of Brown’s total operating budget, increases in the deficit over time are not sustainable,” Provost Francis J. Doyle III and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham announced in a letter to the community on Dec. 17.

    Officials noted a range of factors driving the deficit, including flat undergraduate tuition revenue growth, increased financial aid, inflation and rising salaries and benefits.

    Brown announced a four-pronged plan to “constrain the deficit.”

    First, the institution will “hold faculty headcount growth to 1%” and limit the growth of staff members “not fully funded externally by grants and gifts” at zero percent, according to the letter from administrators. In addition, Brown will reduce admissions targets for Ph.D. programs, which have grown rapidly in recent years. The university also plans to “hold growth in unrestricted operating expenses to 3%.” Finally, the letter noted the university will work to “continue to grow master’s [program] revenue, ultimately doubling the number of residential master’s students and increasing online learners to 2,000 in five years.”

    While officials did not announce job cuts as they grapple with the yawning budget deficit, the message noted Brown will review vacancies “to determine if they will be refilled.”

    Brown is among the richest universities in the U.S. with an endowment valued at $7.2 billion. Last year, a study of endowments put Brown just beyond the top 25 wealthiest institutions.

    Source link