Tag: freeze

  • Northwestern to Fund Research After Federal Freeze

    Northwestern to Fund Research After Federal Freeze

    Northwestern University is stepping in to fund ongoing research projects after the private institution received stop-work orders on nearly 100 federal grants, CBS News Chicago reported.

    The move comes after the Trump administration froze $790 million in federal research funding at Northwestern, which is one of multiple institutions across the U.S. hit by similar setbacks. Others include Harvard University, which had $2.2 billion frozen after it rejected changes demanded by the Trump administration in response to alleged antisemitism and harassment; Cornell University (more than $1 billion); Columbia University ($650 million); Brown University ($510 million); Princeton University ($210 million); and the University of Pennsylvania ($175 million).

    Northwestern, like others on the list, had a pro-Palestinian encampment protest on campus last spring, which prompted Congress to bring its president in for a hearing on antisemitism in May.

    Northwestern president Michael Schill and Board of Trustees chair Peter Barris told the university community in an email obtained by CBS News Chicago that the university still had not received formal notice that federal research funding had been pulled, but the university has received stop-work orders. They noted the university will continue funding on projects that received stop-work orders as well as other research threatened by the Trump administration.

    “The work we do is essential to our community, to the nation and to the world. Enabling this vital research to continue is among our most important priorities, and supporting our researchers in this moment is a responsibility we take seriously,” Schill and Barris wrote in the Thursday email.

    Northwestern is among the nation’s wealthiest universities, with an endowment recently valued at $14.2 billion. However, financial experts have cautioned against leveraging endowments to plug budget holes, prompting some wealthy institutions targeted by the administration to issue bonds or take out private loans.

    Source link

  • Northwestern, Cornell Face Federal Funding Freeze

    Northwestern, Cornell Face Federal Funding Freeze

    The Trump administration is freezing more than $1 billion in federal funds at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University—the latest colleges to see their federal grants and contracts threatened, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing anonymous officials.

    The affected funds will include money from the Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services Departments. The Times didn’t say why those universities were losing the money aside from noting that both institutions are facing civil rights investigations related to alleged antisemitism on campus. In recent weeks, Northwestern has sought to highlight its efforts to combat antisemitism, which include policy changes and mandatory antisemitism training for students, faculty and staff.

    However, the administration can’t legally pull funding from colleges for civil rights violations until after a lengthy process that’s supposed to include notice to Congress and the opportunity for judicial review. Still, the Trump administration has used other avenues—which some experts say are illegal and are the subject of legal challenges—to cut off money. They include tapping a task force to investigate colleges and targeting their grants and contracts. The task force is currently reviewing Harvard University’s federal funding, which totals $9 billion, and has demanded several changes in order for the college to continue receiving money.

    “This was wrong last week, it is wrong this week, and it will be wrong next week,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education.

    Jon Yates, a Northwestern spokesman, said the university learned via the media about the freeze, which would affect “a significant portion of our federal funding.”

    “The University has not received any official notification from the federal government,” Yates wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and life-saving research, like the recent development by Northwestern researchers of the world’s smallest pacemaker, and research fueling the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. This type of research is now at jeopardy. The University has fully cooperated with investigations by both the Department of Education and Congress.”

    Cornell didn’t respond to an Inside Higher Ed request for comment.

    The American Jewish Committee on Tuesday warned the Trump administration against making dramatic cuts to universities’ funding, adding that such a step should be a last resort.

    Colleges That Have Lost Federal Funding So Far:

    Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

    Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

    In a 5-4 split, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to maintain a freeze on millions of dollars in federal teacher training grants.

    The administration’s emergency application, filed on March 26, asked the justices to vacate a district court judge’s order requiring the U.S. Department of Education to reinstate some of Trump’s $600 million in slashed funding. The justices granted Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris’ call for an immediate administrative stay, which pauses the March 10 order by Judge Myong Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts while the case continues.

    In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that the recipient programs wouldn’t suffer permanent damages if the funds were withheld while the case moves through the lower courts. The “respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed,” the opinion said.

    The opinion also suggested the lower court may not have had the authority to issue its order. 

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the notion that some grant recipients may seek to draw down funds that the Trump administration seeks to terminate was the “only hint of urgency that the Government offers to justify its unusual request for our intervention.”

    “If true, that would be unfortunate, but worse things have happened,” Jackson wrote.

    In a separate dissent, Justice Elena Kagan characterized the majority’s decision as a “mistake” that followed a “barebones briefing,” no argument and little time for reflection. Chief Justice John Roberts did not join either dissent but disagreed with the majority.

    The move is the first time the Supreme Court has considered any challenges to President Donald Trump’s efforts to significantly scale back federal education programs — and ultimately dismantle the Education Department. 

    In the administration’s March 26 emergency request, Harris said the case is an example of a broader question the Supreme Court needs to answer: “‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever)’ millions in taxpayer dollars?”

    “Unless and until this Court addresses that question, federal district courts will continue exceeding their jurisdiction by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back,” Harris wrote. 

    The case in question concerns the Education Department’s February cancellation of over $600 million in what it called “divisive” federal teacher training grants funds. The canceled grants had been made under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program. 

    In March, eight Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration to restore the awarded funds. In response, Joun granted a temporary restraining order for the department to reinstate those funds to the eight plaintiff states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin.

    If the Supreme Court were to order the Trump administration to reinstate the grants to those eight states, the acting solicitor general said, the department would have to disburse up to $65 million in remaining funds.

    On March 28, the eight states urged in a 44-page filing that the Supreme Court leave Joun’s order in place. The states said the Trump administration’s “real concern” appears to involve other cases “where courts are grappling with a raft of legal disputes arising out of recent actions by the Executive Branch.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

    Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

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

    In a 5-4 split, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to maintain a freeze on millions of dollars in federal teacher training grants.

    The administration’s emergency application, filed on March 26, asked the justices to vacate a district court judge’s order requiring the U.S. Department of Education to reinstate some of Trump’s $600 million in slashed funding. The justices granted Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris’ call for an immediate administrative stay, which pauses the March 10 order by Judge Myong Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts while the case continues.

    In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that the recipient programs wouldn’t suffer permanent damages if the funds were withheld while the case moves through the lower courts. The “respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed,” the opinion said.

    The opinion also suggested the lower court may not have had the authority to issue its order. 

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the notion that some grant recipients may seek to draw down funds that the Trump administration seeks to terminate was the “only hint of urgency that the Government offers to justify its unusual request for our intervention.”

    “If true, that would be unfortunate, but worse things have happened,” Jackson wrote.

    In a separate dissent, Justice Elena Kagan characterized the majority’s decision as a “mistake” that followed a “barebones briefing,” no argument and little time for reflection. Chief Justice John Roberts did not join either dissent but disagreed with the majority.

    The move is the first time the Supreme Court has considered any challenges to President Donald Trump’s efforts to significantly scale back federal education programs — and ultimately dismantle the Education Department. 

    In the administration’s March 26 emergency request, Harris said the case is an example of a broader question the Supreme Court needs to answer: “‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever)’ millions in taxpayer dollars?”

    “Unless and until this Court addresses that question, federal district courts will continue exceeding their jurisdiction by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back,” Harris wrote. 

    The case in question concerns the Education Department’s February cancellation of over $600 million in what it called “divisive” federal teacher training grants funds. The canceled grants had been made under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program. 

    In March, eight Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration to restore the awarded funds. In response, Joun granted a temporary restraining order for the department to reinstate those funds to the eight plaintiff states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin.

    If the Supreme Court were to order the Trump administration to reinstate the grants to those eight states, the acting solicitor general said, the department would have to disburse up to $65 million in remaining funds.

    On March 28, the eight states urged in a 44-page filing that the Supreme Court leave Joun’s order in place. The states said the Trump administration’s “real concern” appears to involve other cases “where courts are grappling with a raft of legal disputes arising out of recent actions by the Executive Branch.”

    Source link

  • More Colleges Freeze Hiring Amid Federal Funding Uncertainty

    More Colleges Freeze Hiring Amid Federal Funding Uncertainty

    As the higher education sector grapples with federal funding cuts and other disruptions, a growing number of colleges across the country—from public flagships to Ivy League institutions—are freezing hiring and spending and pausing graduate student admissions.

    This week, Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Washington and others joined the list of more than a dozen colleges that have temporarily paused hiring and vowed to hold off on some discretionary spending.

    “It is meant to preserve our financial flexibility until we better understand how changes in federal policy will take shape and can assess the scale of their impact,” Harvard president Alan Garber wrote this week in a message to the campus community. “We plan to leave the pause in effect for the current semester but will revisit that decision as circumstances warrant.”

    Garber added that Harvard will continue to advocate for higher education in Washington, D.C.

    “Expanding access to higher education for all, preserving academic freedom, and supporting our community’s research, teaching, and learning will always be our highest priorities,” he wrote.

    Colleges and universities started to curb costs last month after the National Institutes of Health said it plans to cap reimbursements for costs indirectly related to research—a move expected to cost colleges at least $4 billion. A federal judge has since blocked that proposal from moving forward, but the Trump administration has essentially stopped awarding new NIH grants, creating financial uncertainty for many colleges.

    The latest wave of freezes comes after the Trump administration announced it was pulling $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University, warning that other universities could see a similar penalty as part of the government’s crackdown on alleged campus antisemitism. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he was essentially shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has provided billions to colleges over the years. And the Education Department laid off nearly half its staff, which could cause disruptions for colleges, though the financial impact is not clear.

    Congress is also considering proposals to put some colleges on the hook for unpaid student loans and to raise the endowment tax on wealthy institutions, among other ideas that could affect universities’ bottom lines.

    Penn officials said this week that while the final impact of the federal changes and cuts isn’t yet clear, the university is already “experiencing reduced funding.” In addition to a hiring freeze, Penn is reducing noncompensation expenses by 5 percent and reviewing all spending on capital projects.

    “The scope and pace of the possible disruptions we face may make them more severe than those of previous challenges, such as the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID pandemic,” Penn officials wrote in a letter. “With careful financial management, however, Penn is well-positioned to navigate them.”

    At the University of Washington, officials are facing not only the federal policy changes but also potential state funding cuts. Officials have noted that the university is in a good financial position over all but said they need to take proactive measures—such as stopping all nonessential hiring, travel and training—to prepare for any losses.

    “These risks together have the potential to jeopardize the full scope of our work, including existing and new research projects, patient care, instruction and basic operations,” university provost Tricia Serio wrote in a blog post.

    Other colleges that have paused hiring or instituted other cost-cutting measures this month include Emory University, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Vermont.

    Beyond hiring freezes, some colleges continue to re-evaluate graduate student admissions, particularly for Ph.D. students who are typically supported by federal grants.

    On Wednesday, the Morningside Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School in Worcester rescinded provisional offers of acceptance to students who planned to pursue a doctorate, a spokesperson confirmed to Inside Higher Ed.

    “With uncertainties related to the funding of biomedical research in this country, this difficult decision was made to ensure that our current students’ progress is not disrupted by the funding cuts and that we avoid matriculating students who may not have robust opportunities for dissertation research,” the spokesperson said. “All impacted applicants are being offered the opportunity to receive priority consideration without the requirement to reapply, should they wish to join our Ph.D. program in a future admissions cycle.”

    Neither current students nor those at the medical school’s other graduate schools are affected.

    Iowa State University also rescinded some acceptance offers, The Iowa Capital Dispatch reported, joining other colleges that made similar decisions in the last month.

    As the list grows, academics worry about the long-term consequences of the cost-cutting measures. The hiring freezes and disruptions to graduate student admissions have thrown a wrench into the plans of early-career researchers, who are now looking to Europe and the private sector for job opportunities.

    Puskar Mondal, a lecturer on math at Harvard and a research fellow, wrote in an opinion piece for The Harvard Crimson that the hiring freeze is “troubling.”

    “The hiring freeze isn’t just a financial or administrative issue—it’s something that could have a ripple effect across all disciplines at Harvard,” Mondal wrote. “It could lead to fewer opportunities for students, more pressure on faculty, and a slowdown in research that could take years to recover from. And that’s not just bad for Harvard—it’s bad for all of us.”

    Source link

  • Funding Freeze on University of Maine System Lifted

    Funding Freeze on University of Maine System Lifted

    Senator Susan Collins of Maine said the pause on federal agriculture funding for her state’s public colleges and universities has been lifted, WMTW reported Wednesday.

    The Department of Agriculture froze all spending Tuesday as part of an investigation into the institutions’ compliance with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. USDA launched the investigation shortly after a heated exchange between Maine’s Democratic governor and President Trump in late February.

    The state’s flagship institution, the University of Maine, requested clarification Wednesday on the status of USDA’s Title IX compliance review and the extent of the pause. Collins also consulted the Trump administration about the freeze. Relief followed quickly after.

    “This USDA funding is critically important not only to the University of Maine but to our farmers and loggers,” Collins said in a statement. “Now that funding has been restored, the work that the university does in partnership with the many people and communities who depend on these programs can continue.”

    The system has nearly $63 million in active grants from the Agriculture Department and is expecting $35 million to be paid out for ongoing statewide education, research and extension activities, a system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed.

    “Since our flagship’s founding as Maine’s land grant 160 years ago, funding from USDA has enabled us to strengthen and grow the state’s natural resource economy, sustain rural jobs and communities, and support hands-on 4-H youth development opportunities,” system chancellor Dannel Malloy and University of Maine president Joan Ferrini-Mundy said in a joint statement. “The University of Maine System was thrilled to learn from Senator Collins that the USDA has agreed to lift its plan to temporarily pause our federal funding, which has been an unnecessary distraction from our essential education, research and extension activities that benefit Maine and well beyond.”

    Source link

  • Struggling soup kitchens and hospitals in Sudan face uncertainty amid U.S. aid freeze (CBS News)

    Struggling soup kitchens and hospitals in Sudan face uncertainty amid U.S. aid freeze (CBS News)

    When President Trump ordered a 90-day freeze on foreign aid, no one felt the impact more than the people of Sudan. Two years of civil war has left more than 25 million Sudanese starving in what is the largest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen. Debora Patta reports.

    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

  • Hiring freeze cancels internships with federal agencies

    Hiring freeze cancels internships with federal agencies

    Kristin Comrie is set to graduate this semester with a master’s in health informatics from a fully remote program that she balances with a full-time job. But the federal hiring freeze has thrown a wrench into her plans, prompting the Veterans Health Administration to cancel her unpaid internship, which she needed to fulfill a graduation requirement.

    It wasn’t easy to find an opportunity that fit in with her job and schoolwork, but the VHA internship sounded ideal; she could work remotely, and the team at the VHA seemed happy to accommodate her busy schedule. Slated to start Feb. 10, she had just finished her background check and fingerprinting when she received notice that the internship had been canceled.

    “I got a generic email that they were rescinding the offer because of the federal hiring freeze,” Comrie recalled.

    The news left her “scrambling” to find another internship that she could finish in time to graduate in May. Two weeks later, she hasn’t yet found a new position but said she might be able to coordinate with her current employer to take on additional responsibilities in order to fulfill the requirement.

    Comrie isn’t the only student to have had a federal employment opportunity abruptly rescinded. The hiring freeze appears to have forced federal agencies to cancel numerous internships; most prominently, thousands of legal internships and entry-level positions within the Department of Justice and beyond have been impacted, according to reports on social media and in news outlet like Reuters and Law360.

    “We’ve most definitely seen impacts of the federal hiring freeze and subsequent actions related to college recruiting and internships. We’re hearing from colleges that there have been internships that have been canceled and we have heard that federal agencies have pulled out of going onto campuses to recruit,” said Shawn VanDerziel, executive director of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, an advocacy group for campus career centers and the businesses that work with them. “I would hope once the dust settles over the coming weeks and months that we will have many more answers and that the trajectory will be more positive.”

    It represents a stark contrast from just a year ago, when the federal government finalized regulations to expand internship opportunities in an effort to hire younger talent. Government employees skew Gen X and older, with those over 55 making up a third of federal workers and those under 30 composing just 8 percent. To keep the government well staffed as the aging workforce retires, officials vowed to cultivate a younger demographic.

    “Early career programs are critical to recruit the next generation of government leaders,” then–Office of Personnel Management director Kiran Ahuja told Government Executive, a publication focused on the federal government, in a statement. “The updates to the Pathways Programs will increase opportunities and remove barriers to hire interns, fellows, apprentices, recent students and trainees, which will help federal agencies boost their talent pipelines to serve the American people. No matter what your interests are, the federal government offers opportunities in nearly every sector and every industry.”

    Those rules, finalized last April, went into effect in December, meaning they were in place for just over a month before the hiring freeze began on Inauguration Day.

    For students, working in government is a rare opportunity to explore certain career specializations that are difficult to study elsewhere, like diplomacy. Federal internships often allow students to experience America’s center of government firsthand—and to get their foot in the door for a dream job.

    “If you got a federal government internship, it means you’re quite capable,” said Brian Swarts, director of Pepperdine University’s D.C. program, one of approximately 40 satellite campuses in the capital dedicated to supporting and educating student interns. “It’s much more advanced than other internships. Generally speaking, students who have acquired a government internship are very excited about those opportunities … they’re seeing this as their one opportunity to move forward with a future role in the government.”

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to a handful of the agencies that have reportedly cut internships—the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs.

    In response to a series of questions, an EPA spokesperson responded, “There have been no mass cancellations of EPA internships. The EPA is diligently implementing President Trump’s executive orders and associated guidance.”

    The other three offices did not respond to requests for comment.

    Since the hiring freeze went into effect, the administration has carved out some exceptions, saying that agencies are “permitted” to make allowances for internships through the Pathways Programs, centralized programs that install interns, recent graduates and midcareer fellows across various agencies, aiming to convert them into full-time employees.

    But the majority of interns for federal agencies are not part of the Pathways Programs.

    Other exceptions would have to be carved out by the agencies themselves on a case-by-case basis, McLaurine Pinover, a spokesperson for OPM, said in an email.

    Katie Romano, executive director of the Archer Center, which supports students from the University of Texas system in pursuing internships in D.C., told Inside Higher Ed that two current Archer fellows had spring semester internships rescinded—one a full-time and one a part-time position—but both have been able to transition to other opportunities in the city.

    A director of another college’s D.C. program, who asked to remain anonymous, said no students from her institution had lost federal internships this spring. But she said that’s likely because several students backed out of opportunities with federal agencies after Trump was elected because they disagreed with his politics or feared chaos under his administration.

    “My fear from a macro level is we’re going to turn off an entire generation of young people from civil service as they’re watching all of this. If you were 21 and thinking about what you were going to do after graduation and looking for an internship that would set you up for success and you see this going on, you might just choose to pivot your entire plan,” she said.

    ‘It’s Been Very Stressful’

    Law students, in particular, have found themselves struggling to find new opportunities; since most law interns are hired months before their onboarding date, few private firms have spots left, leaving those who lost internships with minimal options for summer work.

    “In the law school world, not working on your summers is not necessarily going to destroy your future career, but a lot of postgrad employers look at that quizzically,” said Dylan Osborne, a second-year Brooklyn Law School student who was slated to work at the Internal Revenue Service this summer until he received an email that the internship had been canceled due to the hiring freeze.

    Moreover, many of the students with federal job offers in hand had already begun making arrangements to live in D.C. for the summer.

    One second-year law student said that while she was fortunate not to have signed a lease in D.C. before her internship offer was rescinded, she’d already told her current landlord she would not be renewing her lease, which expires in May.

    Now, with no job on the horizon, the student, who requested anonymity out of fear of jeopardizing her career, said she is “in limbo,” unsure where she will live or how much money she will earn over the summer.

    Since she received notice that her internship was canceled, she now spends as many as five hours a day applying for positions and talking on the phone with firms.

    “It’s been very stressful, especially because I took on extra responsibilities knowing I didn’t have to worry about the [job] application process,” she said. “It’s like taking on another job in itself.”

    Andrew Nettels, a third-year law student at George Washington University whose permanent job offer from the DOJ was rescinded, has organized a massive group chat of law students and new lawyers whose employment prospects were impacted by the hiring freeze. He said few members of the group—which maintains a document of opportunities and firms taking interns—have had success finding replacement positions.

    “I’m not personally aware of anyone finding anything new. I’m aware of maybe three people who have had interviews,” he said, noting that members of the chat are encouraged to share their successes. “This isn’t to place any blame at all on the private sector—we’re already several months off the recruitment cycle … their hiring committees have been trying to figure out whether they’d be in a financial position as a firm to commit to hiring one or two or however many students for the summer, and even postgraduates—it’s a huge commitment.”

    Professors, administrators and career center specialists are also working diligently to help students secure replacement positions, with some reaching out to their networks on social media in the hopes of finding leads.

    “The old saying ‘it takes a village’ could not be more appropriate right now. I have no doubt my LinkedIn ‘village’ can help not just William & Mary Law School students but also students at other schools who are anxiously and unexpectedly having to pivot as a result of the hiring freeze,” wrote Michael Ende, associate dean for career services at William & Mary Law School, in a LinkedIn post.

    According to an emailed statement from William & Mary Law School dean A. Benjamin Spencer, 13 students lost their summer internships due to the hiring freeze, and others likely would have secured positions at federal agencies in the coming months.

    “We have met or will be meeting with every student who lost their positions with federal agencies (including graduating 3Ls who lost post-graduation offers). We are helping them to restart their job searches, which includes helping them figure out what types of positions to target and getting them connected to alumni and others in the profession who have been offering their assistance by sharing internship and job openings and expressing a willingness to speak with impacted students to guide them in this time of need,” Spencer wrote.

    Osborne said that he has heard from some law students who are still hoping that their positions might be reinstated after the hiring freeze is slated to end in late April. But it’s a gamble most, including Osborne, aren’t willing to take.

    “There are some people who are hoping to wait the spring out and see if their positions are unfrozen, so to speak,” he said. “But given the attitude the administration has towards the IRS, I don’t think I’m going to be one of those people.”

    Source link

  • What the federal freeze on spending means for education 

    What the federal freeze on spending means for education 

    UPDATE: After a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from freezing federal grants and loans, the White House rescinded its request that distribution of those grants and loans freeze should be paused. 

    A late-night directive from the White House budget office Monday that appeared to freeze streams of federal dollars that pay for everything from school lunches to university research is facing immediate legal challenges — after first stunning the education world.

    “There is no question this policy is reckless, dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional,” said New York Attorney General Leticia James, one of the first to announce a lawsuit against the Trump administration freeze. “When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim.” 

    After widespread confusion, the administration clarified that some education aid would not be affected, specifying Pell Grants and federal student loans. In addition, according to Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann, the pause does not affect Title I funding that supports K-12 schools with many low-income students, IDEA grants for students with disabilities or other so-called formula grants.

    Many questions are still unanswered, however. What triggered the confusion: a two-page memo sent to government agencies late Monday by Matthew J. Vaeth, acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said federal agencies must pause distributing grant or loan money until after they review that spending to ensure it does not run afoul of the executive orders President Donald Trump has issued since he took office last week. Agencies have until Feb. 10 to report back on spending that runs counter to the executive orders, “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.

    White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt later said federal money sent directly to individuals — in the form of Medicare, Social Security benefits, food stamps and welfare benefits, among other aid — also would not be affected by the pause.

    Biermann, the Education spokeswoman, said the department “is working with OMB to identify other programs that are not covered by the memo.”

    The Hechinger Report is working to decipher some of the effects of the pause. This article will be updated. Send your questions to editor@hechingerreport.org.

    Is Head Start affected?

    The federal grant that funds early childhood programs for low-income children is not at risk under the freeze, according to a memo issued on Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget and reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets. The clarification ended several hours of speculation and fear among advocates and program officials that the federally-funded early learning program would be cut off from funding.

    Still, several Head Start providers who logged into their payment system Tuesday morning found a message that warned payments could be delayed due to “potentially unallowable grant payments,” according to The Huffington Post. But later Tuesday, the National Head Start Association said “Head Start agencies are not included in the list of federal grants and loans whose funds are frozen. Agencies have been able to access funds through the Payment Management System.”

    Read more: The Hechinger Report wrote about how Head Start programs are still funded by a formula set in the 1970s.

    What does this mean for Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG)?

    It is unclear whether the block grant — which provides federal funding for states to improve child care quality and run subsidy programs to help low income families pay for care — will be touched by the freeze. The Administration for Children and Families did not address the question in response to a request for comment.

    Some early childhood experts suspect the grant will be affected, which could have repercussions for the children and programs that rely on those funds. “Trump and his administration are going out of their way — even circumventing the law — to deprive children and the people who care for them the resources they need to ensure safe and nurturing environments for our kids,” said Julie Kashen, director of women’s economic justice and senior fellow at The Century Foundation, in a statement.

    Read more: The Hechinger Report examined how child care block grant funds are stretched too far to help all the families that are eligible. 

    What about school lunch?

    School cafeterias rely on monthly payments from the federal government to cover the cost of food labor and supplies. It isn’t clear whether those payments will be affected, the School Nutrition Association, an organization that represents people who work in school cafeterias, said. It was hoping for more clarity from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Grants do pay for other types of school food programs, such as the Farm to School Program, which incorporates local foods into school meals.  

    Does the pause affect student loans or Pell grants? What about federal Work Study?

    Loans and Pell Grants are not affected by the funding pause because their funding goes directly to individual students, according to Biedermann, the U.S. Department of Education spokeswoman.

    But Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 colleges and universities, told the Boston Globe that his team believes that work-study programs are included in the freeze. Many students rely on these programs to earn money to help pay for college.

    What about grants for HBCUs and MSIs (Minority Serving Institutions)? 

    The Education Department said the freeze will not affect grant programs for historically Black colleges and universities and predominantly Black institutions, the Washington Post reported. The federal government provides these colleges with money for a host of programs, including graduate education, science programs and infrastructure.

    A department spokesperson told the Post that “the administration strongly supports HBCUs and MSIs [Minority Serving Institutions]. Funds flowing under those grant programs will not be paused, but we will work to ensure the programs are in line with the President’s priorities.”

    Read more: The Hechinger Report dug into schools where Pell Grant recipients have a track record of success.

    This story about the federal freeze was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link