Tag: Pause

  • Trump vows to “permanently pause” migration from “third world countries”

    Trump vows to “permanently pause” migration from “third world countries”

    The President made the statement in a Thanksgiving post on Truth Social, in which he said the measures would allow the “US system to fully recover”, while vowing to remove anyone who is not an “asset” to the country. 

    Trump said he would end all federal benefits and subsidies to “noncitizens” in the US and deport any foreign national deemed a security risk or deemed to be “non-compatible with Western Civilisation”. 

    His remarks follow the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington DC on November 26, one of whom died the following day. The suspect in the shooting is an Afghan national who is said to have arrived in the US in September 2021. 

    Officials say the accused came to the country legally, under a program that offered immigration protections to Afghanistan nationals who worked with US forces and feared retribution from the Taliban.  

    No details of Trump’s immigration suspension plan or what would be considered a “third world” country have been released, and the State Department did not immediately respond to The PIE News’ request for comment. 

    Trump previously said after Wednesday’s shooting that the attack constituted an “act of terror”, and vowed to remove people “from any country who doesn’t belong here”. 

    Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation

    Donald Trump, US President

    As announced by USCIS director Joseph Edlow on Thursday: “Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols.” 

    In June 2025, the Trump administration imposed an all-out travel ban on 12 nations including Afghanistan, and a partial ban on a further seven, barring the entry of international scholars and students. Only Afghan nationals holding Special Immigration Visas were among the few exceptions to the policy.

    Those holding valid visas before the ban was announced were allowed to remain in the US, and in 2024/25 there were a total of 712 Afghan students studying at US institutions, according to Open Doors data.

    The countries currently impacted by the ban are Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, whose nationals are obstructed from all types of travel to the US including immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.  

    Nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela are subject to partial restrictions. 

    “Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation”, Trump continued on Truth Social.  

    His presidency has seen a widespread crackdown on immigration, including the revocation of 80,000 non-immigrant visas, 10% of which were for international students.  

    The administration’s arrests, detentions and attempted deportations of international students for their pro-Palestinian advocacy have drawn widespread condemnation from within the US and globally, with a court ruling them illegal last month.  

    Source link

  • Spanberger urges UVA to pause presidential search until she takes office

    Spanberger urges UVA to pause presidential search until she takes office

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger is calling on the University of Virginia’s governing board to hold off on naming a new president or selecting finalists for the role until she takes office in January.
    • Over the past six months, UVA’s Board of Visitors has “severely undermined the public’s and the University community’s confidence” in its ability to act transparently and in the best interests of the state flagship, Spanberger said in a Wednesday letter to board leaders.
    • Spanberger, a Democrat and an alumna of UVA, said five appointees to the board “failed to achieve confirmation” by the Virginia Assembly as law requires. That raises concerns about the legitimacy of any decisions made by the current board, as it isn’t “fully constituted,” she argued.

    Dive Insight:

    UVA’s governing board has been in a state of flux since June. Outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, is in the midst of a fight with Virginia’s Democrat-controlled Senate committee over his selections for several public college boards, including UVA.

    The committee rejected eight of Youngkin’s appointments in June, but the governor instructed them to begin serving anyway. In July, a judge ruled that those eight board appointees for UVA, George Mason University and Virginia Military Institute could not serve on those boards. An appeal from outgoing Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is before the Virginia Supreme Court.

    Democratic lawmakers similarly rejected another round of Youngkin appointees in August, bringing the total number of board seats under contention at Virginia public colleges to nearly two dozen.

    At UVA, five appointees are in legal limbo. 

    Because of this, “the Board is not fully constituted and its composition is now in violation of statutory requirements in crucial respects, further calling into question the legitimacy of the Board and its actions,” Spanberger said in her letter.

    UVA’s board currently has 12 voting members, well above the five it requires for a quorum. The university did not immediately respond to questions Thursday. 

    The governor-elect advised the board to pause its presidential search until it is “at full complement and in statutory compliance,” adding that would entail her appointing new members and the General Assembly approving them.  

    In turn, Spanberger pledged to make her appointments to the UVA board “quickly upon my swearing in.”

    UVA formed a special committee in July to select a new president following the abrupt departure of its former leader, Jim Ryan, less than a month earlier. 

    Ryan, who originally planned to leave the role at the end of the 2025-26 academic year, stepped down early amid reports of a pressure campaign orchestrated against him by the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ had been probing UVA’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, which expanded following the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally on the university’s campus and Ryan’s inauguration as president a year later.

    In his resignation announcement, Ryan said he wouldn’t challenge the Trump administration out of concern that attempting to keep his job would cost UVA research funding and student aid, as well as put international students at risk.

    UVA said in November that in-person interviews for Ryan’s replacement would take place late this month.

    Spanberger in her letter Wednesday criticized Ryan’s ouster as “a result of federal overreach” and noted that it went unchallenged by UVA’s board members.

    That lack of response, she argued, among other actions taken by the board over the last six months, has resulted in a “loss of confidence” in the governing body. She cited no confidence votes from both the UVA faculty senate and the university student council in July and August, respectively.

    In October, UVA struck a deal with the DOJ to formally close the agency’s investigations over its DEI work by 2028. In return, the university agreed to several changes, including adopting the DOJ’s contentious anti-DEI guidance and making quarterly compliance reports.

    Because the deal doesn’t include a financial penalty, it did not require a formal vote from the board, the university said in an FAQ.

    Leaders of Virginia’s Democratic-controlled Senate have called for a legal audit of the agreement, questioned its constitutionality and labeled it “a fundamental breach of the governance relationship” between the university and the state.

    Last month, the Trump administration also offered the research university a separate deal — preferential access to federal research funding in exchange for enacting several wide-ranging and unprecedented conditions. UVA ultimately declined the compact, as did six other colleges to which the administration initially offered it.

    Source link

  • Spanberger Calls on UVA to Pause President Search

    Spanberger Calls on UVA to Pause President Search

    Virginia governor-elect Abigail Spanberger has called on the University of Virginia to pause its presidential search until she takes office in January and appoints new members to the Board of Visitors.

    In a Wednesday letter to board leaders, Spanberger wrote that she was “deeply concerned” about recent developments at the state flagship, citing “the departure of President Jim Ryan as a result of federal overreach.” Ryan stepped down amid federal investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion practices at UVA. The board later reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to pause those investigations.

    Spanberger argued that the government’s interference “went unchallenged by the Board” and has “severely undermined” public confidence in its ability to “govern productively, transparently, and in the best interests of the University.”

    Spanberger also pointed to recent votes of no confidence in the board by both the UVA Faculty Senate and the Student Council. Given those concerns and the hobbled state of the board, which is missing multiple members after state Democrats blocked Republican governor Glenn Youngkin’s appointments, Spanberger called for a pause until her own picks are confirmed by the General Assembly.

    “The benefits of selecting a new president with a full, duly-constituted Board are clear,” the governor-elect wrote in her letter to board leaders. They include making the search process and decision credible and “removing any concern that the Board’s actions are illegitimate due to a lack of authority,” she wrote.

    So far, UVA has been noncommittal in its public response.

    “University leaders and the Board of Visitors are reviewing the letter and are ready to engage with the Governor-elect and to work alongside her and her team to advance the best interests of UVA and the Commonwealth,” spokesperson Brian Coy wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email.

    Spanberger is the latest state Democrat to clash with the UVA Board of Visitors, which is stocked with GOP donors and political figures. While politics have long been at play on Virginia’s boards, Youngkin’s appointments have represented a dramatic rightward shift, prompting pushback as Democrats have blocked recent nominations.

    (A legal battle over the state of those appointments is currently playing out; the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case last month but has yet to issue a decision.)

    Democrats have turned up the temperature on UVA in recent months, demanding answers about the agreement with DOJ and Ryan’s resignation and accused the board of giving in to “extortionate tactics.” Now, following an election that saw Democrats take the governor’s office and broaden their majority in the General Assembly, Spanberger will likely have political capital to reshape higher education at the state level as she sees fit—barring intervention from the federal government.

    Spanberger, the first woman elected governor of Virginia, is a UVA alumna.

    The governor-elect’s call to pause UVA’s presidential search prompted immediate pushback from the Jefferson Council, a conservative alumni group that has won influence with Youngkin, who appointed the group’s co-founder Bert Ellis to the board before removing him for his combative behavior.

    The organization argued in a statement that in 2022 a Democratic-appointed board “quietly extended” Ryan’s contract through 2028—even though it did not expire until 2025—without “Governor Youngkin having an opportunity to appoint one Board member.” They wrote that “the Board’s action was clearly intended to ensure Ryan’s tenure” beyond Youngkin’s term. (Governors in Virginia may not serve consecutive terms.)

    The group also defended the search committee and process.

    “In contrast, the current UVA presidential search committee, the most extensive and diverse in University history, was lawfully formed by the Board and has been operating since July 2025, working diligently through meetings and interviews. To suddenly ask the BOV to wait to choose a president is a bold act of political legerdemain representing a total historical double-standard,” the Jefferson Council wrote.

    However, faculty members have a different view of the search committee.

    In an Aug. 10 letter, the UVA chapter of the American Association of University Professors accused the board of shortchanging faculty by limiting their seats on the presidential search committee. The group wrote that the committee “is dominated by current and former members of the [Board of Visitors] and administrators,” with faculty members composing less than a quarter of the committee. Additionally, they noted that none of those members “were selected by the faculty.”

    Spanberger’s insistence that UVA pause its presidential search bears similarities to ways other governors have sought to influence leadership decisions before they took office, such as Jeff Landry in Louisiana. Shortly after his election in late 2023, the Republican governor called on the University of Louisiana system to hold off on hiring Rick Gallot, a former Democratic state lawmaker, as its next president.

    Landry said he wanted to make sure their visions for the system aligned. Ultimately, despite the pause, Gallot was hired as system president after meeting with Landry before he took office.

    Source link

  • Pause for REFlection: Time to review the role of generative AI in REF2029

    Pause for REFlection: Time to review the role of generative AI in REF2029

    Author:
    Nick Hillman

    Published:

    • This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Richard Watermeyer (Professor of Higher Education and Co-Director of the Centre for Higher Education at the University of Bristol), Tom Crick (Professor of Digital Policy at Swansea University) and Lawrie Phipps (Professor of Digital Leadership at the University of Chester and Senior Research Lead at Jisc).
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.

    For as long as there has been national research assessment exercises (REF, RAE or otherwise), there have been efforts to improve the way with which research is evaluated and Quality Related (QR) research funding consequently distributed. Where REF2014 stands out for its introduction of impact as a measure of what counts as research excellence, for REF2029, it has been all about research culture. Though where impact has become an integral dimension of the REF, the installation of research culture (into a far weightier environment or as has been proposed People, Culture and Environment (PCE) statement) as a criterion of excellence appears far less assured, especially when set against a three-month extension to REF2029 plans. 

    A temporary pause on proceedings has been announced by Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s Minister for Science, as a means to ensure that the REF provides ‘a credible assessment of quality’. The corollary of such is that the hitherto proposed formula (many parts of which remain formally undeclared – much to the frustration of universities’ REF personnel and indeed researchers) is not quite fit for purpose, and certainly not so if the REF is to ‘support the government’s economic and social missions’. Thus, it may transpire that research culture is ultimately downplayed or omitted from the REF. For some, this volte face, if it materialises, may be greeted with relief; a pragmatic step-back from the jaws of an accountability regime that has become excessively complex, costly and inefficient (if not even estranged from the core business of evaluating and then funding so-called ‘excellent’ research) and despite proclamations at the conclusion of its every instalment, that next time it will be less burdensome.   

    While the potential backtrack on research culture and potential abandonment of PCE statements will be focused on to explain the REF’s most recent hiatus, these may be only cameos to discussion of its wider credibility and utility; a discussion which appears to be reaching apotheosis, not least given the financial difficulties endemic to the UK sector, which the REF, with its substantial cost, is counted as further exacerbating. Moreover, as we are finding in our current research, the REF may have entered a period not limited to incremental reform and tinkering at the edges but wholesale revision; and this as a consequence of higher education’s seemingly unstoppable colonisation by artificial intelligence. 

    With recent funding from Research England, we have undertaken to consult with research leaders and specialist REF personnel embedded across 17 UK HEIs – including large, research-intensive institutions and those historically with a more modest REF footprint, to gain an understanding of existing views of and practices in the adoption of generative AI tools for REF purposes. While our study has thrown up multiple views as to the utility and efficacy of using generative AI tools for REF purposes, it has nonetheless revealed broad consensus that the REF will inevitably become more AI-infused and enabled, if not ultimately, if it is to survive, entirely automated. The use of generative AI for purposes of narrative generation, evidence reconnaissance, and scoring of core REF components (research outputs and impact case studies) have all been mooted as potential applications with significant cost and labour-saving affordances and applications which might also get closer to ongoing, real-time assessments of research quality, unrestricted to seven-year assessment cycles. Yet the use of generative AI has also been (often strongly) cautioned against for the myriad ways with which it is implicated and engendered with bias and inaccuracy (as a ‘black box’ tool) and can itself be gamed in multiple ways, for instance in ‘adversarial white text’. This is coupled with wider ongoing scientific and technical considerations regarding transparency, provenance and reproducibility. Some even interpret its use as antithetical to the terms of responsible research evaluation set out by collectives like CoARA and COPE.

    Notwithstanding, such various objections, we are witnessing these tools being used extensively (if in many settings tacitly and tentatively) by academics and professional services staff involved in REF preparations. We are also being presented with a view that the use of GenAI tools by REF panels in four years’ time is a fait accompli, especially given the speed by which the tools are being innovated. It may even be that GenAI tools could be purposed in ways that circumvent the challenges of human judgement, the current pause intimates, in the evaluation of research culture. Moreover, if the credibility and integrity of the REF ultimately rests in its capacity to demonstrate excellence via alignment with Government missions (particularly ‘R&D for growth’), then we are already seeing evidence of how AI technologies can achieve this.

    While arguments have been previously made that the REF offers good value for (public) money, the immediate joint contexts of severe financial hardship for the sector; ambivalence as to the organisational credibility of the REF as currently proposed; and the attractiveness of AI solutions may produce a new calculation. This is a calculation, however, which the sector must own, and transparently and honestly. It should not be wholly outsourced, and especially not to one of a small number of dominant technology vendors. A period of review must attend not only to the constituent parts of the REF but how these are actioned and responded to. A guidebook for GenAI use in the REF is exigent and this must place consistent practice at its heart. The current and likely escalating impact of Generative AI on the REF cannot be overlooked if it is to be claimed as a credible assessment of quality. The question then remains: is three months enough? 

    Notes

    • The REF-AI study is due to report in January 2026. It is a research collaboration between the universities of Bristol and Swansea and Jisc.
    • With generous thanks to Professor Huw Morris (UCL IoE) for his input into earlier drafts of this article.

    Source link

  • VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    DENTON, Texas, Aug. 28, 2025 — The University of North Texas system confirmed that it has lifted its “pause” on drag performances across its campuses, in response to a demand letter from civil liberties organizations informing the school that it was violating its students’ First Amendment rights.

    On March 28, UNT System Chancellor Michael Williams issued a system-wide directive announcing an immediate “pause” on drag performances on campus. Williams’ directive came days after a similar drag ban from the Texas A&M University System was blocked by a federal judge following a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    On Aug. 14, FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas sent a letter informing Williams that his “pause” violated the Constitution for the same reasons.

    “UNT cannot justify banning an entire class of protected expression from campus performance venues on the basis that such expression might cause offense,” the letter read. “In the same way that some people may not appreciate UNT allowing students, staff, or visitors to engage in prayer on campus or wear t-shirts supporting rival universities, the fear that such speech may be ‘offensive’ to some is not a constitutionally permissible reason to ban it.”

    Yesterday, the UNT Office of General Counsel responded to the FIRE/ACLU-TX letter and announced that in light of a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocking yet another drag ban in Texas — this time at West Texas A&M University — “the UNT System’s temporary pause on drag performances has ended.”

    “If campus officials can silence expression simply because some find it ‘offensive,’ no one’s speech will be safe,” said FIRE Strategic Campaigns Counsel Amanda Nordstrom “Today it’s drag shows, but tomorrow it could be political rallies, art exhibits, or even bake sales. From West Texas to North Texas and any direction you look, the message is clear: drag is protected expression, and the show must go on.”

    “UNT repealed its drag ban following public backlash and legal pressure,” said ACLU of Texas Attorney Chloe Kempf. “As we and the courts have repeatedly made clear, banning drag is plainly unconstitutional. Drag is a cherished source of joy and liberation for the LGBTQIA+ community — and this reversal ensures students can once again freely express and celebrate their identities on campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas: [email protected]

    Source link

  • More UChicago Ph.D. Programs Will Pause Admissions

    More UChicago Ph.D. Programs Will Pause Admissions

    More UChicago programs are pausing new Ph.D. admissions for the 2026-27 academic year.

    Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu/Getty Images

    The University of Chicago’s Arts and Humanities Division is now pausing new Ph.D. student admissions for the 2026–27 academic year across all departments except philosophy and one program within the music department. The move expands on last week’s announcement from the dean that about half of all departments would pause admissions, while the rest would reduce the number of admissions.

    The departments that won’t be accepting Ph.D. students now include art history, cinema and media studies, classics, comparative literature, East Asian languages and civilizations, English language and literature, Germanic studies, linguistics, Middle Eastern studies, Romance languages and literatures, Slavic languages and literatures, and South Asian languages and civilizations, plus the music department’s ethnomusicology and history and theory of music programs.

    The Social Sciences Division has also announced it will not admit Ph.D. students into four programs in 2026-27: anthropology, political economy, social thought, and conceptual and historical studies of science. The UChicago Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy and Practice had earlier announced it was pausing Ph.D. admissions and the Harris School of Public Policy said it was pausing admissions for the Harris Ph.D. (in public policy studies), the political economy Ph.D. and the master of arts in public policy with certificate in research methods.

    The announcements reflect how the deeply indebted university is responding to budget issues. But UChicago is just one of multiple highly selective universities—including Boston University and the University of Pennsylvania—that have announced over the past year that they were freezing or scaling back Ph.D. admissions and programs amid financial pressures and other factors.

    UChicago had formed committees of faculty and staff to plan over the summer for changes within the Arts and Humanities Division. But on Aug. 12, division dean Deborah Nelson announced the initial pause, stressing that “this decision is not the recommendation of any committee.”

    Then on Wednesday, Nelson wrote a new email, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, announcing a revised plan “based on the strong recommendation of the PhD committee and department chairs.”

    “After the announcement last week, I met with all department chairs and consulted with the faculty-led committee on PhD programs,” Nelson wrote. “Nearly all faculty leadership agreed that instead of admitting students to only a select number of departments, they preferred a broader pause for the division so we can spend time this coming year to collectively assess and better navigate the challenges we face.”

    A department chair who asked not to be named confirmed to Inside Higher Ed that chairs met with the dean last Friday to discuss the pause, and most department chairs agreed it should be applied throughout the division to allow for more collaborative work during the academic year on the future of Ph.D. education at UChicago.

    Nelson also wrote in her Wednesday email that she “heard from many faculty that the initial decision caught them off guard. The timing of my initial announcement about PhD cohorts was partly driven by deadlines to submit information to software platforms that would have made semi-public our decisions to open or close applications to programs. And I wanted to make sure our community knew about these decisions first.”

    In an email, a university spokesperson simply said, “As Dean Nelson noted in her email, the decision to revise the plan for PhD admissions in the Arts & Humanities Division for academic year 2026-27 was based on the strong recommendation of the PhD committee and department chairs. Crown, Harris and SSD have also made announcements regarding pauses in PhD admissions for the 2026-2027 academic year.”

    Clifford Ando, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics, History and the College, told Inside Higher Ed Thursday that “we easily have the resources to support the humanities without inflicting cuts disproportionate to the humanities’ role in creating the financial crisis.”

    “We are in the unique position of being a well-resourced university that has been so reckless with our resources that we now have to make decisions as if we were a poor one,” Ando said.

    Source link

  • Abrupt Pause, Unpause of Grants Doesn’t End NIH Funding Woe

    Abrupt Pause, Unpause of Grants Doesn’t End NIH Funding Woe

    The Tuesday night news quickly sowed alarm among researchers: Media outlets reported that the Trump administration had stopped the National Institutes of Health from funding any new grants. The Wall Street Journal wrote that “certain grants that are up for renewal” were also cut off, and STAT, along with other outlets, later confirmed that reporting.

    The newspaper reported that the Office of Management and Budget was blocking these billions of dollars in research funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. After that, the dollars would return, unspent, to the Treasury. This nationwide halt to grants stemmed from an OMB footnote in a budget document, the Journal reported, adding that “the fourth quarter of the fiscal year is typically the busiest for grant-giving institutes at the NIH.”

    Inside Higher Ed reviewed screenshots of an email from an NIH employee saying, “Research grant, R&D contract, or training awards cannot be issued during this pause.” The funding halt would’ve meant an end to new research to help find and improve cures and treatments for diseases as well as stanched the flow of federal dollars to already financially beleaguered universities and labs nationwide.

    “This is undeniably an unforced error, since this will not only harm current and future American patients, but the disruptive and chilling effect of this sudden holding back of promised funds will further jeopardize the future of the American medical research enterprise,” Association of American Universities president Barbara R. Snyder said a statement Tuesday.

    But before the night was over, the Trump administration appeared to reverse course. In an updated article citing unnamed sources, the Journal reported that unnamed “senior White House officials intervened.” (OMB is part of the executive branch.) The Journal said officials at the Health and Human Services Department, which includes NIH, fought the pause for days, but OMB only relented after the newspaper published its initial story Tuesday.

    In response to Inside Higher Ed’s written questions and interview requests about the situation Wednesday, the White House and HHS both sent the same statement from an HHS spokesperson: “The programmatic review is over. The funds are out.”

    One OMB spokesperson posted on X that OMB had been “waiting for more information from NIH” before releasing the funds.

    The NIH is one of the largest sources of funding for research at colleges and universities, and it touts itself as the “largest single public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world.” Tuesday night’s controversy wasn’t the first—and likely won’t be the last—upheaval that this crucial agency has faced under the Trump administration.

    From grant cancellations to the White House proposal to slash the agency’s budget by 40 percent for the next fiscal year, institutions and researchers have seen the flow of NIH grant money stymied. Atop all this, the reportedly now-abandoned move by OMB to stop grant awards highlights continuing concerns about the fate of the grant dollars that the NIH still hasn’t given out this current fiscal year.

    Since Trump took office, the NIH has awarded fewer grants compared to previous years, multiple analyses have found. A former NIH official estimated to Science that at least $6 billion of the agency’s $48 billion budget could be sent back. In a higher estimate, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that what OMB reportedly tried to do before reversing course Tuesday “would choke off approximately $15 billion in funding that would otherwise go to institutions across the country.”

    A nongovernment official familiar with the NIH appropriations process told Inside Higher Ed that, within a sample of major universities surveyed, institutions are down 20 to 48 percent in NIH award and renewal funds compared to the same time last year.

    The official, who requested anonymity to maintain relationships with people within the administration, said Wednesday that there’s been “a very, very slow spend at NIH, even prior to last night’s fire drill.” The official said they don’t think NIH has ever had to push out so much remaining money in such a short time, and there’s “a very small amount of NIH staff left to allocate those funds.”

    Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told Inside Higher Ed that Tuesday’s news “caused a real concern across the research enterprise very quickly. This is a community that has seen not just threats but actual damaging changes to the typically stable federally funded research grants take place overnight, or even faster.

    “By any measure, the pace of grant funding is a fraction of what it has been in any other year, and that includes grant renewals, that includes new funding opportunities,“ Pierce added. “And the pace with which grant applications are reviewed and awarded is far below what we’ve seen in the past, and that includes applications that were submitted a long time ago that have already been scored and gotten very competitive scores that would be expected to be funded.”

    Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the reported freeze “just reinforced the current mood among researchers that the future of scientific research at NIH is still in question and could change at a moment’s notice, but also that this isn’t just about NIH. This cloud of uncertainty hovers over other agencies as well, such as the National Science Foundation.”

    Carney added that “the head of the Office of Management and Budget has made public his interest in reducing spending and reducing the size of government and using what tools that he is able to use to do that.”

    Russell Vought, head of OMB, hasn’t sworn off using rescission legislation, which can be passed with a simple majority in both chambers of Congress, to take back already appropriated funds during a fiscal year. NPR also reported that he’s called Congress’s spending bills “a ceiling … not a floor.”

    Murray, who represents Washington State, previously warned that the Trump administration’s use of such legislation to claw back funds already appropriated for this fiscal year—like it recently did for public broadcasting money—could scuttle consensus on the budget for next fiscal year.

    Carney attributed the slowdown in NIH grants to multiple factors, including the regular change in presidential administrations, Congress adopting a continuing resolution instead of a budget for this fiscal year and the Trump administration’s executive orders and other actions.

    “It’s like throwing sand into the machine,” Carney said. She said her association is pleased “that the funding will continue to flow, but it’s still unknown whether that flow of funds will be in drips or will be full stream, and we only have two months left until the end of the fiscal year.”

    Some Senate Republicans recently called on NIH and OMB to send more money out the door, as directed in the continuing resolution Congress passed in March.

    “We are concerned by the slow disbursement rate of [fiscal year 2025] NIH funds, as it risks undermining critical research and the thousands of American jobs it supports,” the senators wrote in a letter to OMB. “Suspension of these appropriated funds—whether formally withheld or functionally delayed—could threaten Americans’ ability to access better treatments and limit our nation’s leadership in biomedical science. It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results.”

    Tuesday night’s controversy came as some Republican members of Congress have joined Democrats in opposing the president’s proposal to gut the NIH’s funding for fiscal 2026. The Senate Appropriations Committee is meeting today, and it’s set to unveil how much it plans to send NIH next fiscal year.

    Carney said, “The U.S. is considered a global leader in biomedical research and medical discoveries, and we can’t afford to lose opportunities for advancing new discoveries and therapies and treatments for diseases that affect millions all over the world.

    “So when it comes to Alzheimer’s or cancer or infectious diseases, this is about hope,” she said. “It shouldn’t be about politics.”

    Source link

  • Trump administration appeals pause on Education Department cuts to SCOTUS

    Trump administration appeals pause on Education Department cuts to SCOTUS

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

    UPDATE: June 6, 2025: The U.S. Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday for an immediate pause on a court order that the U.S. Department of Education reinstate nearly 1,400 employees fired during a mass workforce reduction in March. The Justice Department’s appeal calls the lower court’s order an “unlawful remedy” and says the injunction “causes irreparable harm to the Executive Branch.”

    Dive Brief:

    • A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s motion for a stay in a lawsuit challenging the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, effectively halting — at least temporarily — efforts to reduce the agency’s workforce and transfer some education responsibilities to other federal departments.
    • The administration had argued it could still carry out the statutory requirements of the Education Department, even with a workforce cut in half. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying it saw “no basis” that a lower court erred in concluding that task seemed “impossible.”
    • The ruling was the latest in a series of legal developments concerning Trump administration reforms at the Education Department. Trump, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and many Republican lawmakers are attempting to eliminate what they say is federal overreach and inefficiencies in education.

       

    Dive Insight:

    The lawsuit at the center of the ruling was filed in March by 20 Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia. They sued the Education Department, Trump and McMahon two days after the agency announced mass workforce reductions. That challenge was combined with a similar lawsuit from public school districts in Massachusetts and education labor unions. 

    A federal district judge last month issued a preliminary injunction halting the workforce reductions temporarily. That ruling also prohibited the Education Department from transferring management of the federal student loans portfolio and special education management and oversight to other federal agencies. 

    In Wednesday’s decision denying a motion for a stay, the three-judge panel said the Education Department has not shown “that the public’s interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions.” 

    The Trump administration also argued that it is being forced to return staff whose services are no longer needed. The 1st Circuit, however, said its reading of the preliminary injunction shows no specific number or deadline for returning employees who were part of the reduction in force.

    “We do not see how complying with those aspects of the injunction imposes a burden on the government, no less one that is ‘extraordinary,’” the court said.

    Source link

  • Horsford Grills US Trade Rep On Tariff Pause, Accuses Admin Of ‘Market Manipulation’ (Forbes Breaking News)

    Horsford Grills US Trade Rep On Tariff Pause, Accuses Admin Of ‘Market Manipulation’ (Forbes Breaking News)







    Higher Education Inquirer : BREAKING NEWS: Horsford Grills US Trade Rep On Tariff Pause, Accuses Admin Of ‘Market Manipulation’ (Forbes Breaking News)




    Source link

  • NIH cuts remain on hold as judge extends temporary pause

    NIH cuts remain on hold as judge extends temporary pause

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

    A federal judge extended an emergency restraining order Friday against the National Institutes of Health, temporarily preventing the agency from making massive cuts to indirect research funding. 

    The restraining order bars NIH from implementing a 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursement and requires the agency to file regular status reports confirming disbursement of funds. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee, is considering a more permanent injunction against NIH’s plan after nearly two hours of oral arguments Friday. 

    NIH unveiled the new policy earlier in February. Historically, institutions negotiate their own indirect cost reimbursement rates with the agency, with an average of 27% to 28%. The change was met swiftly with multiple lawsuits, including by higher education groups and 22 state attorneys general. The cases were considered together at the hearing Friday.

    Several universities have already frozen hiring and taken other budgetary measures amid the NIH funding uncertainty, despite Kelley’s initial pause on the funding cap. 

    The funding for indirect costs — also known as facilities and administrative, or F&A, costs — covers a wide array of staffing and infrastructure for research activity.

    “Indirect costs are the backbone of IHEs [institutions of higher education] research programs and cover everything from utilities to facilities and equipment maintenance to payroll for faculty and staff to compliance programs, hazardous waste disposal, and more,” 22 state attorneys general said in their original request for a temporary restraining order on NIH. “They quite literally keep the lights on.”

    Brian Lea, an attorney for NIH, said at Friday’s hearing that money saved by cutting and capping F&A funding would be “ploughed into” funding for research costs. However, in a Feb. 7 post from the agency on the social media site X, NIH said the funding cap “will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.” 

    Asked by Kelley about the post, Lea said that it was “at best a misunderstanding” of NIH’s guidance.

    Plaintiffs attorneys argued that the F&A cap violates federal laws and regulations, pointing out that Congress passed an appropriations bill during President Donald Trump’s first term that prohibits modifications to NIH’s indirect cost funding. 

    Lea maintained that NIH’s guidance was compliant with regulations and statutes and within the “broad discretionary power of the executive branch” to allocate funding. 

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs further argued that an injunction was necessary to prevent “immediate and irreparable” harm, pointing to numerous universities that have detailed how their research, budgets and infrastructure would suffer from the cap. An official at Yale University, for example, said in court papers that the NIH rate cap could threaten the viability of many of its ongoing clinical trials for medical research.

    “It is not hyperbole to say that, absent immediate injunctive relief, Plaintiff States’ IHEs will face catastrophic financial consequences, which could result in layoffs and furloughs, research program closures, financial defaults, and disruptions to clinical trials, potentially jeopardizing people’s lives and health,” the attorneys general said in their motion, filed earlier in February. 

    Lea questioned whether harms such as funding losses were irreparable, suggesting that they could be undone later through private funding or operational adjustments.

    As the case winds on, NIH has laid off more than 1,000 employees, according to press reports.

    Source link