Latest news with #fundingcuts
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
MIT joins group of universities suing the DOD over funding cuts
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has joined a lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD) over funding cuts related to indirect costs for military-based research. The institution joins a group of 11 other universities, including Brown University in Rhode Island, and three higher education organizations that filed the complaint against the DOD on Monday. Boston University supported the lawsuit as a member of the Association of American Universities. As of Tuesday, a federal judge had approved a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of the cuts. 'We underscore that MIT drives US national security through its cutting-edge research, defense innovation and substantial contributions to military leadership,' said Kimberly Allen, a spokesperson for MIT, in an email. DOD declined to comment because it is ongoing litigation. Boston University didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. 'DOD's latest action would have an immediate and dire effect on our national security by disrupting research designed to help our military,' the group of those suing said in a statement released Monday. Read more: MIT sues federal science agency over cuts to 'crucial research' The lawsuit comes in response to the DOD's announcement that it would limit facilities and administrative reimbursements to a 15% cap for all DOD research grants. Facilities and administrative costs include maintenance and administrative staff, research facilities and safety expenses, among others, which the group cites as being essential costs in maintaining the country's status as a leader in military technology research. Initially proposed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a memo sent on May 14, the cuts are set to save the DOD $900 million per year, according to Hegseth. According to court filings, MIT received $107 million in funding from the DOD in the 2024 fiscal year. They estimate that a 15% cap on Facilities and administrative expenses by the DOD would result in an estimated loss of $21 million annually. MIT has expressed it intends to apply for new funding awards from the DOD in addition to pending funding proposals. MIT is also involved in lawsuits against other federal organizations over cuts to indirect costs in other departments, namely the National Institute of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation. 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty As federal funding cuts hit Harvard, a private investment firm and other donors step up 20 NIH grants restored to UMass system after judge rules against Trump admin Trump admin asks court to rule against Harvard without a trial Federal judge orders Trump admin to reinstate hundreds of NIH grants Read the original article on MassLive.
RNZ News
a day ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Ministers quizzed over bottom trawling, freshwater, axing Predator Free 2050
Environment Minister Penny Simmonds has defended deep cuts to environment funding at a sometimes scrappy scrutiny hearing, which also saw opposition MPs challenging the government over weakening freshwater rules, bottom trawling near Auckland, and axing funding for Predator Free 2050. Green MP Lan Pham asked Simmonds what risks she saw from about $650 million in cuts to funding for the Ministry for the Environment across the previous two Budgets. "When you compare that to an annual budget of $528m in total, you san see that it's significant," Pham said. "Minister, you've been overseeing those cuts and some of the most damaging legislative changes we've seen in decades." Simmonds said budgets for the ministry were decreasing anyway under previous government. "We are doing things like using the much greater waste levy to go across a range of environmental issues," she said. "It's about getting value for money." "This country could not afford to keep spending the way it had been," Simmonds said. Labour MP Rachel Brooking said none of the government's strategic priorities for reforming environment laws talked about improving the environment and asked if a better environment was Simmonds' goal. "Your strategic priority document talks about improving the RMA (Resource Management Act) to be more efficient and effective but... there is nothing here about improving the environment." Brooking said waste management policies had been weakened. "You're consulting on removing the national bottom lines for freshwater," Brooking said. "These are all things that seem to go in the opposite direction from improving the environment." Simmonds said she did want a better environment but was focused on action. "The question highlights very clearly the difference between ideological statements and commentary and getting things done, and that's what this government is about, getting things done, getting product stewardship schemes in place, getting waste funding used to improve the environment," she said. The government reallocated much of the money from waste levies from purely funding waste-cutting schemes towards paying for broader environmental work in the Budget. "You're quite right, we haven't indulged in ideological rhetoric of the previous government but we are getting on with doing the things [that will help]." Simmonds was asked by Pham for the evidence behind her statements that the balance had swung too far in favour of the environment. "We are managing risk, risk if there is not economic growth, risk if there is not sufficient housing... there is risk of not having development and there is risk of any development that we do on the environment," Simmonds said. In a scrappy exchange over conservation, Minister Tama Potaka was asked about the decision to axe funding for Predator Free 2050 as well as changes to the protection of the Hauraki Gulf from bottom trawling. Green MP Celia Wade Brown said axing funding for Predator Free would only shift the work to an "overstretched" Department of Conservation and asked how volunteers were expected to keep investing their time in culling pests when the government was pulling funding out of conservation. Labour's Priyanca Radhakrishan asked Potaka how he squared the decision to disestablish funding for the Predator Free 2050 company with his statements a few months earlier about its crucial role in eradicating pests. Potaka said the Department of Conservation had had to go through a process of cost savings just as "nearly all portfolios have had to give up something". "One of those choices was to remove the funding for Predator Free 2050 Limited and disestablish that company." He said there had been some duplication between the company and the department, and "a lot of the mahi" could be undertaken by the department. "I think it is important to delineate between opinions and facts," Potaka said. "There is a strong opinion that we are not committed to Predator Free 2050 (the goal) and that is entirely inaccurate, we are consulting right now on a predator free strategy and... we have allocated a significant amount of money." He said 14 jobs would be lost from the closure of the company but some might be redeployed. Potaka accused Brooking of being "out of control" during a heated conversation about wildfire protection rules sparked by a herd of Wapiti deer, a type of elk, which the government recently decided to protect in Fiordland National park. Brooking asked Potaka if Wapiti ate the undergrowth of native forests in National Parks. "Yes, they do eat undergrowth but they also contribute significantly to tourism and getting the economy moving again and we're really thrilled to have partnered with the [Fiordland] Wapiti Foundation... and others," Potaka said. Potaka said he was carrying out conservation reforms because of some "archaic arrangements". Brooking asked, "Is the New Zealand Conservation Authority an archaic arrangement?" and noted it was included in the proposed reforms. "I've never said that, and you imputing that I did I think is out of control," Potaka said. Brooking could be heard saying "settle" during Potaka's answer. Potaka also defended changes to bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf under questioning from Green co-leader Marama Davidson, which became another heated discussion. Davidson asked if the minister had sought advice from officials "about the impact of continuing to allow for disruptive trawling and how that will impact on his purview of protection of ecosystems and indigenous species, and what further extra cost or work it might take to fix up that destruction?". "I'm not aware of any extensive advice that has been proffered to me on trawl corridors in the Hauraki Gulf but what I am aware of is extensive advice that's very celebratory of our tripling of the protection [area] in the Hauraki Gulf, which we are going to follow through," Potaka said. On freshwater, Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard said he knew of a vegetable grower producing a quarter of the country's leafy greens who was operating illegally because the council couldn't give him a consent. He defended the proposal to get rid of national bottom lines for water quality. "I'm aware of catchments where water is coming out of nature at quality worse than bottom lines." "We can't just live with no jobs, no economy in an idyllic little paradise." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Independent
3 days ago
- Health
- The Independent
Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states. It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated. Their lawsuit, filed in late April, alleged $11 billion in cuts to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs had already been approved by Congress and are being unconstitutionally withheld. They also argued that the administration's actions violate Department of Health and Human Services regulations. The cities and counties argued the cuts were 'a massive blow to U.S. public health at a time where state and local public health departments need to address burgeoning infectious diseases and chronic illnesses, like the measles, bird flu, and mpox.' The cuts would lead to thousands of state and local public health employees being fired, the lawsuit argued. The local governments, alongside the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, wanted the court to reinstate the grants nationwide. But Cooper said in his preliminary injunction that the funds can only be blocked to the four municipalities and in a May 21 hearing expressed skepticism about whether it could apply more widely. The funding in question was granted during the COVID-19 pandemic but aimed at building up public health infrastructure overall, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said in a statement in April. The four local governments were owed about $32.7 million in future grant payments, Cooper's opinion notes. The federal government's lawyers said the grants were legally cut because, "Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.' They used the same argument in the case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia over the HHS funding clawback. Menefee said the cuts defunded programs in Harris County for wastewater disease surveillance, community health workers and clinics and call centers that helped people get vaccinated. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the cuts forced the city to fire 11 of its 22 infectious disease staffers. Nashville used some of its grant money to support programs, including a 'strike team' that after the pandemic addressed gaps in health services that kept kids from being able to enroll in school, according to the lawsuit. Kansas City used one of its grants to build out capabilities to test locally for COVID-19, influenza and measles rather than waiting for results from the county lab. The suit details that after four years of work to certify facilities and train staff, the city 'was at the final step" of buying lab equipment when the grant was canceled. Representatives for HHS, the CDC, the cities and Harris County did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge dismisses Columbia University faculty lawsuit over Trump administration cuts
NEW YORK — A federal judge in Manhattan on Monday dismissed a legal effort by professors at Columbia University to reverse hundreds of millions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts. Judge Mary Kary Vyskocil denied a motion for a preliminary injunction — and closed the case outright — for a lack of standing. The case was brought by a faculty group, the American Association of University Professors, whose members were impacted by the cuts but do not directly contract with the federal government. 'The funding that plaintiffs ask this court to commandeer was awarded to Columbia, which is conspicuously absent from this case,' Vyskocil wrote. Orion Danjuma, a lawyer at Protect Democracy representing the AAUP, said the decision had 'clear errors under settled Supreme Court precedent' and vowed to appeal. AAUP President Todd Wolfson added that 'lifesaving research, basic civil liberties and higher education' were 'all on the line.' Unlike Harvard University, Columbia has not joined its faculty in suing over the funding cuts, which the Trump administration has said is based on the university not doing enough to protect Jewish students from harassment. In a footnote, the judge said Columbia only appeared to oppose the disclosure of a general counsel memo, saying the school had been 'drawn in' to this litigation 'solely through the actions of others.' 'In my view, it is essential to restore our research partnership with the government, if possible. I will always advocate for conversation, as long as it is productive,' said Acting President Claire Shipman in a statement last week.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump administration notches first big win in assault on higher education
The Trump administration scored its most significant legal victory in its sweeping effort to reshape American higher education when a federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by faculty groups over the government's cuts to Columbia University's federal funding. The lawsuit concerned the Trump administration's cuts to $400m worth of federal funding to Columbia on the grounds it tolerated antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Columbia largely accepted the government's terms for restoring funding – in an agreement widely panned as a capitulation of its own academic freedom – several days before the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued the Trump administration over the cuts. The judge in the case, Mary Kay Vyskocil of the southern district of New York, ruled that the faculty unions had no 'standing' to bring the suit and had not clearly indicated how the administration had broken the law. 'It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later,' the judge, a Trump appointee, wrote in her 30-page ruling. 'Plaintiffs have not established their standing to litigate this case, let alone any violation of any law.' She seemed to accept the government's prerogative to withhold funding and its argument that Columbia had enabled antisemitism to fester on campus. She also noted that Columbia had remained 'conspicuously absent' from the case. The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment. That funding has not yet been restored though the education secretary Linda McMahon recently said that Columbia had 'made great progress' and that the administration was considering a consent decree with the university. The administration has also cut billions in funding to several other universities, warning dozens more that it is investigating them over alleged antisemitism on campuses. So far, Harvard, which has lost more than $3bn in federal funding, is the only university to sue the administration in two separate lawsuits, one over funding cuts and another against the administration's ban on Harvard's ability to enroll international students. On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts extended a temporary block on the administration's order concerning Harvard's foreign students. The AAUP has filed three other lawsuits against the Trump administration – over its ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, the attempted deportation of pro-Palestinian students and funding cuts at Harvard. The group has vowed to fight on. 'This is a disappointing ruling, but by no means the end of the fight,' Todd Wolfson, the AAUP president said. 'The Trump administration's threats and coercion at Columbia University are part of an authoritarian agenda that extends far beyond Columbia. Ultimately, lifesaving research, basic civil liberties and higher education in communities across the country are all on the line. Faculty, students, and the American public will not stand for it. We will continue to fight back.' Protect Democracy, the group representing the AAUP and AFT said they would appeal Monday's ruling and vowed to 'continue to fight to stop the administration from using public funding as a cudgel to consolidate power over higher education', they wrote in a statement. 'This is a deeply problematic decision that ignores what this is all about – a government attempt to punish a university over student protests that galvanized a national movement in opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza,' said Radhika Sainath, senior managing attorney at Palestine Legal, a group advocating for pro-Palestinian voices on US campuses which had filed a brief in support of the AAUP's lawsuit. 'The court uncritically takes the government's line for granted, that speech activity critical of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish – though Jewish students and professors make up a large percentage of those speaking up for Palestinian human rights.'
