DOGE cuts to science will impact Ohio, students
The "Hands Off" protest April 5, 2025 at the Ohio Statehouse in downtown Columbus. (Photo by David DeWitt, Ohio Capital Journal.)
Earlier this month, over a thousand of the brightest young minds on our planet converged on Columbus, Ohio, for the International Science Fair.
It was a special moment for me because I competed at the event as a high school senior, and that experience played a role in launching my physics career. To give back in some way, I volunteered to be a judge.
Competitions like these are about the students. It prepares them to find their place in the vast and astoundingly successful landscape of American science, which is the envy of the world.
It's no coincidence that the international competition, which could be held anywhere on the planet, is held year after year in the United States.
It's also not a coincidence that it was held in Ohio. The organizers of the fair understood that Ohio is a scientific powerhouse, home to many thousands of scientists and engineers who meet the strict criteria to be judges.
For similar reasons, when I competed, the location was in silicon valley.
If you are one of the many scientists and engineers in Ohio, then you are probably aware that in mid-April DOGE arrived at science funding agencies like the National Science Foundation. You are also aware that it isn't just the DEI, education, or climate-related grants now getting the axe.
Science agencies face up to 55% cuts across the board, reductions of tens of billions of dollars. But even before Congress can vote on these cuts, DOGE is already in the process of laying off staff at the National Science Foundation, just like they did at USAID and the US Department of Education.
These staff have masters or Ph.Ds in the fields of the grant programs being cut, precisely who you would want to oversee the investment of taxpayer dollars in scientific research.
All of this was on my mind as I interviewed students about their projects. I met students who had discovered new exoplanets using NASA data and artificial intelligence algorithms.
I talked to students who took over their parents' garage to test theories about light, fluids, or sound. As I interviewed these students, I wondered if they would get the same chances that I did to succeed.
When I was in college, I twice received National Science Foundation support to do summer astronomy research. Now, in summer 2025, the number of spots for federally funded undergrad research programs have been drastically reduced.
After college, I was fortunate to become a Ph.D. student at Ohio State. This year, anticipating the loss of federal dollars, Ohio State reduced their graduate admissions and some universities have even rescinded offers. If I were a student now, my career could easily be derailed by these roadblocks.
As a society, we have an obligation to give our kids the same opportunities to succeed that earlier generations had. Our students and postdocs should be on the ground floor of scientific discoveries with data from world-class instruments.
Instead, it seems, they will be on the ground floor of nothing, and unable to build the professional relationships that grow into a cutting-edge career.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail
At second-annual CartCon conference in Napa Valley, CA, the tone was electric with anticipation but also laced with urgency. Billed as a summit for the company's expansive ecosystem of brands, vendors and strategists, the event served as both a product showcase and a pressure valve. Nowhere was that tension more visible than during one of the conference's hardest-hitting panels, a deep dive into the complexities of tariff policy and its ripple effects on global sourcing, consumer pricing and retail resilience. The panel consisted of three voices with rare insight into the collision of policy and commerce: Chris Smith, president of Summit Global Strategies; Tim Manning, former White House supply chain coordinator under President Joe Biden; and Nick Stachel, logistics strategy adviser at Izba Consulting. What followed was not a high-level overview, but a granular exploration of the legal, political and operational forces shaping how, and where, products are made, moved and sold. From globalization to geo-economics Smith opened the discussion by tracing the historical arc of U.S. trade policy. For decades following World War II, American trade strategy revolved around multilateralism. The U.S. saw global trade not just as an economic imperative but as a geopolitical tool, creating allies, raising standards of living and preventing conflict. But in 2016, that long-standing consensus fractured. The bipartisan abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership signaled a sharp pivot. As Smith explained, the political center collapsed under the weight of the 'China Shock,' a term describing the decimation of American manufacturing towns due to offshoring. Smith described President Donald Trump's tariff policy as a psychological reset. Before Trump, U.S. tariffs averaged around 2%. Within months, they jumped to 18% in key categories. This wasn't just an economic strategy, it was anchoring. 'It's like burger sizes,' Smith said, relating back to Wendy's psychological marketing strategies. 'Before Trump, we had singles and doubles. Now the triple is on the menu, and everything else looks small by comparison.' Tariffs, he added, have become Trump's 'cat toy' — a provocative distraction wielded without consistent strategy. Even if future administrations soften tariff policy, Smith warned, the structure of global trade has already shifted. Retailers and manufacturers alike are building permanent workarounds. Inflation, particularly in consumer goods, is the slow-burning consequence. While Smith provided the philosophical backdrop, Manning broke down the legal tools underpinning today's tariff landscape. The real disruption, Manning emphasized, has come through the use, and misuse, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Originally designed as a tool for national security sanctions, IEEPA has been repurposed by the Trump administration to enact sweeping tariffs with little congressional oversight. Manning described the legal and logistical chaos for businesses from these tactics. In just six weeks, the Trump administration issued 17 executive orders using IEEPA authority, stripping trade policy of its usual predictability and process. For businesses, this has been catastrophic. Sourcing strategies built over years have unraveled in days. 'We're in a volatile environment,' Manning said. The cost of doing business now includes factoring in the potential for abrupt, unexplained swings in tariff exposure. Long-term investments have become high-risk bets, and in many cases, they're simply not being made. On-the-ground retail strategy Bringing the policy talk down to the warehouse floor, Stachel outlined how brands are actually coping with this new reality. In the short term, some are fast-tracking inventory from China before new tariffs hit, relying on expedited ocean freight and cross-docking at West Coast ports to minimize delays and avoid customs bottlenecks. Others are making subtler moves — like holding prices steady on high-visibility products – say, a gaming console – while raising prices on accessories and add-ons to recoup margin. Stachel noted that many brands have moved beyond the now-familiar 'China Plus One' strategy, opting instead for a 'China Plus Three' approach. They are spreading risk across Vietnam, India and Mexico, often working with global manufacturing giants like Foxconn that can seamlessly shift production across borders without retooling or retraining labor. In essence, brands are outsourcing flexibility itself. For those planning beyond the current election cycle, geographic diversification is no longer enough. Brands are factoring in port access, transportation infrastructure, exposure to natural disasters and local workforce stability. Some are eyeing countries like Morocco, Colombia and Thailand as next-generation sourcing hubs. Nearshoring to Mexico has particular appeal, not just because of its proximity to U.S. consumers, but because of the downstream economic benefits. 'We're still benefiting from a cross border perspective, from a transportation trucking perspective, from a warehousing perspective, as these border towns are growing, the economies in the small border towns are growing as well,' said Stachel. These sourcing shifts are backed by hard data prepared by Stachel. According to a comparative analysis of emerging manufacturing markets, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are increasingly viable alternatives to China, not only in terms of labor costs but also port infrastructure and U.S.-bound vessel frequency. Vietnam, for instance, operates nearly 50 seaports, including Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong, both of which have multiple sailings to the U.S. each week. Indonesia boasts over 100 ports, including Tanjung Priok in Jakarta. Even Cambodia, though limited in scale, has weekly direct sailings from both Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville. These figures underscore the importance of transportation fluidity and market access in sourcing decisions. As Stachel emphasized, brands are no longer optimizing solely for cost, they're optimizing for resilience. Both Smith and Manning cautioned that the real reckoning may be ahead. While tariff impacts are already being priced in at the retail level, the broader inflationary wave has yet to crest. Smith called inflation the 'other shoe,' likely to drop later this summer as new tariffs pass through the supply chain and collide with already fragile consumer sentiment. Uncertainty, they agreed, has become the greatest tax of all. With businesses unable to predict future policy, many are frozen. Manning advised attendees to monitor key macroeconomic signals, including treasury bond activity, consumer confidence indices and safety stock drawdowns. Executive orders posted on he added, are the best early indicators of a sudden policy shift. What retailers are saying – and doing The audience at CartCon also offered candid perspectives. Through real-time polling, attendees offered a rare window into how brands are navigating the chaos. Asked what recent policy had most affected their supply chains, 68% cited China tariffs, with an additional 24% naming de minimis enforcement, or stricter checks on duty-free, low-value imports. In a sign of just how volatile the environment has become, 64% said they revisit their sourcing strategies quarterly. And nearly half, 47%, have responded by raising prices. Twenty-nine percent have changed sourcing countries, while 18% are simply eating the cost. Looking ahead, most brands aren't betting on reshoring. Asked if they expect to source more from the U.S. in five years, 70% said their sourcing would remain about the same, and 30% expected an increase. No one expected to source less. It was a striking rebuke of the idea that domestic manufacturing is due for a renaissance, at least for the retail segment. Tariffs and uncertainty are already impacting consumer demand. Thirty percent of respondents said they expect a consumer slowdown by Q4 2025, while 45% said they're already feeling one. And yet, the vast majority, 82%, said they are not cutting marketing budgets in response. In today's environment, visibility is survival. In a forward-looking poll, 81% of respondents said online shopping will be the dominant channel in the next decade, compared to just 6% for stores. Even more striking, 75% believe direct-to-consumer models can still succeed, suggesting that agility, not abandonment, is the key to survival. The post CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why Elon Musk turned against Trump's $5 trillion mega tax and spending bill
President Donald Trump is pushing to pass a sweeping tax and spending bill by July 4, but the proposal is already sparking fierce internal GOP debate. The bill combines 2017 tax cut extensions with new Trump-era proposals, including deductions on American-made auto loans and changes to child tax credits. But not everyone is on board. Elon Musk has launched a high-profile feud with Trump over the bill, and key Republican senators are warning that the bill could add trillions to the national debt.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday declined to discuss the expected cost of deploying National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles to suppress immigration raid protests, instead attacking Democratic leaders for their handling of current and previous incidents of civil unrest. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), House Appropriations defense subcommittee ranking member, asked Hegseth about funding the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. He instead defended Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as having 'the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country.' He also referenced the George Floyd murder protests in 2020 in Minneapolis, attacking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for his actions at that time and arguing that the National Guard was 'eventually far too late mobilized.' 'President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Walz, if it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens,' Hegseth said. The answer prompted McCollum to interrupt him to press him to address her original question. 'Chairman, I have limited time, I asked a budget question,' McCollum interjected. McCollum also asked Hegseth whether any trainings were being pushed off due to the troop deployment, but grew frustrated at his lack of answer. 'I will yield back my time if the secretary refuses to answer the budgetary questions I put before him. They're important,' she said. 'What training missions aren't happening? Where are you pulling the money from? And how are you planning this moving forward? These are budget questions that affect this committee and the decisions we're going to be making in a couple of hours.' Hegseth only replied that the Pentagon has the funding 'to cover down on contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law and order in major American city.' In her opening remarks, McCollum criticized President Trump's decision to call in some 4,000 California National Guard troops as 'premature,' and the decision to deploy 700 active duty Marines as 'downright escalatory.' 'I ask you Mr. Secretary, and I ask the president, follow the law,' she said.
