logo
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars

Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars

Washington Post14 hours ago
NEW YORK — The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut.
In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate.
The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.'
Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut.
In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more.
Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.'
NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science.
A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.'
The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency,' Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing.
The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields.
The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

These Pictures Of Trump's Finished White House Rose Garden Patio Are Going Viral For All Of The Wrong Reasons
These Pictures Of Trump's Finished White House Rose Garden Patio Are Going Viral For All Of The Wrong Reasons

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

These Pictures Of Trump's Finished White House Rose Garden Patio Are Going Viral For All Of The Wrong Reasons

As you all know by now, Donald Trump has paved over the White House Rose Garden lawn. Why? Because it's being modeled after his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida, duh. The famous garden was redesigned by Jackie Kennedy in the 1960s to add that lawn, some trees, and more flowers. That layout has remained largely unchanged, like here's a picture from the 2010s: Here's Obama on it: And then, as you may remember, Melania Trump did her own remodel of it in 2020 when she took out some trees and added in that limestone path: Well, now we've got a patio. ABC News' Chief Washington Correspondent posted pictures of the "new Rose Garden:" jonkarl/Twitter: @jonkarl As you can see, the sewer drainage is mini American flags. And it's A LOT of concrete. Perfect for those DC summers! Needless to say, people aren't big fans. "'Garden.' I do not think that word means what you think it means," one person pointed out. "Who in god's name thought this was a good idea?" another person asked. And a bunch of people are wondering what the heck is up with the hatred of grass: "Why do they hate grass?" Then you have the comparisons. This person said it looked like a food court during Covid. Another person said it looked like a drained pool at a bankrupt casino. And this person said it reminded them of an "overpriced wedding venue in New Jersey." One small detail people are pointing out is the position/design of the sewer drain, "Trump put his Presidential seal right next to a sewer drain. Feels right." "The 'Stars & Stripes' drainage seems appropriate.'" And finally, you have the people hoping the next President tears it up: "We're tearing it out and putting the roses back in beginning on January 21, 2029, right?" "The next president should rip this up and put the garden back. He really has no sense of taste, and I say this as a guy whose house is a monument to my love of kitsch and mid-century American barcaloungers." Thoughts?

MIKE DAVIS: Confirmation of Emil Bove a triumph of new over old
MIKE DAVIS: Confirmation of Emil Bove a triumph of new over old

Fox News

time11 minutes ago

  • Fox News

MIKE DAVIS: Confirmation of Emil Bove a triumph of new over old

The Senate's confirmation this week of President Trump's pick, Emil Bove, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with a razor-thin 50–49 vote was a huge win for conservatives, despite the cheap shots from Democrats and nominal Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Bove isn't just qualified, he's exceptional. He clerked for top judges and made his name as a sharp, tough prosecutor in New York. Even the left-leaning American Bar Association gave him their highest rating: "Well Qualified." That's a big deal coming from an organization that rarely plays fair with conservative nominees. So why all the pushback? Simple. Bove stood up when it mattered. When President Trump was under constant legal attack, Bove was one of the few who fought back. He played a key role in keeping the radical left from throwing Trump in prison on bogus charges. That alone made him a target for Trump-haters across the spectrum: Democrats, Never Trumpers, and the establishment legal elite. As principal associate deputy attorney general, Bove also helped stop the politically motivated prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. And he did it by standing up to out-of-control federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, the ones who like to pretend they run their own "sovereign district" separate from the rest of the country. Bove told them to follow orders or leave. They left. That's leadership. Some in the conservative legal world weren't thrilled with Bove's confirmation to a lifetime term, either. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a piece worrying that Bove's confirmation might make some Republican-appointed judges refuse to retire. Here's the truth: Those judges had their chance to retire during Trump's first term and didn't. That's on them, not Bove. Others breathlessly claimed Bove's confirmation marked the end of the conservative legal movement. That's nonsense. If Kamala Harris had won wthe presidency and stacked the courts with left-wing radicals, the damage would've been catastrophic. Instead, President Trump is putting solid, constitutionalist judges on the bench, judges like Emil Bove. Of course, the opposition resorted to the same tired smear tactics they always do. So-called "whistleblowers" came forward with flimsy claims. One former DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, accused Bove of telling officials to ignore court orders, then turned around and signed legal documents confirming the orders were followed. On top of that, Reuveni undercut the Trump administration's immigration cases and violated attorney-client privilege. He was fired, and rightfully so. This is who the anti-Bove crowd chose as their star witness. Two more "whistleblowers" popped up just before the final vote — classic last-minute character assassination. One had no firsthand knowledge. The other's allegations were never made public by Senate Democrats. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same playbook they used against Justice Kavanaugh. Remember the ridiculous accusations, including the one about a gang-rape boat? All lies. All desperate. All failed. The Article III Project proudly fought for Bove's confirmation. This wasn't just about one seat. This was about pushing back against the old guard — the milquetoast Republicans and the liberal machine — and ushering in a new generation of bold, fearless constitutionalists. Tuesday's vote showed the old tricks don't work anymore. The left couldn't smear their way to a win. The establishment couldn't stall this one. Trump's nominee made it through. They'll keep trying to derail the president's agenda, especially when it comes to the courts. But we'll keep fighting. Because what's at stake isn't just the next judge. It's the future of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of the American people. The old guard lost. America won. And this is only the beginning. Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.

Since wolves' return, Yellowstone's aspens are recovering, study finds
Since wolves' return, Yellowstone's aspens are recovering, study finds

Washington Post

time11 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Since wolves' return, Yellowstone's aspens are recovering, study finds

Three decades after wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park, aspen stands are recovering, a new analysis suggests. Published in Forest Ecology and Management, the study looks at what happened after 1995, when wolves were reintroduced to the park. During most of the 20th century, there were no apex predators in the park aside from bears and cougars, and elk increased to record numbers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store