
Trump administration threat to end Harvard contracts puts research at risk
1 of 2 | The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers. Photo by CJ Gunther/EPA-EFE
May 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers.
The administration announced on Tuesday that it is in the process of reviewing its contracts with Harvard in preparation for their termination. The move may cost the United States a generation of top researchers, Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff in the American Council of Education's government relations department, told UPI.
"We're going to lose grad students or post-docs that might have been educated in those federally funded labs," Spreitzer said. "The undergrads are going to lose the opportunity of working alongside those researchers and learning from their work."
Harvard has contracts partnering with government departments including NASA, Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration. Dozens of these contracts have been entered into, extended or otherwise updated since President Donald Trump took office.
Harvard University did not respond to requests for comment from UPI.
One of the largest contracts Harvard holds with the government is a $15 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is described in the Federal Procurement Data System as a "task order for human organ chip enabled development of radiation countermeasures." It was entered into on July 26.
Another of its largest contracts is a $10.6 million contract with the National Institutes of Health for tuberculosis research. Harvard holds more than one contract with the government related to this work.
"They want to do more with less," Spreitzer said of the Trump administration. "They're making decisions based on budgetary impacts but that's layered on top of some of the regulatory actions that they are taking, which is really, again, slowing down or completely stalling the scientific process."
The Trump administration has cut research funding grants to several universities, many of them Ivy League schools. It has also made cuts to programs in the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others that offer grant opportunities to universities.
Since World War II, the U.S. government has leaned on universities to expand its research capabilities, leading to innovations in health, technology, economics and other disciplines.
Spreitzer, who has been an advocate for higher education for 20 years. In that time she said she has interacted with nearly every federal agency, said the partnership has advanced the interests of the government and delivered value to U.S. taxpayers.
"Right now we are at this historical inflection point where the federal government is rethinking their partnership with our institutions of higher education," she said. "It's been a very profitable and very important partnership that's helped the entire United States. Whether you're talking about new drugs or medical research or the innovative products that might be spun out and have created jobs."
The rethinking of the partnership between the government and universities goes beyond contracts and grants. It is also proposing a lower cap on its reimbursement to universities for indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs. These are overhead expenses that an institution has that are not related to specific projects, such as government-funded research.
Prior to the current Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health reimbursed an average of 27% to 28% of direct costs to universities to help cover indirect costs. These rates were negotiated with some institutions being reimbursed at rates more than 50%.
There has not been a cap on most reimbursements since Congress removed them in 1965.
In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a new policy to cap these reimbursements at 15%.
The American Council on Education filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed cap, warning that it would greatly disrupt research across the country.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy from instituting a rate cap policy. The injunction succeeds a temporary restraining order Burroughs granted against the administration, shielding all institutions of higher education from rate caps.
"It would have a huge impact on our institutions," Spreitzer said. "They've also made huge cuts in some of the fellowship programs. Whether it's the fellowship program for the next generation of NSF scientists or whether it's the Fulbright program -- those have all been suddenly stopped."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' has history of cozy interviews and self-promotion
Beware of those who publicly declare that their stuff doesn't stink. Recently, CBS newsman and '60 Minutes' regular Scott Pelley made news and noise when he seized the close of the venerable program to deliver an appeal, threat or whatever, depending on how one heard it, to CBS News parent Paramount, as it was reportedly preparing to settle a lawsuit brought last year by President Trump over the show's very cozy interview with VP Kamala Harris during last year's presidential campaign. Pelley cited the week's resignation of '60 Minutes' executive producer, Bill Owens, adding, 'Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires. … Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. Advertisement 'He was tough that way, but our parent company Paramount is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it.'


UPI
38 minutes ago
- UPI
FDA OKs new COVID-19 vaccine for 65 and older, others with conditions
A vial of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in the Meuhedet Clinic in Jerusalem on January 3, 2022. The FDA approved a new version of the vaccine on Friday. File photo by Debbie Hill/UPI | License Photo May 31 (UPI) -- The Food and Drug Administration has approved Moderna's new COVID-19 vaccine, days after the federal government tightened vaccine standards for the virus. The FDA announced Friday that mNEXSPIKE can be given to adults 65 and older and those 12 to 64 with at least one underlying condition that could put them at risk of severe infection. Recipients also must have been previously vaccinated for COVID-19. The company, headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., said Saturday it expects to have the vaccine available for the 2025-2026 respiratory virus season. Moderna also produces Spikevax for COVID-19, and mRESVIA for the respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. "The FDA approval of our third product, mNEXSPIKE, adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19," Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said. "COVID-19 remains a serious public health threat, with more than 47,000 Americans dying from the virus last year alone. We appreciate the FDA's timely review and thank the entire Moderna team for their hard work and continued commitment to public health." STAT reported the next-generation COVID-19 vaccine uses a refined target to generate antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The dose is one-fifth the doage used in Spikevax, the current vaccine. Moderna conducted a randomized, observer-blind Phase 3 clinical trial of approximately 11,400 participants aged 12 years and older to test the mRNA-1283. The primary efficacy was to demonstrate the vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 starting 14 days after mNEXSPIKE compared with Spikevax, Moderna's updated COVID-19 vaccine approved on Sept. 6, 2024. The new vaccine showed a 9.3% higher relative vaccine efficacy than the mRNA-1273 in individuals aged 12 years and older. It was 13.5% better in adults aged 65 and older. In the Phase 3 trial, the most common side effects were injection site pain, fatigue, headache and myalgia. The company said there is a very small chance that mNEXSPIKE could cause a severe allergic reaction, usually within a few minutes to 1 hour after getting a dose of mNEXSPIKE. Myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, which is inflammation of the lining outside the heart, have occurred in some people who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Moderna said. Of those with problems, they are among males12 through 24. The FDA has asked Moderna to conduct post-marketing studies to continue to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product. This includes a study on the outcomes of pregnant people and their babies when the vaccine was administered during pregnancy. The study is to be submitted by the end of 2032. Pfizer was the first COVID-19 vaccine to receive emergency approval in December 2020 and Moderna was followed one week later. The first COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States in January 2020. The FDA first granted Pfizer-BioNTech full COVID-19 approval for those 12 and older in August 2021 and Moderna in January 2022. They remain available under emergency use authorization for children as young as 6 months. On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said children without underlying health conditions "may receive" a COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting a directive by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier in the week. The CDC updated the childhood immunization schedule published late Thursday. Kennedy, who said the agency would stop recommending the shots for healthy children, noted the guidelines would be changed. The new schedule also requires health insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid plans to continue to cover the vaccines for children. COVID-19 shots during pregnancy are listed as "No Guidance/Not Applicable," where they were previously recommended for all pregnant adults. Earlier this month, the FDA approved Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine with age restrictions after a six-week delay. The agency approved the vaccine only for people 65 and older and those 12 and older with at least one underlying condition at a higher risk of severe illness. This week, HHS notified Moderna that it was canceling contracts worth $766 million to develop, test and license vaccines for flu subtypes that could trigger future pandemics, including the dangerous H5N1 bird flu virus. The first COVID-19 case was reported in the United States on Jan. 20, 2020. About 23% of U.S. adults are estimated to be up to date with the vaccine, according to the CDC through April. For children 6 months and up to 18, it is an estimated 13.%, the CDC reported.


The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Puerto Rico is Trump's perfect partner in reshoring
President Trump recently signed an executive order to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. by streamlining the process for the Food and Drug Administration to approve pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. This is the latest in the Trump administration's agenda to protect national security and create American jobs by promoting the reshoring of critical supply chains that Americans rely on every day. These efforts are coupled with international tariffs to encourage domestic manufacturing. Reshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing is not only dire for American national security, but it could have resounding economic impacts across the country. One U.S. jurisdiction that is ready and in a perfect position to partner in this effort is Puerto Rico, where pharmaceutical manufacturing is already a more than $50 billion industry. With complementary efforts underway in Congress and on the island, the White House should look to Puerto Rico as America's pharmaceutical powerhouse while not trapping the island in its current territory status by hindering a future transition to statehood that would further boost the island's manufacturing ability. As a territory, the island is part of the U.S. customs zone and is not subject to U.S. tariffs, and everything that is made in Puerto Rico is 'Made in the USA.' Yet, that same territory status has limited Puerto Rico's economic development by creating persistent uncertainty, underinvestment and an unequal playing field for economic competition. The territory status is unpopular on the island, and Puerto Rican voters have voted in favor of statehood four consecutive times, most recently last November. Trump and Congress have the opportunity of a generation to leverage the pharmaceutical infrastructure and workforce in Puerto Rico to achieve their agenda while also turbocharging the economy on the island, and they have the perfect ally in Puerto Rico to do it with — the island's Republican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón. González-Colón is leading an ambitious agenda to reshape the national narrative about the island and its people — and ultimately achieve statehood for Puerto Rico. Aligning with the Trump administration's vision to reshore advanced manufacturing of critical products, she issued an executive order in late March and reached out to top White House officials to offer Puerto Rico's well-established, yet currently underutilized, manufacturing capacity as an economic engine to help grow American prosperity. González-Colón's executive order promotes the relocation of overseas manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and other products to Puerto Rico. Much like Trump's executive order, it eliminates barriers and streamlines the process for businesses to move to the island. This action is complementary to the Medical Manufacturing, Economic Development and Sustainability Act, which was recently reintroduced and incentivizes pharmaceutical manufacturing on the island and throughout economically distressed zones across the United States. The bill is designed to attract business to the island in a way that invests in the people of Puerto Rico. It does this by providing an incentive for medical manufacturing facilities to relocate to economically distressed zones, with an incentive dependent on the number of jobs created to ensure money is flowing back into communities. The incentive itself is based on economic factors and applies to communities throughout the United States — an appropriately wide scope that comports with Trump's strong desire to reshore large amounts of production in a short time frame. By tethering the tax credits to what manufacturers invest directly into wages, salaries and real middle-class benefits, the proposal creates good-paying, quality American jobs. Reshoring to Puerto Rico would mean that critical pharmaceuticals and medical devices, as well as other products that are currently manufactured overseas in China and other nations, would now be produced in America. This would create thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs that Puerto Rico needs to turbocharge the modest economic progress it's made in recent years. The increased consumer demand on the island would help boost the approximately $70 billion in annual interstate commerce, resulting in more jobs and profits stateside. Puerto Rico is a natural partner in reshoring the medical and pharmaceutical manufacturing industry within U.S. borders. The island's leaders share in the White House's vision of a more prosperous pharmaceutical manufacturing industry and are working to ensure reshoring efforts do not trap Puerto Rico in its current territory status but instead enable it to reach its full potential as an engine of economic growth and prosperity as a future state of our Union. Manufacturing makes America stronger, especially when it lifts up communities and the hard-working American citizens that make 'Made in the USA' a possibility, including those in Puerto Rico.