
WVU research VP urges faculty to remain calm as federal actions foster uncertainty
May 6—dbeard @dominionpost.com MORGANTOWN — Uncertainty remains the key word as WVU continues to work out how Trump administration executive actions will affect the university. WVU Vice President for Research Fred King and WVU President Gordon Gee both addressed that problem for the Faculty Senate on Monday.
King spoke in the context of grants and contracts facing possible termination. "Since the end of January it's been very emotional, " he said.
On any given Friday, he said, there's a new executive order. Lawsuits opposing it are filed the following Monday, and a court injunction soon follows. "I think it's important to not be emotional as we think about this. Our approach as a university is to be calm and rational."
(For example, WVU faces a loss of $12 million in research funding from a National Institutes of Health cap on funding for indirect research costs at 15 %. In early April a federal judge issued a permanent injunction barring that move, which the NIH is appealing.)
King said they work with WVU's legal office and appeal an order when it makes sense to do so. They also work with the state's Congressional delegation, often behind the scenes, trying to help them understand the impacts of the various executive actions.
Most of the discussion is behind the scenes, he said, because the situations and negotiations are delicate.
Internally, he said, they monitor the actions of three groups for guidance: the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities Council on Research, the Council of Graduate Schools, and the Council of Government Relations.
They hold two two meetings per week, he said. One is an administrative group that review executive actions and impacts, and informs the D.C. delegation. They also look at how the university should respond and how to ameliorate the impacts to campus.
The other is with deans and the provost's office to share information.
"A lot of work is being done on this although it's not necessarily being done wholly in public, " King said.
It's a time to respond rationally and calmly, he said. "Fear and panic does us no good. It hurts our blood pressure, but at the end of the day does not really solve the problem." They solve the problem by working collaboratively with the decision makers in D.C.
Gee is retiring at the end of June and made his final presentation to the Faculty Senate. Starting from his first term as WVU president in 1980, he said, he's attended about 150 Senate meetings.
"Rather than a collection of buildings, a university is a gathering of scholars, " he said. The current faculty is particularly talented and energetic. "I'm grateful to all of you for the work that you've done."
This is a period of transition for WVU and himself, he said, and he views it with optimism.
"I have no doubt that the best is yet to come for me, for the university, for all of the people in this room. This is a tumultuous time and we've heard that."
WVU is a land-grant, R1 university in a small state and he's often asked how it deals with the tumultuous actions out of D.C.
He said, "We are a unique American institution and we make our living off of doing things differently, and being very distinctive. And I think that distinction will serve us very well over the next period of time."
Gee and the faculty haven't always had the smoothest relationship. In the midst of academic transformation, in September 2023, the faculty overwhelmingly passed a resolution of no confidence in Gee.
But on Monday, following Gee's comments, Faculty Senate chair Diana Davis offered a few words of praise for him, noting his support of shared governance and the role of the Faculty Senate in that shared governance. They don't always agree, but that's how shared governance works.
"We do appreciate your willingness to consistently engage with us and to include our perspective in the major decisions of this university, " she said. "We wish you well in retirement."

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


UPI
2 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.


Bloomberg
4 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.

Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'