logo
The 10 Biggest Higher Education Losers In Trump's Skinny Budget

The 10 Biggest Higher Education Losers In Trump's Skinny Budget

Forbes03-05-2025

Higher education and research spending would see dramatic cuts under a budget proposal released by ... More President Trump
President Trump has proposed a $163 billion reduction in discretionary federal spending for Fiscal Year 2026, a plan, which if enacted by Congress, would slash funding for a wide swath of education, research, health, environmental, and safety net programs.
The cuts are contained in a budget letter and proposal sent by OMB Director Russell T. Vought to Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, on May 2.
Using language similar to that Trump has often invoked to criticize federal programs he doesn't like, the letter outlines a 22.6% cut in non-defense discretionary spending below current year levels. It describes such expenditures as 'contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.'
If Congress were to go along with Trump's so-called 'skinny budget,' here are 10 of the biggest reductions that higher education would experience, ranging across scientific research, financial aid, support for the arts and humanities, and programs designed to increase students' access to higher education opportunities.
Trump's plan would slash $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health's budget, reducing it from to $45 billion to $27 billion. The document accuses NIH of having 'broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.'
Claiming that NIH ' has grown too big and unfocused,' Trump calls for a consolidation of NIH funding streams into five focus areas: the National Institute on Body Systems Research; National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research; National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Institute of Disability Related Research; and National Institute on Behavioral Health.
Funding would be eliminated completely for the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities (-$534 million), the Fogarty International Center (-$95 million), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (-$170 million), and the National Institute of Nursing Research (-$198 million).
NSF would lose $4.9 billion in funding, more than half of its enacted $9 billion budget.
Included in the cuts would be about $1 billion in programs intended to broaden participation in the STEM fields. Also targeted is funding for climate, clean energy, and what is characterized as 'woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science.'
Billions of dollars in research support would be eliminated or reduced at several other federal agencies. For example, the Department of Energy would take a $1.1 billion hit to its science budget, thereby "eliminating funding for Green New Scam interests and climate change-related activities." At the Department of the Interior, the US Geological Survey would see a reduction of $564 million.
All federal funding, amounting to $1.579 billion, would be eliminated for TRIO and GEAR UP, two outreach programs aimed at increasing college enrollment and success for low-income students.
Describing the two programs as 'a relic of the past' when financial incentives were needed to motivate colleges and universities to engage with low-income students and increase access, Trump's plan insists that institutions should use their own resources to increase student access and success.
The Federal Work Study program would lose $980 million in funding. It was appropriated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2024. According to the OMB document, FWS is a 'poorly targeted program' and 'a handout to woke universities and a subsidy from Federal taxpayers, who can pay for their own employees.'
SEOG grants would be stripped of their funding to the tune of $910 million. These grants are intended to provide aid to undergraduate students with exceptional financial need to help pay for their education. However, the Trump administration believes that they contribute 'to rising college costs' and that colleges have used them "to fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success.'
English Language Acquisition would have $890 million stripped from its budget. That reduction would 'end overreach from Washington and restore the rightful role of State oversight in education.' The OMB document claims the program is 'misnamed' and 'actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding NGOs and States to encourage bilingualism.'
FIPSE is a competitive federal grant program that supports innovative educational reforms and encourages their dissemination. It would lose $195 million in because, according to Trump's plan, it has 'allowed colleges and universities to fund ideologies instead of students, while still raising tuition costs.'
Consistent with aims he expressed in his first term, Trump proposes eliminating all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He also calls for ending support for the Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps). All three programs have provided grant funding or staffing to a broad range of colleges and universities.
Under a category, titled 'small agency eliminations,'the total amount of funding that could be eliminated for all the listed agencies exceeds $3.5 billion. The cuts are described as 'consistent with the president's efforts to decrease the size of the federal government to enhance accountability, reduce waste, and reduce unnecessary governmental entities.'
Trump wants to cut the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' budget by $49 million, a 35% reduction. 'This rightsizing is consistent with the reduction across the Department and an overall smaller Federal role in K-12 and postsecondary education,' according to OMB.
The Education Department's budget for program administration would be reduced by $127 million, or about 30%.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a statement Friday that Trump's skinny budget reflects 'funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.'
President Trump's proposed budget puts students and parents above the bureaucracy,' McMahon said. 'The federal government has invested trillions of taxpayer dollars into an education system that is not driving improved student outcomes—we must change course and reorient taxpayer dollars toward proven programs that generate results for American students.'
While it is unlikely that all of the proposed cuts in Trump's budget blueprint will be enacted by Congress, the plan sets up what is likely to be a protracted battle with lawmakers over the details of a final budget deal.
'Look, we're supportive of this administration, what it's trying to do,' House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week, according to Politico. 'But with all due respect to anybody, I think the members have a better understanding of what can pass and what can't than the Executive Branch does.'
But even after Congress reaches agreement on a budget, there is no guarantee that the money it appropriates will be spent according to its wishes. Trump could veto any funding bills, or he could continue simply to withhold the funds for congressionally approved appropriations he dislikes, an action that would deepen growing concerns about the president's constitutional authority.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records
Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records

Politico

time26 minutes ago

  • Politico

Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records

The Supreme Court has reined in a lower-court order that allowed a watchdog group wide-ranging access to records of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. The high court's majority said a judge's directive allowing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to examine DOGE's recommendations for cost savings at executive branch agencies was 'not appropriately tailored.' In a two-page order Friday, the Supreme Court said such access was not a proper way to resolve an ongoing dispute about whether DOGE is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act or operates as a presidential advisory body that does not have to share its records with the public. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court's majority wrote. All three of the court's liberal justices indicated they disagreed with the decision, but none provided an explanation of her views.

Chris Hayes: Trump's 'secret police': Masked agents' sweeping immigration raids raise concern
Chris Hayes: Trump's 'secret police': Masked agents' sweeping immigration raids raise concern

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Chris Hayes: Trump's 'secret police': Masked agents' sweeping immigration raids raise concern

This is an adapted excerpt from the June 5 episode of 'All In with Chris Hayes.' The term 'secret police' invokes a kind of haunting specter. When we see representations of it in movies or history, we immediately identify it with a certain kind of regime: One that tramples people's liberty with no accountability. We associate it with authoritarian governments and dictatorships like the former Soviet Union, where people, usually armed, could wield the authority of the state but were, themselves, totally unaccountable in the same way. Whatever issues there are with American policing — and there are many — at least our police officers have names on their uniforms and badge numbers. But now, in the era of immigration under Donald Trump, one cannot help but notice that in clip after clip, interaction after interaction, the people enforcing the president's policies have all the qualities that one would associate with the concept of 'secret police.' In videos, these individuals are usually masked and either wearing plain clothes or irregular uniforms. They won't give their names or say what agency they're with. Watching it feels wrong, weird, alien and menacing. It does not feel like these law enforcement officials are subject to the authority of a democratic government. It's so striking, in scene after scene, to see regular people asking masked agents, 'Who are you?' and 'What are you doing?' and not receiving an answer. That's what we saw play out in one of the first videos of this kind to be made public: The arrest of Columbia student and lawful resident Mahmoud Khalil. In that video, you can see plainclothes officers apprehending Khalil in the lobby of his building. The officers pointedly refused to identify themselves or what agency they were with. 'We don't give our name,' one man said, after handcuffing and detaining a legal resident of the United States. Not long after that, we got video of the arrest of Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was snatched off the street by masked agents and led away in handcuffs. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, there was the chilling scene from last month in which masked agents broke a car window and forcibly removed a man they say was in the country illegally. Just last weekend, in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, masked agents detained an apparently undocumented gardener at his place of work. In San Diego that same weekend, residents tried to hold back what appeared to be militarized agents who were reportedly executing an immigration raid on local businesses. We've also got allegations of all kinds of lies, manipulation and subterfuge. Eyewitnesses in Tucson, Arizona, allege agents posed as city utility workers as part of an arrest attempt. There have been reports of agents performing wellness checks on children, which critics say is a trap for immigration enforcement. All this feels like something distinct from the normal forms of policing and law enforcement that we're used to. As the writer M. Gessen, who was born in the then-Soviet Union, put it in a column for The New York Times: 'The United States has become a secret-police state. Trust me, I've seen it before.' 'The citizens of such a state live with a feeling of being constantly watched. They live with a sense of random danger,' Gessen wrote. 'Anyone — a passer-by, the man behind you in line at the deli, the woman who lives down the hall, your building's super, your own student, your child's teacher — can be a plainclothes agent or a self-appointed enforcer.' This administration is treating people as if they have no rights, as if they can be rounded up at whim without any due process. That is the legal theory of the Trump administration. It believes that immigrants in this country don't have rights, even though that's very clearly not true. The Constitution is clear on this, and precedent is clear on this: Immigrants have due process rights. But the Trump administration seems to believe the state can do whatever it wants to people. According to Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, the agents in these videos are wearing masks for their own safety. 'They wear a mask because they're trying to protect themselves and their families,' Homan said on Fox News. 'Agents are getting doxed every day, their pictures and phone numbers being put on telephone poles. These leftists are following and filming when they go home from work at night.' In a statement to NBC News about these recent immigration crackdowns, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, 'Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump's and the American people's mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and make America safe.' This article was originally published on

Trump administration to pay nearly $5M in wrongful death lawsuit of Jan. 6 rioter shot by police
Trump administration to pay nearly $5M in wrongful death lawsuit of Jan. 6 rioter shot by police

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump administration to pay nearly $5M in wrongful death lawsuit of Jan. 6 rioter shot by police

The Trump administration will pay a $4.975 million settlement in the lawsuit over the wrongful death of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer after storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Babbitt — a 35-year-old from California and veteran of the Air Force who went to Washington for President Donald Trump's rally — was among an early group of rioters that reached the doors of the Speaker's Lobby, adjacent to the House chamber, while lawmakers were still evacuating. Details of the settlement were released by Judicial Watch, a pro-Trump advocacy group that represented her estate and family members in the lawsuit. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to request to comment. The settlement is likely to inflame tensions on Capitol Hill over the riot. Outgoing Capitol Police chief Thomas Manger blasted the reported settlement last month, saying it 'sends a chilling message to law enforcement nationwide, especially to those with a protective mission like ours.' As members of the mob standing near Babbitt pounded on the doors and cracked glass window panes, outnumbered police officers stepped aside and ceded the hallway to the rioters. Moments later, Babbitt is seen on video attempting to enter the lobby through a shattered window. That's when Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd fired the fatal shot. Byrd was investigated and cleared by local and federal authorities. Babbitt was the only rioter killed by police, but several others died either during or in the hours immediately after the protest. Over 100 Capitol Police officers were injured during the protest. The lawsuit was filed in California by Babbitt's family in 2024, claiming wrongful death, assault and battery, as well as negligence claims. The lawsuit was set to go to trial in 2026, but both parties agreed to the settlement. A joint filing Friday from government attorneys and Babbitt's acknowledged that a settlement was reached, but did not disclose details. 'This fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashli Babbitt's family. Ashli should never have been killed, and this settlement destroys the evil, partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a press release on the settlement. Trump has repeatedly praised Babbitt, portraying her as an innocent patriot and decrying her death at the hands of Capitol police. It's part of the Trump administration's efforts to repaint the protest on Jan. 6 as a day of patriotism and freedom of expression, rather than an unprecedented insurrection widely denounced in 2021 by Republicans and Democrats. Trump issued sweeping pardons for nearly all of those charged or under investigation for their actions on Jan. 6, including over 300 charged with assaulting the police. Numerous Jan. 6 rioters have been arrested on unrelated charges since. Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store