Stanford to cut $140 million from 2025-26 budget, lay off staff amid federal funding drop
Stanford to cut $140 million from 2025-26 budget
Stanford University announced on Thursday that it will reduce its 2025–26 academic year budget by $140 million, citing a sharp decline in federal research funding and the looming threat of an increased endowment tax.
The financial adjustment marks a significant response to mounting external pressures, including grant freezes and proposed legislative changes that could substantially impact the university's long-term fiscal stability.
Budget cut driven by funding freeze
The decision comes amid growing financial strain caused by reduced support from key federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
These agencies have frozen funding for numerous academic institutions, slowing the review process for new grants and terminating several existing ones. For Stanford, this has meant a disruption in research continuity and a shrinking pool of federal resources that have long powered its innovation pipeline.
In addition, new legislation passed by the House of Representatives — formally known as the 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' — proposes a 21% increase in the tax on large university endowments.
If enacted, the bill would raise Stanford's annual endowment tax liability to approximately $750 million. Given that more than two-thirds of Stanford's financial aid comes directly from its endowment, the proposed tax hike poses a serious risk to both research investment and student support programs.
Layoffs expected as budget units absorb cuts
The $140 million budget cut will be implemented across Stanford's 30 internal budget units, which include individual schools, departments, and administrative offices.
Each unit has been tasked with identifying areas where cuts can be absorbed. While exact figures are still to be finalized, university officials have confirmed that the changes will include reductions in staff positions, including layoffs in some areas.
Though Stanford has employee transition programs in place, university leaders have acknowledged that the human impact of these decisions will be significant.
The current budget revision excludes cuts to the School of Medicine, which is expected to announce its own reductions separately in the coming weeks.
Priorities: financial aid and research continuity
Despite the scale of the cuts, Stanford has reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding essential academic and student-centered programs. PhD students, who are guaranteed five years of funding, will continue to receive their promised support. Likewise, the university has pledged to maintain its need-based financial aid for undergraduates, a cornerstone of its accessibility model.
Preserving research funding remains a high priority, particularly in light of disruptions caused by the NSF and NIH grant freezes. University officials have warned that the ongoing loss of research support threatens not only Stanford's scientific output but the broader national effort to develop the next generation of scientists and innovators.
Concern for long-term academic investment
While Stanford leaders have avoided direct political commentary on the Trump administration's policy decisions, they have consistently stressed the importance of federal support for higher education.
The combination of declining grant access and proposed tax increases represents, in their view, a troubling shift in how universities are funded and valued in the United States.
Officials underscored the critical importance of academic investment across all disciplines — from engineering and the natural sciences to humanities, medicine, and the social sciences — as essential for the future of the country and the world. With these latest budget decisions, Stanford is aiming to remain financially resilient while continuing to advocate for sustained national support of educational and research institutions.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
AIIMS gastroenterologist rates common beverages for women's gut health: Lemon water to green tea
Jun 30, 2025 02:07 PM IST Do you drink lemon water first thing after you wake up in the morning? Is unsweetened green tea a part of your weight loss diet? If yes, then it is important to know how these beverages affect your gut health. In a video posted on June 29, Dr Saurabh Sethi, a gastroenterologist trained at Harvard, Stanford and AIIMS universities, listed 10 beverages and rated them on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best) on how they benefit women's gut health. Lemon water is one of the most popular weight loss drinks, but is it good for your gut health? (Freepik) Also Read | Cardiologist explains why you need to have dinner at least 3 hours before sleeping Sharing the list of drinks and their rating based on women's gut health, Dr Sethi wrote, 'Harvard and Stanford-trained gastroenterologist rates common beverages for their benefit on women's gut health on a scale of 1-10 (10 is the Best). A must-watch if you care about your digestion, energy, and long-term health.' Here's how he rated a few common drinks: Unsweetened green tea: 8 Beetroot juice: 6 Lemon water: 5 Unsweetened vegetable juice: 4 Smoothies with no added sugar: 7 Store-bought fruit juice: 1 Freshly squeezed fruit juice: 3 Sweetened tea: 2 Kefir or buttermilk: 9 Water: 10 What happens when you drink lemon water for 30 days? Lemon water, which the gastroenterologist rated 5 out of 10, is one of the most common drinks people have during their weight loss or gut healing journey. In another video, Dr Sethi talked about what happens if you drink lemon water for 30 days. According to the expert, 'Lemons are packed with 30 different beneficial plant compounds. Freshly squeezed lemon juice is the best, as it has not gone through pasteurisation, so it retains more of its nutrients. The natural acidity can help your body absorb minerals more efficiently, especially iron. They are also a great source of vitamin C, which supports collagen production for healthy skin, joints, and connective tissues.' However, he warned, if you have acid reflux, lemon water might actually make your symptoms worse because it is an acid. Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition. Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crick-it, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Quizzes, Polls & much more. Explore now!. Catch your daily dose of Fashion, Taylor Swift, Health, Festivals, Travel, Relationship, Recipe and all the other Latest Lifestyle News on Hindustan Times Website and APPs.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
CEO questions ‘outsourced thinking' in post criticising excessive ChatGPT use, netizens find he plagiarised it
Vihan Pratap Singh, who's LinkedIn account shows he is Founder and CEO of Gurugram-based Blackrose, has come under heavy criticism and trolling online after social media users discovered his post calling out 'outsourced thinking' was plagiarised from another CEO, Greg Isenberg, on X. Till time of writing, Singh's LinkedIn post, made on June 29 (Sunday), generated over 560 reactions and comments. Netizens found that the post is a 'copy-pasted' version of Isenberg's X post made in December 2024, with only the student's school edited from Stanford to IIT. Singh has not responded to the many comments on his post about the duplication. This copy will be updated with his statement on response. The following version was posed by Singh on Sunday: 'Just had a fascinating brunch with a 22-year-old IIT-B CS grad. Sharp guy. Perfect resume. Something felt off though. He kept pausing mid-sentence, searching for words. Not complex words - basic ones. Like his brain was buffering. Finally asked if he was okay. His response floored me. 'Sometimes I forget words now. I'm so used to having ChatGPT complete my thoughts that when it's not there, my brain feels... slower.' He'd been using AI for everything. Writing, thinking, communication. It had become his external brain. And now his internal one was getting weaker. Made me think about calculators. Remember how teachers said we needed to learn math because 'you won't always have a calculator'? They were wrong about that. But maybe they were right about something deeper. We're running the first large-scale experiment on human cognition. What happens when an entire generation outsources their thinking? Don't get me wrong, I'm beyond excited about what AI and AI agents will do for people. But thinking out loud you got to think this guy I met with isn't the only one that's going to be completely dependent on AI. Have you experienced any cognitive decline since you've started using AI tools?' The only differences to Isenberg's post was the school change from Stanford to IIT and the audience question at the end. Greg Isenberg is the CEO of holding company Late Checkout, which runs a portfolio of internet companies. At time of writing, the original post (dated December 18, 2024), has been viewed 6.2 million times. X user Shobhit Bakliwal pointed to the plagiarism on his account, writing: 'this guy straight up stole the post and added IIT-B CS grad. (sic)' He also linked Isenberg's original post from December in the thread. Other users had a variety of reactions, one pointed out the irony, stating: 'The guy who wrote an entire post lamenting on people not using their brains, didn't use his own brain either to write an original post. (sic)' Another joked how using ChatGPT may have prevented the plagiarism being found out, writing: 'This guy would have used Chat GPT for coming up with the post as well.. (sic)' One user urged increased sensitivity and education on plagiarism in Indian schools, saying, 'The plagiarism epidemic in India is such a shame! Indian colleges must educate on IP ethics. (sic)' While some blamed the culture of posting on LinkedIn for the problem, adding: 'LinkedIn has a high percentage of stolen content... What was meant to be a network for professionals [whatever that means] is a den of self-glorifying pretenders now. Very high on I-Me-Myself. (sic)'
Economic Times
8 hours ago
- Economic Times
Trump's ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill' passed in US senate is one big disaster in the making for America
Sure you want to dance? If you seek an example of history repeating itself, look no further than Donald Trump's much-hyped 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill', a monstrously rambunctious tax, spending and policy measure, which promises to do what no statute has ever done through the House of Representatives on May 22 by a simple Republican majority of 215-214 and, similarly, only just ratified by the Senate (51-49) on Saturday, Republicans - who have begun to resemble an army of powerless Sancho Panzas - have been urged by Trump to allow him to sign the bill into law before America's Independence Day. Though it is by no means certain that the Senate, which has asked for certain specific, but not overly impactful, amendments, will be able to settle its differences with the lower house by July 3. As things stand, however, the bill is estimated to make the federal government forgo at least $3.7 tn and cut public spending by $1.3 tn by 2035, resulting in a net deficit of $2.4 tn. The irony is that much of this seems like deja vu. 45 years ago, Ronald Reagan came to power by promising to cut taxes, increase defence spending and balance the budget by 1983. In this, he was inspired by the example of Margaret Thatcher, and encouraged by two maestros of mumbo jumbo - Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek - who advocated deep tax cuts, especially for the affluent and for corporations, on the basis of the now-discredited 'trickle-down theory' (TDT). TDT assumed that money granted to the top of the house would inadvertently 'lose its way' to the bottom through incremental job creation and profligate spending. Despite the fact that Britain under Thatcher began to suffer crippling inflation (at levels approaching 20%), unemployment, interest rate surges and a recession, Reagan proceeded with his plan to make the rich as wealthy as possible through tax cuts, hoping to make it up through reduced government and benefit spending. Sadly, within the first year of his presidency, recession arrived, along with an unemployment rate of 10%, never seen since the 1940s. By the time he exited the White House, the budget deficit had swelled from $900 bn to $3 tn. Thus, the US, which had enjoyed a trade surplus every year between 1895 and 1980, became the world's biggest debtor. Can Trump's bill produce a different, less adverse result? Probably not, for at least three reasons: While 3 out of 5 Americans will enjoy lower federal taxes, this does not automatically imply that everyone will be better off than before. Those earning less than $51,000 annually are likely to see many of their benefits reduced, with at least 7.6 mn Americans estimated to lose their Medicaid benefits altogether. Moreover, even if one were to turn a callous eye to this and other welfare reductions - estimated to save the state about $900 bn in the next decade - this will be mostly eroded by lost taxes on account of benefits extended to the affluent, like raising the exemption ceiling for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000, and extending the $15 mn tax-free ceiling for inheritance benefits beyond 2025. The proposal to keep corporate tax rate steady - it was reduced from 35% to 21% in 2017, amounting to $1.3 tn of lost revenues as of 2025 - may be ill-advised. While this has enabled American companies to make record profits and promote America as a tax-efficient investment destination, it has done little for the average wage earner or job seeker. In fact, it's estimated that a 1% increase in the tax rate could result in increasing revenues by up to $136 bn over a 10-yr period, allowing the government to earn over $500 bn in that time while still remaining competitive with a corporate tax rate of 25%. There are factors beyond tax and spending reductions that must be concurrently weighed in the balance. Trump's on-again, off-again antics with regard to increased import tariffs, and his mercurial foreign policy interventions, make for both political and economic uncertainty. This is most evident in the bond markets - a real bellwether of economic health, unlike stock markets - that experienced a major selloff in April, and are beginning to show volatility again in the wake of the impending bill. By increasing defence and border security funding by $290 bn (including $60 bn on deportation and detention centres) along with other expenditure, the bill is expected to add $3.3 tn to the constantly ballooning national debt, currently at $29 tn, by 2035. Much of this may be ascribed to what George H W Bush referred to as 'voodoo economics' in 1980 - arithmetic unrestrained by logic or common sense - until he turned acolyte after becoming Reagan's running mate. Trump and his advisers, like many 20th-century economists who tried to make their discipline mimic physics - rule-based, mathematical and precise - despite the fact that the social science is mostly unruly and intractable, are peddling something of the same fare. But, disingenuously, mostly for the benefit of self, family and if Congress permits this folly, the big, beautiful bill may defy not only the cold logic of fiscal prudence, but also proverbial wisdom itself, by showing that even those who learn the lessons of history are often want to repeat them. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Someone has to cut the cheque for Zepto to grow. Who's that? Drones have become a winning strategy in war; can they be in investing? Punit Goenka reloads Zee with Bullet and OTT focus. Can he beat mighty rivals? Profits plenty, prices attractive, still PSU stocks languish. Why? Stock Radar: Indus Tower stock breaks out from Symmetrical Triangle pattern; could hit fresh 52-week high – check target & stop loss Mid-cap pharma space: Risk & opportunity are two sides of the same coin. 7 pharma stocks with upside potential of up to 41% History on their side: As bulls return, 50 non-Nifty stocks with a higher probability of trading income & creating wealth Beyond the one-number mirage: 7 stocks from different sectors with an upside potential of up to 24%
