$510m funding cut for Brown University would have ‘a ripple effect throughout our economy,' R.I. officials said
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Related
:
Advertisement
Rhode Island House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, a Democrat who has championed the state's life sciences efforts, told the Globe that a $510 million cut 'will have a ripple effect throughout our economy.'
Brown is 'a strategic partner in the life science efforts that we just started and were seeing some very, very good results,' said Shekarchi. 'This could be a setback. I am concerned.'
Brown is the fifth university to face a potentially dire loss of federal funding. On Thursday, the Trump administration's antisemitism task force sent Harvard University a
Advertisement
Maey Petrie, executive director of the nonprofit
'The long-term effects on scientific innovation are hard to overstate,' said Petrie. 'The administration may not fully grasp the damage being done for years, but from where we stand, it's already clear: research pipelines are being choked, momentum is being lost, and crucial health equity work is being deprioritized.'
Brown University officials had not been informed of the cuts on Thursday night, even as news reports based on information from unnamed sources were published by The Daily Caller, The New York Times, and Bloomberg.
US Congressman Seth Magaziner, a Rhode Island Democrat, told the Globe he spoke to Brown president Christina H. Paxson by phone on Thursday. 'She hadn't actually received any official communication from the administration with any specifics,' he said.
In a message sent to university officials Thursday evening and
obtained by the Globe, Provost Frank Doyle said Brown was aware of 'troubling rumors emerging about federal action on Brown research grants,' but that officials had 'no information to substantiate any of these rumors.'
Advertisement
Some members of Rhode Island's congressional delegation are expected to meet with officials at Brown on Friday, according to a congressional staffer with direct knowledge on the matter.
Representatives for the Trump White House and the US Department of Education did not respond to the Globe's requests for comment.
Meanwhile, Brown University students said the Trump administration's cuts, made in the name of protecting them from antisemitism, did not make them feel any safer.
'As a Jewish student, I do not feel this makes me safer in the slightest,' said Andrew Rovinsky, class of 2025. 'Brown is not a perfect place when it comes to antisemitism, but I have never felt unsafe on this campus and in this community and have always felt free to express myself publicly as a Jewish student. The trump administration is, in my view, weaponizing antisemitism to repress dissent and scholarship that it disagrees with.'
'This is not about Jewish students, but the trump administration's political agenda,' he added.
'I am a proud Jewish student at Brown, and I fully reject the slashing of funds in the name of combating antisemitism,' said Canaan Estes, class of 2028. 'I feel safer in spaces of academic engagement and open dialogue, not censorship and fear.'
Others noted that antisemitism exists at Brown, but the university has worked to combat it.
'At a university where nearly a quarter of the students are Jewish and Jewish life thrives, it's difficult for me to see what could warrant such a response from the federal government,' said Eli Williams, member of the class of 2028.
Advertisement
Maya Rackoff, class of 2025, agreed. 'The Trump administration is going about it in a counterproductive and authoritative way, infringing upon real and perceived academic freedom,' she said. 'The most ironic part about cutting Brown's funding is that the Brown administration has been uncommonly strong in supporting Jewish and Zionist students, and Jewish life has thrived here over the past year and a half.'
A pro-Palestinian encampment at Brown University in Providence, R.I., on April 24, 2024.
PHILIP KEITH/NYT
The Trump administration has targeted
colleges for their handling of antisemitism after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel and Israel's subsequent war against the militants in Gaza.
In late 2023, more than 40 student activists led by the Brown Divest Coalition
Still, the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation in 2024 into whether Brown's administration failed to respond to incidents of alleged harassment against students with Jewish ancestry, which would have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In a July 2024 resolution, Brown denied it violated Title VI but agreed to expand nondiscrimination trainings and other measures, including 'ongoing monitoring.'
Advertisement
The initial complaint that launched the investigation was filed by Zachary Marschall, the editor of Campus Reform, a conservative news organization focused on universities. Campus Reform has filed several lawsuits alleging antisemitism, arguing that schools 'failed to protect students of Jewish heritage following the Oct. 7, 2023 attack.'
In March, Brown was one of 60 universities that received a letter from the US Department of Education, warning it could face 'enforcement actions' if they failed to 'protect Jewish students on campus.'
'That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws,' Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said at the time.
Pro-lestinian protestors rally as they march around university hall at the pro-Palestinian encampment at Brown University as they await answers from their delegation who are meeting with school leaders on campus in Providence, Rhode Island, on April 29, 2024.
JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images
For the first time since 2002, Brown has hired firms to lobby Congress and the Trump administration on its behalf. Representatives from Cornerstone Government Affairs and AxAdvocacy, which touts its
Even with federal funding on the chopping block, Brown is unlikely to get help from the state. For the last few years, Brown has requested millions in a state budget appropriation to support cancer research. They've never received the funding, and Shekarchi said Trump's latest proposed cuts 'doesn't change my mind at all.'
'It's very hard for my caucus to support Brown University, because there's such a very large endowment,' said Speaker Shekarchi. 'And we have state universities who have just as much of a competing need.
"
'Everybody needs help. Everybody's getting cut. The health department's getting caught. Right. The Department of Education's getting cutting,' said Shekarchi. 'Sadly, elections have consequences. And we're going to see a lot more of this.'
Advertisement
Sofia Barnett, a Globe correspondent and Brown University student, contributed to this report.
Alexa Gagosz can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump admin officials blast LA Mayor Karen Bass' response to ICE raids — as cops clash with violent protesters
Several Trump administration officials fired back at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Friday after she pledged to oppose federal efforts to nab illegal immigrants — as cops in her city had to use flash bangs to disperse the violent mob of protesters who descended on the arrest sites. 'We will not stand for this,' Bass said in a statement released after federal immigration authorities arrested 44 people in raids across Los Angeles. 'I am deeply angered by what has taken place,' the Democrat mayor fumed, noting that her office 'is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations.' Advertisement 4 Bass slammed the Los Angeles immigration enforcement raids in a social media post. AFP via Getty Images White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller quickly dismissed Bass' declaration. 'You have no say in this at all,' Miller shot back on social media. Advertisement 'Federal law is supreme and federal law will be enforced,' he noted on X. Miller was one of several Trump administration officials that took issue with Bass' statements. 'They're Illegals. Not 'immigrants.' One just tried to burn Americans alive in Boulder,' White House adviser Sebastian Gorka wrote on X, referring to Colorado terror suspect Mohamed Soliman. The Egyptian national overstayed his tourist visa before allegedly firebombing a peaceful march for Israeli hostages still held by Hamas on Sunday in a heinous antisemitic attack. Advertisement 'If you're aiding and abetting them you're a criminal too,' Gorka said in response to the LA mayor's comments. 'Are you ready to be treated as a criminal? 'Because we are ready to treat you as one if you commit a crime,' he warned. 4 Miller noted that Bass has 'no say' in federal immigration enforcement. Chris Kleponis – CNP / MEGA 4 Miller was one of several Trump administration officials who reacted strongly to Bass' statement on the ICE raids. Stephen Miller, /X Advertisement Justice Department official Harmeet K. Dhillon was stunned by Bass' understanding of the law. 'It's amazing the number of elected officials who don't grasp the basics of federalism, or federal sovereignty over immigration issues, or the First Amendment,' Dhillon tweeted. The Los Angeles immigration raids sparked protests at the arrest sites, and at least one person was taken into custody for allegedly obstructing federal law enforcement. 'Federal agents were executing a lawful judicial warrant at a LA worksite this morning when David Huerta deliberately obstructed their access by blocking their vehicle,' US Attorney Bill Essayli said in a statement. 'He was arrested for interfering with federal officers and will face arraignment in federal court on Monday.' 'Let me be clear: I don't care who you are — if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted.' Huerta is president of the California branch of the influential Service Employees International Union. 4 The raids sparked protests in Los Angeles. AP Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin decried the city's response to protesters' clashes with federal agents – which escalated hours after the raids. Advertisement 'Assaulting ICE enforcement officers, slashing tires, defacing buildings. 800 protestors have surrounded and breached the first layer of a federal law enforcement building in LA,' McLaughlin wrote on X. '@LAPD has not responded.' 'This violence against @ICEgov must stop.' Richard Grenell, President Trump's envoy for special missions, blamed Bass for the unrest. 'Karen Bass whipped all of this up. She attacked the rule of law. She undermined democracy,' Grenell wrote on X, sharing images of protesters attempting to block federal law enforcement vehicles. Advertisement 'The @MayorOfLA is creating chaos in LA,' he fumed. With Post wires
Hamilton Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON (AP) — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs , deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations , Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act , to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort , forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
