logo
iPhones and GPS owe their existence to US government-funded research. What's at stake with Trump cuts to university funding

iPhones and GPS owe their existence to US government-funded research. What's at stake with Trump cuts to university funding

Yahoo17-04-2025

Imagine a world without the internet, or GPS, MRNA vaccines or the touchscreen on your iPhone. The science and technology that have become integral to our daily lives may never have existed, experts say, were it not for research funded by the federal government at American colleges and universities.
But as President Trump's administration threatens to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding from colleges across the nation, the future of innovations like those – and America's global leadership in research and development – could be at stake.
'It's not hyperbole to say we could destroy a generation's worth of scientific progress in this administration,' Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told CNN.
'The implications are huge for every American, regardless of your political viewpoints.'
The Trump administration appears determined to bring America's most elite universities in lockstep with his political ideology by threatening to withhold research funding that has proven critical for the universities.
Harvard University is locked in a standoff with the administration over $2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts for the school. The Ivy League school 'will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights' by giving in to a bevy of demands from the administration in order to maintain its funding levels, the university's president, Alan Garber, has said.
But other universities have struck a less defiant tone. Fansmith said some colleges can survive without federal funding – but not for long.
'When you get to hundreds of millions, billions of dollars – no institution, no matter how big their endowment, could sustain that kind of a loss over an extended period of time,' he said.
Universities are like small cities with thousands of faculty members, students and researchers depending on the school to survive. But no two colleges are funded in the same way.
Public universities often rely on revenue from tuition and donations as well as money from state and local governments to provide the bulk of their funding.
Private universities are different. Because they don't receive financial support from the state, private schools lean heavily on donations.
Take Harvard, for instance. Last year, philanthropy accounted for 45% of the school's revenue. But the majority of that money came from one source: the university's centuries-old endowment.
Harvard, founded in 1636, is the oldest private university in the country and the school has received donations for nearly four centuries. Those gifts have helped the university amass an endowment worth $53 billion in 2024 – the largest of any university in the country.
But that doesn't mean Harvard – or any other school with an endowment – can access and spend that money freely.
Endowments are meant to literally fund a university forever. So there are rules limiting how much money a school can withdraw from its endowment each year.
Last year, a $2.4 billion distribution from Harvard's endowment accounted for more than a third of the university's funding. But crucially, the university said 80% of that money was restricted for specific purposes, like financial aid, professorships and specific scholarships within certain schools.
'If I decide to endow a chair in the English department, the institution is legally not allowed to use that money for some other purpose,' Fansmith said, adding universities 'don't have the flexibility to just shift (donations) to other purposes if they think it's a more pressing need.'
That's where the federal government – and its commitment to funding academic research – comes in.
Johns Hopkins University 'receives more money than any other entity in the US' from the National Institutes of Health. Last year, Hopkins received $1 billion in funding from the agency.
Harvard received $686 million in federal funding to conduct research in fiscal year 2024.
But all of that could vanish overnight if the Trump administration follows through with its threats to withhold funds. Hopkins has already cut thousands of employees after dramatic cuts to USAID cost it $800 million in funding.
But the federal government hasn't always played such a critical role in academic research. World War II fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and colleges and universities in the United States.
Before the war, American industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller created their own universities and financed research.
But President Franklin Roosevelt believed scientific advancements would be crucial to winning the war. So, in 1941, he signed an executive order to create the Office of Scientific Research and Development. He tasked Vannevar Bush, the former dean of the MIT School of Engineering, with marshalling the country's top scientists and researchers to create more advanced weapons and technology.
The OSRD funded research programs at universities across the nation – including the Manhattan Project – and the work of these scientists and researchers led to the creation of not only the atomic bomb but also radar and crucial advances in medicine and other military technology.
The office was disbanded after the war, but the partnership between the federal government and colleges and universities helped place the nation at the forefront of global scientific innovation. And that relationship has endured for more than 70 years, until now.
Today, agencies like the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy are the largest funders of academic research at universities across the nation, said Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations at the Association of American Universities.
But the money doesn't go straight into Columbia or Harvard's bank accounts. Instead, the colleges and universities across the nation apply and compete for federal grants to conduct research, which Fansmith said enables the government to fund the best researchers at the lowest cost.
Federal funding also helps cover the majority of costs for maintaining research facilities, a cost-sharing system that has been in place since Bush and the creation of the OSRD.
In essence, Smith said, universities are akin to national laboratories.
'When you take money away from a Columbia or a Harvard or research or other institutions, you've just taken away funds from the best researchers who were judged by other scientists to do that research on behalf of the American people – in areas like cancer, Alzheimer's, pediatrics, diabetes, and other critical research areas,' Smith said.
Many advances in science, he added, were discovered inadvertently by researchers who received federal grants. In fact, the annual 'Golden Goose' award recognizes these innovations that have had life-changing impacts.
Thanks to funding from the National Science Foundation, economics researchers who were studying markets helped develop the chain model for kidney donations. In 2012, researchers Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley shared the Nobel Prize for economics.
Scientists studying rats at Duke University, funded by the NIH, uncovered a breakthrough that led to the practice of 'infant massage' and forever changed neonatal care for premature infants. It has saved countless lives.
That is what's at stake, Smith said, if the US were to halt its federal funding to colleges and universities.
'At the end of the day, (the US) won't have that knowledge,' he said. 'Other countries will overtake us in science and resulting technology, if we don't recognize and protect the unique system that we have in place.'
And ultimately, he said, the American people will lose.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia awaits American decision on AUKUS nuclear submarine pact
Australia awaits American decision on AUKUS nuclear submarine pact

UPI

time17 minutes ago

  • UPI

Australia awaits American decision on AUKUS nuclear submarine pact

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, Calif. in March of 2023. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 12 (UPI) -- Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles announced Thursday he feels that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal which connects with the United Kingdom and United States, will continue after the Trump administration reviews the pact. "I am very confident this is going to happen," he told ABC News, as he believes AUKUS is of strategic interest to all three nations. The Pentagon has expressed that the 2021 deal is being reassessed to make sure it's a fit with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda before he meets with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the G7 summit taking place in Canada next week. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also had met with Marles, who is also Australia's Minister for Defense, earlier this month and recommended Australia increase its defense spending to 3.5 percent of its GDP. Albanese said in a press conference Tuesday that he thinks "that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defense" when asked about a defense spending boost, while not directly addressing if he would risk losing the AUKUS deal over that decision as questioned. The Pentagon review is being led by U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, who in the past has been critical of the deal made under the Biden administration to arm Australia with nuclear subs that use advanced American and British technology. "In principle it's a great idea," Colby posted to X about AUKUS in August of 2024," but added he's "agnostic" about the program. However, Colby also posted that day he was "convinced we should focus on Asia, readying for a war with China" in order to avoid it. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian announced Thursday in a press conference when asked about his nation's opinion on the possibility of an end to AUKUS that China opposes "manufacturing bloc confrontation and anything that amplifies the risk of nuclear proliferation and exacerbates arms race."

Major US Government Website Could be Shut Down After Mass Layoffs
Major US Government Website Could be Shut Down After Mass Layoffs

Newsweek

time20 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Major US Government Website Could be Shut Down After Mass Layoffs

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A central U.S. government website that educates the public about climate science may soon cease to publish new material following a mass firing of its content team, says The Guardian. Newsweek contacted the NOAA for comment on The Guardian's report via email, outside of standard working hours on Thursday. Why It Matters is one of the most widely used climate science resources online, receiving hundreds of thousands of visits monthly, The Guardian noted in its report. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) logo is seen during a NOAA media day at the Aircraft Operations Center in Lakeland, Florida, on May 6, 2025. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) logo is seen during a NOAA media day at the Aircraft Operations Center in Lakeland, Florida, on May 6, 2025. Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo/AFP via Getty Images The reported layoffs are the latest in a wave of cutbacks by the Trump administration that have already targeted numerous government departments and agencies, including the Department of Education, Food and Drug Administration, and NOAA. What To Know The content production team at operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was abruptly terminated at the end of May, a former contractor among those terminated told the paper anonymously. Newsweek has not verified the anonymous sources. Other former staff said decisions to eliminate their positions appeared not to be based on performance but rather were targeted by political appointees within the Trump administration. "It was a very deliberate, targeted attack," Rebecca Lindsey, the former program manager of the website, told The Guardian. Lindsey, who was fired in February despite receiving what she described as "stellar" performance reviews and a bonus, said the site's funding was stripped during contract negotiations due to pressure from higher-level officials. The 10 or so content staff were supported by NOAA scientists. The site was housed in the agency's science wing rather than its public affairs division, and was designed to maintain political neutrality and scientific accuracy, she told the outlet. "We operated exactly how you would want an independent, nonpartisan communications group to operate," Lindsey said. "It does seem to be part of this sort of slow and quiet way of trying to keep science agencies from providing information to the American public about climate." Tom Di Liberto, a former spokesperson for the NOAA who was fired earlier this year told the outlet: "It's targeted, I think it's clear." "They only fired a handful of people, and it just so happened to be the entire content team for I mean, that's a clear signal." What People Are Saying Former NOAA spokesperson Tom Di Liberto told The Guardian: "My bigger worry, long-term, is I would hate to see it turn into a propaganda website for this administration, because that's not at all what it was." What Happens Next While the site may continue to host some prescheduled updates through June, there are no confirmed plans for future content, The Guardian reported.

FIRST ON FOX: High ranking DOJ official resigns post to run for attorney general in red state
FIRST ON FOX: High ranking DOJ official resigns post to run for attorney general in red state

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

FIRST ON FOX: High ranking DOJ official resigns post to run for attorney general in red state

FIRST ON FOX: Aaron Reitz, a top official in President Donald Trump's Department of Justice, has resigned his post in the administration to run for attorney general of Texas, entering what he is calling a "fight for the soul of Texas." Reitz, a former Marine and chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, served in the Trump administration under U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy. Following speculation of a possible run for Texas attorney general, one of the most powerful positions in the state, Reitz resigned his position with the DOJ on Wednesday and officially launched his campaign the day after. "If we lose Texas, we lose the Republic," Reitz said in a statement sent to Fox News Digital. 205 Arrested In Fbi Child Sex Operation, Patel And Bondi Announce "This is no time for half-measures or untested cowards," he said, adding, "We are in a fight for the soul of Texas, our nation, and Western civilization itself." Read On The Fox News App "As Attorney General, I'll use every ounce of legal firepower to defend President Trump, crush the radical Left, advance the America and Texas First agenda, and look out for everyday Texans," he said. This comes as current Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is running in hopes of replacing incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in one of the most hotly contested primary races of the year. Reitz pledged to partner with the Trump administration to "clean up the border catastrophe with mass deportations and enhanced border security, take down the Soros-backed district attorneys, obliterate woke indoctrination, expose and root out election fraud, and defend our Constitutional rights without apology." John Cornyn Scores Tim Scott Endorsement, But John Rich Calls Cornyn 'The Lindsey Graham Of Texas' Reitz touted his conservative bona fides, saying, "I've spent my entire career in the trenches with the toughest conservatives in America." He is likely to garner endorsements from some of the country's leading Republicans, with DOJ officials, including Bondi, giving him a string of fond farewells after he announced his departure. In an X post Bondi said: "I'm proud to have worked with @aaron_reitz at @TheJusticeDept. Aaron played a central role in our work to Make America Safe Again — his next chapter will surely contribute to @POTUS's mission, and I look forward to seeing what Aaron does next in his home state of Texas!" FBI Director Kash Patel also chimed in, saying "Aaron is a personal friend, great American, and a relentless advocate for law and order. Thanks for serving our country, now it's time to deliver on his next mission. Good luck." Bondi Announces One Of Largest Fentanyl Seizures In Us History Before serving in the Trump administration and on Cruz's staff, Reitz previously held the position of Texas Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy under Paxton. In December, Paxton spoke very highly of Reitz, saying, "he's a proven and effective fighter for our Constitution and American Values" who was "our 'offensive coordinator' leading my very aggressive Texas-v-Biden docket." Paxton said that while working in his office Reitz "spearheaded some of our agency's most consequential actions on border security, immigration, Big Tech, Covid, energy, the environment, and election integrity." Texas Republican state Senator Mayes Middleton, another pro-Trump conservative, is also running for attorney article source: FIRST ON FOX: High ranking DOJ official resigns post to run for attorney general in red state

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