logo
Universities sue over Energy Department research funding cuts

Universities sue over Energy Department research funding cuts

NBC News15-04-2025
A group of universities — including Brown University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — and education groups filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking to halt the Department of Energy's cuts to federal research grants.
Last week, the Energy Department (DOE) announced a new policy to reduce the funding of "indirect costs" of research grants to 15%.
However, the plaintiffs argue such cuts will "devastate scientific research at America's universities" and "undermine" the nation's status as a global leader in innovation.
"The pace of scientific discoveries in the national interest will be slowed," the lawsuit says. "Progress on a safe and effective nuclear deterrent, novel energy sources, and cures for debilitating and life-threatening illness will be obstructed. America's rivals will celebrate, even as science and industry in the United States suffer."
The suit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts claims the policy change is unlawful and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. It seeks an injunction.
Other plaintiffs include Cornell University, the University of Illinois, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Princeton University, the University of Rochester, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.
This same court issued a permanent injunction earlier this year against a similar Trump administration research funding cut to the National Institutes of Health.
What are indirect costs?
The Energy Department provides over $3.5 billion annually through grant programs to more than 300 colleges and universities to support department-sanctioned research, the agency said in a news release.
Some of that goes to "direct costs," such as specific projects, and some to "indirect costs," which aren't attributable to a specific project, such as facilities and administration.
The complaint said indirect costs are essential to scientific work, including specialized nuclear-rated facilities, computer systems to analyze huge volumes of data, researchers and administrative staff.
Indirect cost rates for grants follow regulations laid out by the Executive Branch's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and are negotiated by federal offices — with each recipient to fit their circumstances and needs. The complaint argues that the Trump administration's DOE Rate Cap Policy violates those regulations and that indirect cost rates should not be a "one-size-fits-all" policy.
Meanwhile, the DOE argues that the new policy will generate over $405 million in annual cost savings.
"The purpose of Department of Energy funding to colleges and universities is to support scientific research — not foot the bill for administrative costs and facility upgrades," U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said.
The complaint said the policy's effects "will be immediate and devastating."
"Because universities cannot sustain DOE-funded programs at the 15% indirect cost rate that DOE will now inflict, myriad critical projects — often the product of years or decades of effort — are in jeopardy of being stopped in their tracks. These include the development of advanced nuclear and cybersecurity technologies, arms control verification mechanisms designed to reduce the risk of nuclear war, novel radioactive drugs to diagnose and treat cancer, and upgrades for the electrical grids that keep the lights on in rural communities, among many others," the complaint said.
The complaint said it would also result in reduced staffing and training programs, damage careers, and impact the next generation of scientists.
Under the cuts, Brown University would lose over $2 million annually to its planned research budget, Caltech would lose nearly $6 million, and Cornell University would suffer "a shortfall of roughly $8 million in a typical fiscal year."
MIT received $93 million from the DOE in the fiscal year 2024 for sponsored research. This year, if DOE reduces indirect costs rates to 15%, "then MIT forecasts it will lose approximately $15 million to $16 million in reimbursement for costs that support DOE research over the next 12 months alone," the complaint said.
The complaint alleges that the cuts violate several aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act and asks the court to find the Rate Cap Policy invalid and order an injunction.
'It would be a self-inflicted wound and a gift to competitors'
NBC News has reached out to the DOE for comment. The suit also names DOE Secretary Chris Wright as a defendant.
The American Council on Education said in a statement that the administration cuts "would have an immediate and dire impact on critical energy, physical sciences and engineering research nationwide."
The group argued that the slashed funding would weaken America's economic opportunities, workforce pipeline, and families' prosperity.
"It would be, quite simply, a self-inflicted wound and a gift to competitors and potential adversaries such as China," the group said.
"We will continue to take the action necessary to protect the essential funding that supports Brown research and our country's need for innovative solutions to critical problems," Brown University President Christina H. Paxson said.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth said in a statement that DOE grants support the work of nearly 1,000 school community members.
Meanwhile, Cornell officials said, "arbitrarily cutting indirect costs will cause irreparable harm to Cornell's research enterprise, paralyze progress on projects of national importance, and threaten the training of the next generation of energy scientists."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump to join Washington patrol while feds deploy checkpoints around city
Trump to join Washington patrol while feds deploy checkpoints around city

The Independent

timea few seconds ago

  • The Independent

Trump to join Washington patrol while feds deploy checkpoints around city

Federal authorities have used checkpoints around the nation's capital to screen vehicles, sometimes asking people for their immigration status after stopping them, as President Donald Trump 's crackdown reaches the two-week mark in Washington. The use of checkpoints, which can be legally controversial, is the latest indication that the White House 's mass deportation agenda is central to its assertion of federal power in Washington. Federal agents and hundreds of National Guard troops have surged into Washington this month, putting some residents on edge and creating tense confrontations in the streets. The city's immigrant population, in particular, is rattled. A daycare was partially closed on Thursday when staff became afraid to go to work because they heard about federal agents nearby. An administrator asked parents to keep their children at home if possible. Other day cares have stopped taking kids on daily walks because of fears about encountering law enforcement. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser acknowledged Thursday that the proliferation of traffic checkpoints are an inevitable aspect of the federal law enforcement operations. 'The surge of federal officers is allowing for different types of deployments, more frequent types of deployments, like checkpoints,' Bowser said. Since Aug. 7, when Trump began surging federal agents into the city, there have been 630 arrests, including 251 people who are in the country illegally, according to the White House. Trump has been ratcheting up the pressure since then, seizing control of the D.C. police department on Aug. 11 and deploying more National Guard troops, mostly from Republican-led states. Soldiers have been largely stationed in downtown areas, such as monuments on the National Mall and transit stations. However, federal agents are operating more widely through the city — and some may soon get a visit from the president himself. Trump is expected to join a patrol in D.C. on Thursday night. He told his plans to Todd Starnes, a conservative commentator. Not a normal traffic stop On Thursday morning, as Martin Romero rode through Washington's Rock Creek Park on his way to a construction job in Virginia, he saw police on the road up ahead. He figured it was a normal traffic stop, but it wasn't. Romero, 41, said that U.S. Park Police were telling pickup trucks with company logos to pull over, reminding them that commercial vehicles weren't allowed on park roads. They checked for licenses and insurance information, and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents came over. Romero said there were two agents on one side of his truck and three on the other. He started to get nervous as the agents asked where they were from and whether they were in the country illegally. 'We just came here to work,' Romero said afterwards. 'We aren't doing anything bad.' Two people in his truck were detained and the agents didn't give a reason, he said. He also saw three other people taken from other vehicles. 'I feel really worried because they took two of our guys," he said. "They wouldn't say where they're taking them or if they'll be able to come back.' Romero said he called his boss, who told him to just head home. They wouldn't be working today. Enrique Martinez, a supervisor at the construction company, came to the scene afterwards. He pondered whether to call families of the detained men. 'This has never happened to our company before," Martinez said. "I'm not really sure what to do.' Checkpoints are legal, to a point The Supreme Court has upheld the use of law enforcement and government checkpoints for specific purposes, such as for policing the border and for identifying suspected drunk drivers. But there are restrictions on that authority, especially when it comes to general crime control. Jeffrey Bellin, a former prosecutor in Washington and professor at Vanderbilt Law School who specializes in criminal law and procedures, said the Constitution doesn't allow 'the government to be constantly checking us and stopping to see if we're up to any criminal activity.' He said checkpoints for a legally justifiable purpose — like checking for drivers' licenses and registrations — cannot be used as 'subterfuge' or a pretext for stops that would otherwise not be allowed. And though the court has affirmed the use of checkpoints at the border, and even some distance away from it, to ask drivers about immigration status, Bellin said it was unlikely the authority would extend to Washington. Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at Georgia State College of Law, said the seemingly 'arbitrary' and intrusive nature of the checkpoints in the capital could leave residents feeling aggrieved. 'Some of the things could be entirely constitutional and fine, but at the same time, the way that things are unfolding, people are suspicious — and I think for good reason,' he said. From Los Angeles to D.C. There are few places in the country that have been unaffected by Trump's deportation drive, but his push into D.C. is shaping into something more sustained, similar to what has unfolded in the Los Angeles area since early June. In Los Angeles, immigration officers — working with the Border Patrol and other federal agencies — have been a near-daily presence at Home Depots, car washes and other highly visible locations. In a demonstration of how enforcement has affected routines, the bishop of San Bernardino, California, formally excused parishioners of their weekly obligation to attend Mass after immigration agents detained people on two parish properties. Immigration officials have been an unusually public presence, sending horse patrols to the city's famed MacArthur Park and appearing outside California Gov. Gavin Newsom's news conference last week on congressional redistricting. Authorities said an agent fired at a moving vehicle last week after the driver refused to roll down his window during an immigration stop. The National Guard and Marines were previously in the city for weeks on an assignment to maintain order amid protests. A federal judge blocked the administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops in Southern California but authorities have vowed to keep the pressure on. ____ Associated Press writers Eric Tucker and Ashraf Khalil in Washington and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed reporting.

Trump calls for the release of former Colorado county elections official
Trump calls for the release of former Colorado county elections official

Daily Mail​

timea minute ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trump calls for the release of former Colorado county elections official

President Donald Trump is seeking the release of a former Colorado county elections official who was convicted of trying to overturn the 2020 election . Tina Peters, 69, was the first election official in the country to be found guilty on charges relating to her attempts to prove Trump's claims that the election was stolen. She is currently serving out a nine year jail sentence. Prosecutors said that in May 2021, Peters provided an unauthorized individual, Conan Hayes, access to the Mesa county election system during a software update. Hayes, posing a employee of the county clerk's office, used his badge to make copies of Dominion Voting Systems hard drives. Prosecutors allege both Peters and Hayes believed information on the hard drives would prove machine voting had stolen the election from by Trump. Soon after Hayes retrieved the sensitive data hard drives, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell leaked it online. 'FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State,' Trump wrote to his followers on Truth Social. The president did not detail the 'harsh measures' he threatened to unleash on the state. Trump's clemency power is void in this case because Peters was convicted in a state court. The Daily Mail reached out to the White House for clarification. Following her trial in 2024, Peters was found guilty of seven charges, including three counts of attempting to influence a public official, violation of duty, official misconduct, failure to comply with an order from the Colorado secretary of state, and conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. Prosecutors claimed that Peters gave Hayes access to sensitive election data in her office by swiping someone else's security badge. The information taken from her office soon appeared online after Lindell released it to try to prove the election was stolen. Despite her conviction, Peters maintained her innocence during her sentencing hearing while promoting the claim the election was stolen. 'I'm not a criminal, and I don't deserve to go to a prison where other people committed heinous crimes,' she said.

Strong market debuts raise questions over cautious IPO pricing by Wall St banks
Strong market debuts raise questions over cautious IPO pricing by Wall St banks

Reuters

timea minute ago

  • Reuters

Strong market debuts raise questions over cautious IPO pricing by Wall St banks

Aug 21 (Reuters) - Big first-day gains by recent high-profile U.S. listings have raised questions over whether Wall Street banks — wary of volatility and economic uncertainty from sweeping U.S. tariffs — are pricing them too cautiously, benefiting investors but causing issuers to miss out. The 20 biggest U.S. IPOs this year — among them software maker Figma (FIG.N), opens new tab and stablecoin issuer Circle (CRCL.N), opens new tab — averaged a first-day pop of 36%, a Reuters calculations using data compiled by LSEG showed. That was much higher than the 15% to 20% rise that analysts considered the sweet spot, enough to reward investors for taking the risk without underpricing the offering. If the 20 listings were priced closer to this range, it could have netted the companies $6.1 billion more in proceeds, a separate analysis of Dealogic data showed. Banks are often accused of underpricing IPOs to avoid embarrassing flops. But underwriters are more cautious because IPOs on hold for years due to higher interest rates are looking to debut amid tariff worries and choppy retail demand, according to four analysts, two venture capital executives and two industry experts. "In today's market, conservative IPO pricing is a strategic choice designed to build positive momentum and long-term brand equity (for issuers)," said Lukas Muehlbauer, research analyst at IPO research firm IPOX. A solid debut also makes it easier for companies to tap follow-up capital, he said. Shares of Figma popped 250% and Circle 168% in their debuts. Crypto exchange Bullish (BLSH.N), opens new tab closed its first session nearly 84% above the IPO price. The companies and their lead underwriters either declined to comment or did not respond to requests seeking comment. Market turmoil sparked by Trump's global trade war soured the chances of a blockbuster first quarter for deals, but optimism over his deregulatory policies and expectations of interest-rates cuts have helped the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab hit new records, reviving the IPO market. While modest pricing may draw investors in choppy markets, critics said it would be at the expense of issuers, who may raise less capital. "IPO pops are a reminder that the process remains broken," said Phil Haslett, co-founder of EquityZen, one of the largest pre-IPO stock platforms. "The traditional roadshow is designed to secure commitments from institutional investors, largely failing to account for what we see as significant levels of retail investor demand." That blind spot leaves banks guessing how retail buyers will respond on day one, increasing the chances of sharp trading swings. However, some fintech brokerages such as Robinhood (HOOD.O), opens new tab and SoFi Technologies (SOFI.O), opens new tab are tapping retail demand by offering access to IPO shares in select companies. "The IPO market's basically been closed for three years. So if you're an investment banker, you don't know what the demand is," said Tomasz Tunguz, founder of venture capital firm Theory Ventures. As listings rise, startups preparing to go public may push back against conservative pricing, Tunguz said. The fall IPO window is shaping up to be one of the busiest in years, with fintech giant Klarna, crypto exchange Gemini and medtech firm Medline leading the race to capitalize on resurgent investor demand before the end of the year. The Renaissance IPO Index (.FTIPOUSA), opens new tab, which tracks the performance of some of the largest newly listed stocks, has risen 15% in 2025, outpacing the benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab. For years, critics of the IPO process have promoted direct listings — where issuers go public by putting shares directly on to a stock exchange without the help of underwriters — to avoid misjudging demand. This route was taken by streaming platform Spotify (SPOT.N), opens new tab and crypto exchange Coinbase (COIN.O), opens new tab in recent years. But it has gained limited traction in the U.S. as companies prefer the stability of the traditional IPO roadshow and the trading support provided by underwriters. "The traditional IPO path is just more tried and tested, and more people understand it than a direct listing," said Mike Bellin, IPO services leader at PwC U.S. Special purpose acquisition companies or SPACs, where a listed shell merges with a private firm, were touted as an alternative to traditional IPOs, but went through a boom-and-bust cycle between 2020 and 2022. Though the route is regaining ground this year, mainly among high-growth crypto and tech stocks, it remains constrained by regulatory hurdles, redemption risks and stock volatility. "If I were IPO-ing my company right now, I probably would do it the way that people have been doing it, even if I know there's a mispricing risk," said Maria Palma, general partner at Freestyle Capital.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store