Brown, MIT lead lawsuit against US government over sweeping science funding cuts
Sweeping cuts and growing opposition
Billions in funding under threat
Brown faces additional federal scrutiny
Brown University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), along with 10 other institutions, have filed a lawsuit against the National Science Foundation (NSF), seeking to block newly announced limits on indirect cost reimbursements for federally funded research. The suit, filed in US District Court in Massachusetts, challenges the NSF's decision to cap overhead reimbursements at 15 percent for all new college and university grants.The plaintiffs argue that the proposed funding changes would severely weaken the nation's leadership in global research and innovation.According to the complaint, the cuts are unlawful and could 'badly undermine scientific research at America's universities,' as reported by the Boston Globe. In fiscal year 2024, MIT received $97 million in NSF funding for research under grants and cooperative agreements. Brown, in the same period, expended $34.4 million from the NSF to support nearly 250 scientific projects.The NSF's policy shift, announced on Friday, mirrors previously attempted limits by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Energy. Those prior efforts were later blocked by federal courts. The new NSF rule applies to all indirect research costs and is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reduce what it considers excessive spending in elite academic institutions.Higher education leaders have responded with strong criticism. Matt Owens, president of the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), said the move represents a significant threat to US scientific competitiveness. 'The third time is not a charm; rather, it is disaster in the making for American science [and] technology and our nation's continuing competitiveness,' he stated, as quoted by the Boston Globe.In 2024, the NSF allocated $7.2 billion for research and related academic activities, distributing funds to over 1,850 colleges and universities across the country. These grants often cover not only research activities but also vital administrative and operational costs. According to the plaintiffs, the 15 percent cap on indirect costs would force institutions to divert funds from other critical areas or reduce the scope of research entirely.Kara D. Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, called the cuts 'short-sighted and ultimately against the nation's interests,' as reported by the Boston Globe. She added, 'The truth is that without a federal partner to share some of the costs of innovation, ground-breaking research, and other life-changing advances, these costs will fall directly and indirectly on current students or bring this vital work to a halt.'In addition to the NSF cuts, Brown University is contending with a separate $510 million federal funding freeze. According to the Boston Globe, this action is part of the Trump administration's initiative to hold universities accountable for alleged antisemitism on campuses. Brown spokesman Brian Clark noted that the university has yet to receive official notification but confirmed that about three dozen research grants—many tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion—have already been cut.Clark added that widespread cuts could lead to layoffs and halt high-impact research projects. Brown President Christina H. Paxson emphasized the national consequences, warning that reductions in NSF funding would cause the US to 'lose its global competitive edge in areas such as quantum computing, machine learning, advanced novel engineering materials and biomechanics,' as quoted by the Boston Globe.A spokesperson for MIT did not respond to requests for comment, as reported by the Boston Globe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
The boom in American-born employees isn't real. Here's why
Agencies Something remarkable has been going on lately with the population estimates maintained by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show a decline of 1.9 million in the foreign-born working-age population in the US (defined here as ages 16 through 64) since March and an increase of 3.3 million in the native-born working-age population since December. The foreign-born working-age population may well be shrinking. The flow of illegal immigration across the Mexican border slowed sharply last year and has ground almost to a halt this year, and since January the Trump administration has been narrowing legal immigration channels, canceling temporary legal immigration programs and increasing the pace of deportations for those here illegally. It's extremely unlikely that 1.9 million people ages 16 through 64 have left the country since March, but the direction at least could be correct. Such an increase in the native-born working-age population, on the other hand, is impossible. Changes in that population are quite easy to predict, given that we know how many people were born in the US 16 to 64 years ago and how many have died since — and, while there admittedly aren't great recent statistics on this, the number of native-born Americans who leave the country permanently is most likely small. Just going by births, the 16-to-64 US population is due for six consecutive years of declines from this year through 2030. All this is context for understanding the 2.5 million job increase in native-born employment since December that the BLS is also reporting. Given that it came after a year of foreign-born workers seemingly driving all US employment gains, it is understandably being greeted by Trump administration officials (and would-be Trump BLS chief E.J. Antoni) as evidence of a remarkable turnaround wrought by Trump's economic policies. As you can probably already tell from the population data I've cited, it's not that. But what is it, exactly? The big changes in population and employment are artifacts of how the BLS estimates population for the purposes of calculating the labor-force statistics it derives from the Census Bureau's monthly Current Population Survey, the so-called household survey. The priority is generating accurate percentage indicators such as the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate and employment-population ratio, not reliable time series of the levels of employment or establishment survey — aka Current Employment Statistics — that is the other contributor to the monthly BLS employment report is aimed at generating accurate estimates of the level of nonfarm payroll employment and is revised repeatedly as late responses come in and then a backup set of statistics based on state unemployment insurance records is released. A big downward revision in past months' payroll jobs totals in the employment report released early this month led Trump to fire the director of the BLS and nominate Antoni, a Heritage Foundation economist with a reputation for sloppy, partisan work, as the agency's new employment indicators from the household survey aren't subsequently revised, but every January the BLS does adjust its population numbers to align them with the latest population estimates from the Census Bureau. This December, the Census Bureau revised its national population estimates upward to better reflect the big wave in immigration from mid-2021 to mid-2024, estimating net immigration of 2.8 million people from mid-2023 to mid-2024, and increasing its estimate of 2021-2023 net immigration from 2.1 million to 4 million. This and other changes in the 2024 population estimates led the BLS to report a 3 million increase from December to January in the 16-and-older civilian, noninstitutional US population, with the gains split roughly evenly between native-born and foreign-born. Again, this wasn't because anybody at BLS thought the US 16-and-older population actually grew that much from December to January, just that the new population estimates were higher than the previous ones, and it doesn't revise earlier estimates. (For a more detailed explanation, I recommend this piece by Jed Kolko, who as undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Biden administration oversaw the Census Bureau.) The Census Bureau also makes forward-looking monthly population estimates once a year based on anticipated deaths, 16th birthdays and immigration trends, which the BLS uses to produce its monthly population totals until the next annual update. The monthly BLS estimates of changes in the native-born and foreign-born population and workforce, though, are based on what people say in the monthly household surveys. Since Donald Trump became president, foreign-born residents of the US appear to have become much less likely to respond to the surveys or tell survey takers they weren't born in the US. Because the overall monthly population numbers are on autopilot, this has resulted in declining foreign-born population and employment numbers and increasing native-born native-born workers were in fact making big employment gains now, these would show up in their ratio of employment to population, which is best measured for so-called prime-age workers 25 to 54 so as not to be skewed by the aging of the population. Prime-age employment-to-population numbers for native- and foreign-born workers are not available in seasonally adjusted form and thus jump around a lot from month to month, so I've taken annual averages, which indicate that both native-born and foreign-born employment rates are flat and possibly beginning to trend downward. President Trump's immigration crackdown is to some extent based on the theory that it will improve job prospects for native-born workers by removing foreign-born competitors. Because immigration is the only possible source of growth in the US working-age population for the rest of this decade, though, stopping or reversing its flow will also make it hard to achieve much of any economic growth. So far, in any case, the net result for native-born workers appears to be no improvement at all. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Swiggy, Tencent backer Prosus gets Rajinikanth fan to script India AI play India's F&O boom puts spotlight on retail protection through education Can new shipping laws bury the ghost of British legacy? As big fat Indian wedding slims to budget, Manyavar loses lustre Stock Radar: Bajaj Auto showing signs of reversal after falling over 30% from highs; medium term should 'buy the dip' F&O Radar | Deploy Bull Call Ladder in JSW Steel stock to benefit from bullish outlook Time for risk-takers to come out of hibernation? 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with an upside potential of up to 27% Buy, Sell or Hold: Motilal Oswal initiates coverage on JSW Cement; Emkay Global sees over 30% upside in Gravita India
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Putin's desire to destroy Western unity rages on
On august 16th, a day after his summit with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin summoned Russia's grandees to the Kremlin's Hall of the Order of St Catherine. Built in tsarist times to show off the glory of the Russian empire, the hall was the setting for Mr Putin's account of his achievements during the visit to Alaska, a former imperial possession. He praised Mr Trump's 'sincerity' and efforts to end the war. 'It moves us closer to making necessary decisions,' he said. It was in the same hall, three and half years ago, that Mr Putin had gathered his terrified courtiers and ordered them, one after another, to make the case for the recognition of the separatist-held territories in eastern Ukraine. That bizarre televised spectacle turned out to be the signal for starting the invasion of Ukraine. His post-Alaska gathering was an indication that the war might now end—on Russia's terms, of course. The message simultaneously reflects both exhaustion from war, and Mr Putin's confidence of winning either through fighting or a favourable negotiation. His peace initiatives and military actions are aligned to the same goal: more power. Read more of our recent coverage of the Ukraine war Mr Putin's tone was emollient: 'We respect the US administration's position which wants the hostilities to stop as soon as possible. So do we.' One person who seems to take Mr Putin's words at face value is Mr Trump, who, over the months, has displayed an almost clinical dependence on the Kremlin's strongman, and has recoiled every time Ukraine and its European allies have urged him to apply pressure on him. During the follow-up summit in Washington with Volodymyr Zelensky and seven European leaders, a hot mic caught Mr Trump whispering to Emmanuel Macron, the French president: 'I think he [Mr Putin] wants to make a deal for me, you understand that? As crazy as it sounds.' Mr Trump, despite earlier promises, has not imposed sanctions and no longer demands a ceasefire as a precondition for peace talks. Mr Putin is unlikely to be bothered by the smiles, shoulder-slapping and assurances of support for Ukraine at the White House. As far as Moscow is concerned, the meeting produced little more than general talk of security guarantees—and these will only apply if Mr Putin agrees to peace. Mr Trump's call to Mr Putin, made in the middle of his meeting with European leaders, offered him reassurance: Mr Trump will do nothing about Ukraine without consulting Russia. Mr Putin's own summit with Mr Trump, on the other hand, was much more of a success. Branded as a murderous criminal by Mr Trump's predecessor, he received a red-carpet reception and applause from Mr Trump, who ended his diplomatic isolation and restored Mr Putin to the position of power-player in Europe. 'I congratulate all of us on a perfect summit. It was grand. To win everything and lose nothing—only Alexander III could do that,' Alexander Dugin, an ultra-imperialist philosopher and proponent of war, enthused, slipping in a mention of one of Mr Putin's favourite tsars. It is still unclear what the two summiteers agreed, but Mr Putin did not really go to Alaska to negotiate, but to preen. The audience for this show, hastily arranged at Mr Putin's request, was not just Mr Trump, but Mr Putin's own elite and citizens. Recent polls have shown that 70% of Russians think that their country has been successful on the battlefield. At the same time 60% now favour peace talks. Fear of defeat is long gone; but there is not much appetite for more fighting. One well-informed businessman sums up the attitude of the elite: 'Nobody gives a fuck how it is going to end, as long as it does. Putin can sell anything as a victory.' At a minimum, though, Mr Putin wants this to include the recognition, by America at least, of Russia's occupation of Crimea and the war-seized land corridor that connects it to Russia; the permanent exclusion of Ukraine from nato; and presidential elections in Ukraine. 'No deal is likely while Zelensky is in power,' one Russian insider says. Mr Putin's new enthusiasm for diplomacy reflects his constraints. The Russian economy is heading into recession; in the first seven months of this year its budget deficit has overshot the target for the whole of 2025—unsurprising, considering a 20% increase in government spending in those seven months. At least 5% of all government spending now goes on maintaining a contract army that is mostly fighting in Ukraine, according to Re:Russia, a Vienna-based think-tank. Labour shortages mean that civilian industry is struggling. This does not mean that Mr Putin's position is critical—he can always impose yet more pain on the economy—but as Kirill Rogov, the head of Re:Russia, says, 'this will increase risks and internal tension, which will radically change Russians' perceptions of the costs of war.' There is also a question of military gains. For the third summer in a row, Russia has failed to break the Ukrainian front line. Despite advancing at a somewhat faster pace than before, it still controls only about a percentage point of Ukrainian territory beyond what it held at the start of 2023. Mr Putin does not want to risk mass mobilisation, or to carry on the war for another year. The vast human and economic cost would only highlight the failure of his army to overpower Ukrainian forces. 'Everybody understands that [carrying on] the war is senseless and it is time to end it,' one member of the Russian business elite says. This does not mean, however, that Mr Putin is about to stop. As Mr Rogov says, the Russian leader is still hoping that the next two months could produce a break-through in Ukraine, which is suffering from a shortage of manpower and high rate of desertion. 'He is opening the diplomatic door as a contingency, in case his offensive does not yield the desired effect,' he explains. For Mr Putin endless negotiations are simply another part of his war plans. They keep Mr Trump on his side and help him in his broader objective of sowing dissent within the West and inside Ukraine. As one Russian blogger puts it, 'the main thing to understand is that the war has not stopped. Our president will consider the [diplomatic] options, and in the meantime, the military continues its work to liberate our territories.' Mr Putin's demand that Ukraine hand over territory in the western Donbas that he has not won on the battlefield is designed to trigger an internal political crisis in Ukraine. He knows that Mr Zelensky has pledged not to give up an inch of land, but that he may lose Mr Trump's support if he does not acquiesce. To achieve his strategic goal of dismantling the post-cold war security order, Mr Putin wants to unravel Ukraine politically, drive America out of Europe and undermine Europe's support for Ukraine. He is yet to achieve any of this. But even if the active phase of the war were to come to a halt, that struggle to destroy Western unity will continue. To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to Café Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
Economic Times
4 minutes ago
- Economic Times
India-US officials discuss key issues of defence procurement, reaffirm commitment to partnership
Synopsis Indian and American defence officials convened in Delhi to discuss defence procurement, reinforcing their commitment to the India-US defence partnership. This meeting follows ongoing efforts to strengthen bilateral ties, including upcoming joint military exercises in Alaska and discussions on strategic military cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. Both sides aim to enhance operational readiness and regional security coordination. ANI India-US officials discuss key issues of defence procurement, reaffirm commitment to partnership Indian and American defence officials held a meeting here in the national capital on Tuesday where they discussed key issues of defence procurement and affirmed their commitment towards further strengthening of the India-US defence partnership, as per the Ministry of Defence. Sharing the details in a post on X, the Ministry of Defence said, "Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence (South & Southeast Asia), US DoD Dr Andrew Byers today met Joint Secretary (Maritime & Systems Acquisition) Shri Dinesh Kumar. They discussed key issues of defence procurement & reaffirmed commitment to further strengthen the India-US defence partnership". — SpokespersonMoD (@SpokespersonMoD) On August 14, during a weekly press briefing, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal spoke about the issue of India-US defence partnership. He told the press, "The India-U.S. defence partnership, underpinned by foundational defence agreements, is an important pillar of the bilateral partnership. This robust cooperation has strengthened across several domains. We are expecting a U.S. Defence Policy Team to be in Delhi in mid-August. The 21st edition of the joint military exercise - 'Yudh Abhyas' is also expected to take place later this month in Alaska. Both sides remain engaged to convene the 2+2 Intersessional meeting at the working-level towards the end of this month. As far as the question of defence acquisition is concerned, the procurement process continues as per established procedures." Previously, in July, the top defence officials from India and the United States held key bilateral talks during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025, where they explored ways to deepen strategic military cooperation, regional security coordination, and operational readiness in the Indo-Pacific. The discussions focused on enhancing defence collaboration, including future operational opportunities and joint efforts to uphold peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, according to the Integrated Defence Staff.
