logo
Sleepless in the Senate well: Late-night ball game, cornered holdout, partisan tacos and Trump's fave breakfast

Sleepless in the Senate well: Late-night ball game, cornered holdout, partisan tacos and Trump's fave breakfast

Independenta day ago
John Fetterman was pissed off.
Then again he started out that way, far before there was a hint that watching Republicans get to 51 votes on President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill would take an over-24-hour marathon session in the Senate chamber.
The Democratic Pennsylvania senator, who had lamented on camera a day earlier about not being able to join his family at the beach, had just heard his aide tell him eight more amendments remained.
'Eight f***in' more?' he exclaimed. 'You're kidding.'
Because Fetterman wore his trademark Carhartt shirt and shorts rather than a suit and tie, he could not be on the Senate floor at that moment, very late Monday, er, make that early Tuesday. Time of day/night had become a blur by that point.
That's a shame, I thought, because typically watching the floor activity is the one joy of the so-called vote-a-rama session where senators haggle over various provisions of a budget bill being passed under reconciliation.
For someone who likes C-SPAN as much as I unashamedly admit I do, viewing such a wonky spectacle from the gallery is like a live concert. And that makes a vote-a-rama the legislative equivalent of the Eras Tour.
That is if Taylor Swift played for nearly 27 hours.
For those who have never covered a vote-a-rama, they are near equal parts consequential debate and kabuki theater. Republicans planned to pass the bill via budget reconciliation, which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority as long as it relates to spending.
This leads to rapid fire introduction of amendments by either side. Republicans can push for amendments that otherwise could not pass in committee, while Democrats can try to introduce poison pill legislation to kill the bill.
As senators filed in Monday morning, I caught Sen. Lisa Murkowski — hours before she would become the center of the rebellion against the bill's passage — to ask her about renewable energy efforts that are targeted for destruction in this bill.
But the Alaska Republican was already in no mood to chat.
'I haven't decided whether to share comments with reporters this morning or not,' she said. 'You're the first one to ask me a question this morning, so you win the bonu round.'
Anyone who has covered Murkowski recently can tell that the senior senator is fed up with having to answer for every little thing Trump says or does.
If she had her druthers, she would focus on Native-Alaskan affairs, working on the budget and on energy policy. Just last week, Murkowski released her memoir in which she touted her independent streak. Oftentimes, she will try to avoid reporters or joke with them to avoid them asking hard questions. But after some thought, Murkowski gave a semi-substantive answer.
'I don't want to see us backslide on clean energy,' she told The Independent.
Then the vote-a-rama kicked off.
Early in the evening, Democrats felt that they might have a shot to sink the bill. Early-morning or late-night votes can often be dramatic. Look no further than the thumbs-down the late John McCain delivered that saved the Affordable Care Act during the first Trump administration.
Democrats kept saying Republicans didn't have the votes or that the GOP was too divided. They also hoped to exploit some of those fissures as they offered amendment after amendment — all of which naturally failed — until they seemed to run out of steam.
Then, Democrats switched to offering motions to recommit, a motion which would cause the legislation to be referred back the Senate committee of its jurisdiction.
Eventually, Sen. John Kennedy, who despite being a graduate of Oxford often puts on a heavily affected Louisiana Cajun accent, complained about his Republican colleagues allowing Democrats to offer these motions, which were a futile effort because no number of Republicans would even think of sending these bills back to committee.
'We might as well have been standing around, sucking on our teeth.' he said.
Kennedy wasn't wrong. But Republicans faced a bind. For one, they had to find a way to appease Murkowski and her fellow moderate Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. In 2017, both joined McCain in his opposition to repeal the Affordable Care Act and they have considerable leverage.
Collins had particular issue with the fact the bill put a cap on the amount that states could levy on provider taxes to raise money to receive matching Medicaid dollars. Rural hospitals could go under as a result since many of them rely on Medicaid recipients.
To try and make up for that deficit to the hospitals, the bill created a $25 billion rural hospital fund. But Collins had an amendment to raise that amount to $50 billion. It didn't go well. Only 22 senators voted for it, and a majority of her Republican colleagues opposed it.
One of the only Republicans who joined her was Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who had spent the past month wringing his hands about Medicaid cuts but ultimately decided to vote for the bill.
When that failed, it looked like Collins would certainly join Tillis and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in opposing the bill. She later lamented that the Senate should have done two reconciliation bills instead of 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' which Trump requested it be called.
'I think that would have been a better approach,' Collins told me as pulled a roll-around suitcase back to the Senate floor.
That meant that everything hinged on Murkowski.
Republicans had loaded up the bill with pork for her, including a way to shield Alaska from a provision that would require that the state shoulder the cost of SNAP and another that would prevent it from being hit by cuts to Medicaid.
This led to Senate leadership frequently — and literally — cornering and badgering Murkowski. At one point, Thune, former majority leader McConnell, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo and fellow Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan had her cornered on the Senate floor.
This led to a series of back-and-forths where Thune and reporters would zip back to his office. They lifted up their phones to get audio of the lanky beanpole Thune's soft-spoken tone as kept saying Republicans were close.
Of course, doing a long-haul vote-a-rama calls for sustenance.
At one point, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, was seen munching a bag of snacks, while Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona went to go see if the tacos his party ordered for catering were any good. (Note: As a Mexican-American who lives in D.C., I can tell you they will not be as good as anything found in Arizona).
Gallego also was not buying that Republicans had a deal.
'If you have to stall this long, it means you have a shit bill,' he told me.
Unsurprisingly, the longer senators went on, the more exhausted they got and the more caffeine was required. Shortly after my third or fourth caffeinated beverage, I ran into Sen. Tommy Tuberville, the Republican former Auburn University head football coach, who told me, 'I'm braindead brother' as he sipped on some coffee.
When Sen. Mike Lee of Utah proposed a rollback of renewable energy credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota had her arms folded in her fleece — not just because she helped craft those parts of the bill to combat climate change, but because Lee had spread disgusting conspiracy theories about the killing of her fellow Minnesotan, former statehouse speaker Melissa Hortman.
Meanwhile, Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who had clashed with Trump about the bill and then said he would not run for re-election, walked around like a man who had given his two weeks' notice and even spent time with progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren. The night into day also saw Warren and her former presidential rival Amy Klobuchar occasionally chatting.
At one point, Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Mark Warner of Virginia made their way to hang out with Republican Sens. Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Kennedy.
But, alas, all good things must come to an end. Well, things anyway.
Around the time some senators and reporters went to watch the sunrise, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas ordered his Republican colleagues breakfast from McDonald's, one of Trump's favorite fast food choices, according to HuffPost's Igor Bobic.
No word if Trump made the fries himself.
At that point, around 7 am, I was simultaneously crabby, too excited to go to sleep if I'd gone home anyway, tired, but also jittery from all the caffeine I ingested, so my editor sent me home.
In the end, Collins, Tillis and Paul voted alone against the bill — but what I'd taken to calling the Denali Deal for Murkowski had galvanized the agreement for a 50-50 vote with Vance giving the 51st vote.
Some may remark on why Murkowski joined leadership this time but it is fairly clear that she did not want to be remembered as another McCain, let alone another Mitt Romney and certainly not another Liz Cheney.
Like the latter two, she is the child of a prominent Republican leader. But at her core, Murkowski wants to be remembered for looking out for Alaska's interests. And in her mind, that likely meant shielding her state from the bill's worst excesses.
But her actions reveal the hollowness of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which now must be passed with the new amendments, by the House once again.
Very few people on the Republican side can defend the cuts to safety-net programs, since it still balloons the deficit. Rather, they tout the items they pay for, even when it is still unpopular.
For now, Republicans are speed-running through breaking all of the typical decorum rules of the world's supposedly greatest deliberative body in service of Trump. And it will take longer than a so-called Byrd Bath to wash out the stains from their parliamentary sins.
Then again, maybe I'm just tired.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘It's harsh. I mean, brutal': Trump bill to cause most harm to America's poorest
‘It's harsh. I mean, brutal': Trump bill to cause most harm to America's poorest

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

‘It's harsh. I mean, brutal': Trump bill to cause most harm to America's poorest

Last November, Donald Trump made a solemn vow to all Americans: 'Every citizen, I will fight for you, your family and your future every single day.' Eight months later, Trump is vigorously backing many policies that will mean pain for millions. Trump has pushed to enact the Republican budget bill, which would make significant cuts to Medicaid, Obamacare, and food assistance, and would do the greatest damage to those Americans struggling hardest to make ends meet – the 30% of the US population that lives in households earning under $50,000 a year. Even as Trump and Republican lawmakers are rushing to cut over $1.4tn in health and food assistance for non-affluent Americans, Trump continues to pressure Congress to extend over $3tn in tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy and corporations. Trump has embraced these Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies, even though it was voters earning less than $50,000 a year who delivered victory to him last November. They favored him over Kamala Harris by 50% to 48%, according to exit polls, while Trump and Harris tied among voters earning $50,000 or more a year. Several social policy experts said Trump has engaged in hypocrisy at best and betrayal at worst when it comes to the working-class and blue-collar Americans he promised to fight for. Speaking about the Republicans' 'big, beautiful' budget bill, Sharon Parrott, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said: 'Who's getting hit, who's bearing the cost? It's people with low and middle incomes, people that the president and many Republican policymakers promised to serve and support in the last election.' The budget bill would mean a net financial loss for the bottom 30% of American households by income – after factoring in its tax provisions and cuts in benefits. The House bill would hit the lowest earning 10% of Americans hardest: for them, it would mean a painful $1,600 cut in income on average (a 3.9% drop), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). At the same time, the Trump-backed bill would be a boon to wealthy households – it would mean a $12,000 increase in net income, on average, for households in the top 10%, those earning above $692,000 a year. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the top 0.1% – those with income over $3.3m – would receive tax cuts of $103,500 on average. The CBO says the income of the bottom 10% tops off at $22,868 (before factoring in government transfers). The second lowest decile earns from $22,868 to $43,137; the third decile earns up to $55,628; and the fourth up to $68,601. The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 20% of US households would see their incomes drop by 2.9% on average over the next decade, and the second lowest quintile – moderate-income households – would suffer a 0.4% loss of income on average. But the richest 20% would see their incomes rise by 2.3%. Those in the top 1% would see their incomes climb by $29,585 on average. Trump is demanding these big tax cuts for the rich even though the CBO says the budget bill will increase the federal debt by $3.3tn – a move that will push up interest rates and make mortgages and home-buying more expensive. According to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning thinktank, the $121bn tax cuts that would go just to the richest 1% next year are significantly more than all the tax cuts that would go to the bottom 60% of Americans in terms of income. The poorest 20% of Americans would receive just 1% of the bill's tax cuts next year, while the highest earning 5% would receive 44% of the cuts. Last week, Trump urged lawmakers to enact the bill, saying: 'There are hundreds of things in there. It is so good.' At a news conference, the president said the more than $1tn in Medicaid and food assistance cuts wouldn't hurt anyone. 'It won't affect anybody,' he said. 'It is just fraud, waste and abuse.' But Parrott took a sharply different view: 'The bill stands alone historically for its unique upside-down mix of large tax cuts for the top, deep cuts that affect low- and middle-income people, and massive increases in deficits and debt.' John Ricci, the Yale Budget Lab's associate director of policy analysis, said: 'It's unambiguous that low- and moderate-income Americans will be worse off on average under the budget bill, and that's principally because the cuts in Medicaid and Snap [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] would by definition fall most heavily on these groups,' Ricci said. Jeanne Lambrew, the Century Foundation's director of health policy reform, estimates that at least 16 million Americans will lose health coverage because of the budget bill – refuting White House claims that 'no one will lose coverage'. Lambrew said the bill would cause a more than a 50% increase in the number of uninsured nationwide, to nearly 45 million people. What's more, the Trump-backed plan sharply reduces Affordable Care Act subsidies, and that will force millions of Americans to either drop coverage or pay far more for coverage. Millions of Americans will find it harder to obtain healthcare, with many forced to take on far more medical debt. While Trump and many Republicans say the Medicaid cuts are all about reducing 'waste fraud and abuse,' Lambrew calculates that a mere 3.5% of the $1tn in healthcare cuts come from cutting waste and abuse. 'What Trump has been saying is, 'We're not cutting Medicaid. We're just cutting fraud.' That's gaslighting.' Lambrew said. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent the Senate a letter that harshly criticized the budget bill. 'As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality,' he wrote. 'This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.' According to a Quinnipiac University poll, only 27% of registered voters support the GOP budget bill, while 53% oppose it. A Fox News poll found that 38% support the bill, while 59% oppose it. The House bill's deep cuts in food benefits will cause 7 million people, including over 2 million children, to lose food aid or have their food aid cut significantly. The Trump-supported bill also makes sharp cuts in Pell Grant awards. The Center for American Progress says this means 4.4 million students from low- and moderate-income families could lose some or all of their federal grant aid. In another blow to Americans earning under $50,000, Trump pushed to have the budget bill eliminate the 'Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program', which, as one website put it, 'keeps poor people from freezing to death at home'. Killing the program would end heating subsidies for 6 million Americans, but so far congressional Republicans have spared the program and not bowed to Trump on this. In another blow to blue-collar Americans, the bill would undo much of Joe Biden's efforts to speed the creation of clean-energy industries, and that could put hundreds of thousands of potential jobs at risk, many of them factory jobs. 'In this bill, folks in Congress went out of their way not to give anything to low-income people,' said Chuck Marr, vice-president for federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. He noted that in previous tax cut bills that favored the rich, GOP lawmakers made sure to include some sweeteners for low- and moderate-income Americans. 'But in this bill,' Marr said, 'folks in Congress said: no, we're going to go after these people. They're going after healthcare and food, and these are the people who are also going to get hammered by Trump's tariffs.' Lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on goods. 'This bill is a major shift,' Marr added. 'They're taking away from poor people and working-class people and channeling it to very high-income people. I think it's punitive. It's harsh. I mean, brutal.' Trump's tariffs would also hit less affluent Americans hardest. One study found that Trump's planned tariffs would cause the bottom 20% of households to pay up to 5.5% of their income toward tariff-caused higher prices. That's more than two and a half times the percentage that those in the top 20% would pay (2.1% of income). Trump has repeatedly boasted that the bill contains several provisions he championed to help working-class Americans. At a White House event to promote the bill, he pointed to a DoorDash driver from Wisconsin who was on hand to help make his case that the 'no tax on tips' provision would help workers. But tax experts say that provision will help only a tiny fraction of those earning under $50,000. Only 4% of workers in the bottom half by income are in tipped jobs. Moreover, nearly two-fifths of tipped workers are already earning so little that they don't pay federal income taxes. 'Given how the current income tax system works, this provision will provide little or no benefit to those workers,' said Ricci. 'Those workers tend to have low incomes, and the US system doesn't basically tax their incomes, and this won't offer them any additional tax reduction.' In other words, the server making $100,000 a year at a high-end restaurant will benefit substantially from no tax on tips, while the hotel housekeeper or 20-hour-a-week waiter at a diner making $25,000 a year will be helped little or not at all. As for Trump's much-ballyhooed 'no tax on overtime' provision, that, too, will do little for those earning under $50,000, Ricci said. 'That provision is really geared to middle- and upper-middle groups,' he said. 'People in the bottom 50% aren't paying much income tax, and so no tax on overtime wouldn't benefit them much. People in the bottom 40%, they're often in a precarious employment situation. They're generally not working 45 or 50 hours a week.' Ricci estimated that for Americans in the bottom 40% by income, the no tax on overtime provision will mean 'less than a $10 tax cut per year'. 'It's essentially a rounding error,' he said. Republicans boast that increasing the child-tax credit will help millions of struggling families – the House bill would increase that credit, now $2,000, to $2,500, while the Senate raises it to $2,200. Under current law, one in four children – about 17 million – are ineligible to qualify for the full $2,000 credit because their family's income is too low to qualify for the full credit. A two-parent family with two children needs to earn over $48,000 to obtain the full credit. Under the House bill, a single parent with two children who earns $16,000 a year would get no additional tax credit, while a married couple with two kids and a $400,000 income would see their tax credit jump by $1,000. With their eagerness to cut the social safety net, Republicans seem to be treating millions of Americans who earn less than $50,000 as undeserving takers. 'People earning under $50,000 are major targets of the Republican agenda. Their health coverage is targeted. Their food security is targeted,' said Marr. 'They are left out of key provisions expanding tax cuts, like the child tax credit. They are most at risk from the Republican tariffs. They'll be hurt across the board.' Marr said the budget bill treats 'these people very harshly'. 'It's the harshest bill we've ever seen since budget deficits became an issue 40 years ago,' he said. 'This is the first bill that simultaneously targets programs for poor people and working-class people to pay for it, and then takes that money to pay for tax cuts for very wealthy people. It makes poor and working-class people worse off. That's not been done before.'

‘Our sense of safety was violated': a Black suburb in Ohio confronts repeated threats from white supremacists
‘Our sense of safety was violated': a Black suburb in Ohio confronts repeated threats from white supremacists

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

‘Our sense of safety was violated': a Black suburb in Ohio confronts repeated threats from white supremacists

Despite its proximity to a busy highway, Lincoln Heights' rolling hills, parks and well-kept lawns are pictures of calm suburban life north of Cincinnati. Today it's home to about 3,000 mostly African American people a few miles from Kentucky and the Ohio River, which divided free northern states from the slave-owning south. In the 1920s, Lincoln Heights became one of the first self-governing Black communities north of the Mason-Dixon line. But residents say much of that peace and security was destroyed on 7 February, when a group of neo-Nazis paraded on a highway overpass adjacent to the community. About a dozen armed and masked extremists unfurled flags with Nazi and other racist iconography bearing language such as 'America for the white man'. When locals heard what was happening on the bridge, many didn't think twice to act. Soon, a large group gathered to warn the extremists off. Racial slurs were hurled at locals while a small police presence attempted to maintain calm. 'I cannot understand how you can say that that was a peaceful protest. They were there with their flags, saying those things, they had guns,' says Lincoln Heights resident Syretha Brown. 'Their whole intent was to intimidate and cause fear. That is a crime. They used hateful speech. That together is a hate crime.' In the months since, locals have been left to wonder why the authorities acted the way they did that day. Although the white supremacists had no permit for their gathering, it was deemed legal by Evendale police, under whose jurisdiction the bridge falls, due to US free speech laws. Nor were the extremists ticketed by police for transporting themselves in the back of a box truck without using seatbelts. Evendale law enforcement said no citations were issued and the extremists were allowed to make off to a nearby school – with a police escort – in order to help de-escalate the situation. 'It's just beyond belief how they intermingled with the neo-Nazis,' says Lincoln Heights' mayor, Ruby Kinsey-Mumphrey, of the law enforcement response. 'I just don't think that they are sensitive to how that impacted this Black community.' The outcry forced Evendale police to apologize for their handling of the incident, and two investigations soon followed. Released last month, one found – to no little controversy among Lincoln Heights residents – that 'Evendale officers did perform well in recognizing and understanding the constitutional rights of all parties involved', and recommended that officers receive further training in handling large groups and protests. Many Lincoln Heights residents are not impressed. 'For the police to participate in the way that they did sort of solidified what I thought,' says Brown of the 7 February march and the Evendale police's response. She says that the claims by police that the neo-Nazis were allowed to leave the scene by illegally transporting themselves in the back of a box truck in order to maintain the peace doesn't stand up to reason. 'If that's the case, once [the police] got them away from the situation, why was nobody pulled out of the truck or asked for ID? I feel like at this point, there's laws for [African Americans] and laws for [everyone else],' she says. 'Why? Because Trump has said that this is how it has to go for the police that the extremists can't be charged. Nothing that has happened from 7 February until today am I shocked about.' Many Americans feel the Trump administration's pardoning of the 6 January rioters, and, more recently, its deployments of the national guard on the streets of Los Angeles and granting refugee status to white South Africans highlight a racist undertone that creates a broader, permissive environment for groups and individuals with rightwing tendencies. This month it was announced that no charges would be filed against the neo-Nazi group that marched on the Cincinnati bridge; many Lincoln Heights residents are boycotting Evendale in response to its handling of the incident. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Within weeks, the Lincoln Heights community set up a safety and watch program that sees locals, some of them armed, patrol the streets. When she attended a news conference highlighting the Evendale police investigation's findings last month, Brown found herself escorted out of the room shortly after asking a question. Despite what has happened, Brown says she feels safer in Lincoln Heights than elsewhere. 'Am I more concerned now? No. Am I prepared? Yes,' she says, adding that she plans to run for a seat on Lincoln Heights' city council. Residents of Lincoln Heights have faced discrimination ever since its foundation a century ago. When leaders attempted to incorporate the city in the 1930s and early 1940s in order to provide residents with basic services, neighboring cities opposed the move. While Lincoln Heights' repeated attempts to incorporate were pushed back, neighboring communities, including Evendale, were allowed to become established. When they did, they took with them a host of industrial areas and factories, leaving Lincoln Heights without much in the way of access to commercial tax income by the time it finally incorporated in 1946. Just east of Interstate 75, the headquarters of the GE Aerospace conglomerate provides Evendale authorities with millions of dollars in tax revenue every year and employs about 5,000 people. And while Evendale's median household income is about $155,000, next door in Lincoln Heights, it's just $17,333. Having lost more than half its population since its 1960s heyday, today Lincoln Heights is now less than 1 sq mile in size. With a tiny tax base, its schools are underfunded, forcing many families to educate their children elsewhere. In 2023, its high school, long since derelict, was bulldozed. And yet, extremists have kept coming back. Weeks after the neo-Nazi incident, members of the safety and watch program spotted a man dumping Ku Klux Klan recruitment literature on the streets in the middle of the night, and alerted law enforcement. When police stopped and cited the white supremacist man – for littering – they found a peace banner that was previously placed on the highway overpass by locals in his trunk. The hateful literature was quickly picked up. 'We feel grateful that the men in our community stood up and protected us, that our children didn't wake up to those flyers. That our seniors didn't have to wake up fearful,' says Brown of the safety and watch program participants. For others, fears that past racism is resurging is hugely unsettling. 'We see this in our history books, that [racist attacks] happened to Dr Martin Luther King, to Malcolm X. But to see it in today's society leaves you speechless,' says Kinsey-Mumphrey. 'They were trying to tell us – the oldest African American community here in the United States – [that] we were targeted. Our sense of safety was violated.'

Scientists warn US will lose a generation of talent because of Trump cuts
Scientists warn US will lose a generation of talent because of Trump cuts

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Scientists warn US will lose a generation of talent because of Trump cuts

A generation of scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump administration's dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth, according to a Guardian investigation. The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, as well as meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian. The scientists warn that Trump's assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US. 'Before Trump, the review process was based on merit and impact. Now, it's like rolling the dice because a Doge person has the final say,' said one current program officer. 'There has never in the history of NSF been anything like this. It's disgusting what we're being instructed to do.' Another program officer said: 'The exact details of the extra step is opaque but I can say with high confidence that people from Doge or its proxies are scrutinizing applications with absolutely devastating consequences. The move amounts to the US willingly conceding global supremacy to competitors like China in biological, social and physical sciences. It is a mind-boggling own-goal.' The NSF, founded in 1950, is the only federal agency that funds fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering, and which over the years has contributed to major breakthroughs in organ transplants, gene technology, AI, smartphones and the internet, extreme weather and other hazard warning systems, American sign language, cybersecurity and even the language app Duolingo. In normal times, much of the NSF budget ($9bn in 2024/25) is allocated to research institutions after projects undergo a rigorous three-step review process – beginning with the program officer, an expert in the field, who ensures the proposed study fits in with the agency's priorities. The program officer convenes an expert panel to evaluate the proposal on two statutory criteria – intellectual merit and broader impacts on the nation and people – which under the NSF's legal mandate includes broadening participation of individuals, institutions, and geographic regions in Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Applications from across the country which are greenlighted by the program officer are almost always funded, though may be subject to tweaks after revision by the division director before the grants directorate allocates the budget. That was before Trump. Now, Doge personnel can veto any study – without explanation, the Guardian has confirmed. 'We are under pressure to only fund proposals that fit the new narrow priorities even if they did not review as well as others,' said one current program officer. 'The NSF's gold standard review process has 100% been compromised.' Research aimed at addressing the unequal impact of the climate crisis and other environmental hazards is particularly vulnerable, according to several sources. New proposals are also being screened for any direct reference or indirect connection to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI). 'NSF is being asked to make science racist again – which contradicts evidence that shows that diversity of ideas is good for science and good for innovation. We are missing things when only white males do science,' said one program officer. In addition to Doge interfering in new proposals, at least 1,653 active NSF research grants authorized on their merits have so far been abruptly cancelled – abandoned midway through the project, according to Grant Watch, a non-profit tracker of federal science and health research grants canceled under Trump. Multiple NSF scientists who oversee a diverse range of NSF programs described the grant cancellations as 'unprecedented', 'arbitrary' and a 'colossal waste of taxpayer money'. Almost 60% of the projects abandoned are in states which voted for Joe Biden in 2024, Guardian analysis found. Meanwhile more than one in nine cancelled grants – 12% of the total – were at Harvard University, which Trump has particularly targeted since coming to power in January. In addition, studies deemed to be violating Trump's executive orders on DEI and environmental justice – regardless of their scientific merit, potential impact or urgency – are being abruptly terminated at particularly high rates. It's not uncommon for the NSF and other federal research agencies to shift focus to reflect a new administration's priorities. Amid mounting evidence on the crucial role of diversity in innovation and science, Biden priorities included increased effort to tackle inequalities across the Stem workforce – and a commitment to target underserved communities most affected by the climate crisis and environmental harms. Trump's priorities are AI, quantum information science, nuclear, biotech and translational research. 'It's normal that a new administration will emphasize some areas, de-emphasize others, and we would gradually transition to new priorities. During the George W Bush administration there were shenanigans around climate change, but it was nothing like this kind of meddling in the scientific review process. You never just throw proposals in the garbage can,' said one current NSF staffer. 'Our mandate is to advance science and innovation. And we just can't do that if we're not thinking about diversifying the Stem workforce. We don't have enough people or diversity of thought without broadening participation – which is part of the NSF mission mandate,' said a former program officer from the Directorate for Computer and Information Science who recently accepted a buyout. 'It has been soul-sucking to see projects that went through the review process being changed or terminated over and over again,' they added. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% over the past 75 years, meaning US taxpayers have gotten back between $1.50 and $3 for every dollar invested. Trump's big, beautiful bill calls for a 56% cut to the current $9bn NSF budget, as well as a 73% reduction in staff and fellowships – with graduate students among the hardest hit. Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) announced that it will be moving into the NSF headquarters in Virginia over the course of the next two years. The shock announcement – which did not include any plans on relocating more than 1,800 NSF employees – has triggered speculation that the administration eventually plans to defund the agency entirely. For now, program officers are also being instructed to return research proposals to scientists and institutions 'without review' – regardless of merit and despite having been submitted in response to specific NSF solicitations to address gaps in scientific and engineering knowledge around some of the most pressing concerns in the US. This includes projects that have in fact undergone review, and others which can no longer be processed due to staff and program cuts, according to multiple NSF sources. In one case, a 256-page proposal by scientists at four public universities to use ancient DNA records to better forecast biodiversity loss as the planet warms was apparently archived without consideration. In an email seen by the Guardian, the NSF told Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist and principal investigator (lead scientist) based at the University of Maine, that all proposals submitted to the Biology Integration Institute program were returned without review. A second email said their specific proposal had been 'administratively screened' and the area of proposed study was 'inappropriate for NSF funding'. An estimated 40% of animals and 34% of plants across the US are currently at risk. The proposed study would have used an emerging technology to extract ancient DNA from lake sediments, ice cores and cave deposits to better understand which species fared better or worse when the planet naturally warmed thousands of years ago – in order to help model and protect biodiversity in the face of human-made climate change. Gill told the Guardian the team took great care to avoid any reference to DEI or climate change. The grant would have created much-needed research capacity in the US, which is lagging behind Europe in this field. 'Ancient DNA records allow you to reconstruct entire ecosystems at a very high level. This is a very new and emerging science, and grants like this help catalyze the research and reinvest in US infrastructure and workforce in ways that have huge returns on investments for their local economies. It's an absolute slap in the face that the proposal was returned without review,' Gill said. In another example, two academic institutions chosen to receive prestigious $15m grants for translational research – a Trump priority – after a 30-month cross-agency review process led by the engineering directorate and involving hundreds of people will not be honored. The proposals selected for the award through merit review will be returned without review for being 'inappropriate for NSF funding', the Guardian understands. 'This is complex, very high-impact translation science to achieve sustainability across cities and regions and industries … we're being instructed to put the principal investigators off, but nothing's going to get funded because there's DEI in this program,' said an NSF employee with knowledge of the situation. Meanwhile scores of other proposals approved on merit by program officers are disappearing into a 'black box' – languishing for weeks or months without a decision or explanation, which was leading some to 'self-censor', according to NSF staff. 'It's either NSF staff self-censoring to make sure they don't get into trouble, or it is censorship by somebody inserted in the scientific review process from Doge. Either way it's a political step, and therefore problematic,' said Anne Marie Schmoltner, a program officer in the chemistry division who retired in February after 30 years in the agency. In addition to distributing funds to seasoned researchers, the NSF supports students and up-and-coming scientists and engineers through fellowships, research opportunities and grants. This next generation of talent is being hit particularly hard under Trump, who is attempting to impose sweeping restrictions on visas and travel bans on scores of countries. The proposed 2026 budget includes funding for only 21,400 under- and postgraduate students nationwide – a 75% fall on this year. Like many scientists across the country, Gill, the paleoecologist, is not accepting new graduate students this fall due to funding uncertainty. 'That's a whole generation of young scientists who see no pathway into the field for them. I cannot stress enough how deeply upsetting and demoralizing these cuts are to a community of people who only ever wanted to solve problems and be of use.' Yet the NSF student pipeline provides experts for the oil and gas, mining, chemical, big tech and other industries which support Trump, in addition to academic and government-funded agencies. 'Industry is working on optimizing what they're doing right now, whereas NSF is looking 10, 20 years down the road. The US wants a global, robust economy and for that you need innovation, and for innovation you need the fundamental research funded by the NSF,' said Schmoltner. The NSF declined to comment, referring instead to the agency website last updated in April which states: 'The principles of merit, competition, equal opportunity and excellence are the bedrock of the NSF mission. NSF continues to review all projects using Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria.' The sweeping cuts to the NSF come on top of Trump's dismantling of other key scientific research departments within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Geological Service (USGS). The USGS is the research arm of the Department of Interior. Its scientists help solve real-life problems about hazards, natural resources, water, energy, ecosystems, and the impacts of climate and land-use change for tribal governments, the Bureau of Land Management, fish and wildlife services, and the National Parks Service among other interior agencies. Trump's big, beautiful bill cuts the USGS budget by 39%. This includes slashing the entire budget for the agency's ecosystems mission area (EMA), which leads federal research on species & ecosystems and houses the climate adaptation science centers. EMA scientists figure out how to better protect at-risk species such as bees and wolverines, minimize harmful overgrazing on BLM lands, and prevent invasive carp from reaching the Great Lakes – all vitally important to protect food security in the US as the climate changes. The EMA has already lost 25 to 30% of employees through Doge-approved layoffs and buyouts, and is now facing termination. 'We've already lost a lot of institutional memory and new, up-and-coming leaders. [If Trump's budget is approved], all science in support of managing our public lands and natural resources would be cut,' said one USGS program officer. 'Our economy is driven by natural resources including timber, minerals and food systems, and if we don't manage these in a sustainable way, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.' Like at the NSF, the USGC's gold standard peer-review system for research approval and oversight is now at the mercy of Doge – in this case Tyler Hasson, the former oil executive given sweeping authority by the interior secretary. According to USGS staff, Hasson's office accepts or rejects proposals based on two paragraphs of information program officers are permitted to submit – without any dialogue or feedback. 'The gold standard scientific review is being interfered with. This is now a political process,' said one USGS scientist. A spokesperson for the interior department said: 'The claim that science is being 'politicized' is categorically false. We reject the narrative that responsible budget reform constitutes an 'assault on science'. On the contrary, we are empowering American innovation by cutting red tape, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that the next generation of scientists and engineers can focus on real-world solutions – not endless paperwork or politically motivated research agendas.' The USGS, office of management and budget and White House did not respond to requests from comment.

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