Judge blocks Trump order limiting 'indirect' NIH research costs after public outcry
A judge temporarily halted a directive by the Trump administration that imposed a cap on overhead costs that go to universities and other institutions that host federally funded research projects.
The directive, which went into effect Monday, sparked an outcry of criticism from research institutions that argued the new rule would have devastating consequences. It was immediately challenged in court by 22 Democratic state attorneys general, as well as by several leading research universities and related groups in a second lawsuit.
U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelley subsequently ruled in favor of the 22 state attorneys general, granting their request for a temporary restraining order that prohibits agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule that imposed a cap on facilities and administrative costs that are part of federally funded research grants.
'What A Ripoff!': Trump Sparks Backlash After Cutting Billions In Overhead Costs From Nih Research Grants
The rule capped overhead costs associated with National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research grants at 15%.
When a grant is awarded to a scientist by the NIH, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these "indirect costs." According to an announcement about the new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be even higher, such as at the University of Michigan where the negotiated rate for indirect costs is 56%.
Read On The Fox News App
The lawsuit from the attorneys general argued the move violated federal law governing the procedures federal agencies must follow when implementing new regulations. They also argued that the move usurped the will of Congress, which, in 2018, passed legislation prohibiting the NIH or the Health and Human Services Department from unilaterally making changes to current negotiated rates, or implementing a modified approach to the reimbursement of indirect costs.
University Professor Hails That Science 'Thrived' Under Hitler In Attack On Trump's Nih Cuts
Kelley's temporary restraining order requires the Trump administration agencies that are impacted by the new rule to file reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to comply with her order. Meanwhile, Kelley set an in-person hearing date on the matter for Feb. 21.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on the restraining order, but did not hear back at press time. However, after the directive went into effect on Monday, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Fox News Digital, "Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less."
Earlier on Monday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said the Trump administration had violated his order halting a federal aid funding freeze that sought to pause "all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance," to ensure federal disbursements aligned with the president's executive actions.
McConnell ordered the government to "immediately restore frozen funding," noting that plaintiffs had provided adequate evidence to show the Trump administration "in some cases [has] continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds," despite his "clear and unambiguous" order lifting the freeze.Original article source: Judge blocks Trump order limiting 'indirect' NIH research costs after public outcry
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
How Trump went from opposing Israel's strikes on Iran to reluctant support
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump had opposed Israeli military action against Iran, favoring negotiations over bombing. But in the days before the strikes began, he became convinced that Israel's heightened anxiety over Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities was warranted. After a pivotal briefing from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, on Israel's plans and U.S. options for supporting its operation, he gave tacit approval to Israel to have at it and decided to provide limited U.S. backing. When Caine briefed him on June 8, Trump was increasingly frustrated with Iran for not responding to the latest proposal for a nuclear deal. He still remained hopeful that his Middle East peace negotiator, Steve Witkoff, who had been scheduled to conduct another round of peace talks in the region Sunday, could soon get an agreement over the line. Trump was also facing private pressure from longtime allies who advocate more isolationist policies and wanted him to stop Israel from taking military action or at least withhold U.S. support for any such operation. This account of Trump's thinking leading up to the Israeli operation is based on interviews with five current U.S. officials and two Middle Eastern officials, as well as two people with knowledge of the deliberations, two former U.S officials familiar with the deliberations and a Trump ally. The White House didn't immediately comment, and the Defense Department didn't respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, Israel grew more convinced that the threat posed by Tehran was getting increasingly serious and urgent. And while he had already decided not to stand in Israel's way, on Thursday, only hours before the strikes began, Trump remained at least publicly hopeful that diplomacy would win the day. "I don't want them going in, because I think it would blow it — might help it actually, but it also could blow it, but we've had very good discussions with Iran," Trump told reporters at a bill signing ceremony. "I prefer the more friendly path." Behind the scenes, the Israelis had already laid much of the groundwork for Trump's measured change. Trump had hoped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could be persuaded not to mount an attack. But over the past week, he came to accept that Israel was determined to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities and that the United States would have to lend some military support for defensive purposes, as well as some intelligence support. After the strikes began Thursday evening, the administration took pains to say it had provided no military assistance to Israel, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also the national security adviser, pointedly omitted any mention of U.S. support for Israel's operations in a statement. But the administration's public statements the next day did leave the door open to the United States' having provided some of the kind of intelligence Israel needed to mount an attack. Israel was able to conduct its initial strikes mostly with its own intelligence and capabilities — killing three military leaders and nine top scientists working on nuclear enrichment and destroying several nuclear enrichment sites, Israeli officials have said — but it also leaned heavily on American intelligence, bunker-buster bombs that were provided this year and air defense systems, some of which were scrambled into the region quickly in recent days. But Trump still wouldn't sign off on everything Israel wanted. After the start of their military campaign, the Israelis collected intelligence that could have allowed them to target and kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Netanyahu presented the operation to Trump, who opposed the plan altogether and wouldn't allow the United States to participate, according to two U.S. officials. No Americans had been killed in the conflict, so Trump didn't believe it would be appropriate to remove Khamenei, the political leader, and recommended against the Israelis' conducting the operation, the officials said. On Sunday, he appeared to advocate again for talks over strikes, saying on his social media platform, Truth Social: "Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make. ... Many calls and meetings now taking place. I do a lot, and never get credit for anything, but that's OK, the PEOPLE understand. MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN!" Trump's approach to Israel's military campaign started to take form last Sunday at Camp David, the presidential retreat in rural Maryland. By that time, Israeli officials had already begun to share extensive information with U.S. officials about their potential operation. Caine, the Joint Chiefs chairman, briefed Trump and his national security team about the Israeli plans to strike Iran and U.S. options, according to two U.S. officials and one of the people familiar with the deliberations. Those options, the three sources said, included logistical support, like refueling Israeli jet fighters, sharing intelligence and using the American military's electronic warfare capabilities to help Israel jam enemy weapons and communications. Another option was to provide direct military support to Israel, even having U.S. jets drop munitions in active combat alongside Israeli fighters, for example. And yet another option, Caine briefed Trump, was to do nothing at all. Trump has consistently said he wants to extract the United States from foreign conflicts and has sought to use diplomacy to end Russia's war on Ukraine and the fighting in Gaza, albeit without success. But Israel was getting anxious, and it wasn't convinced that Trump's plan for peace in the region would work. Netanyahu and his war Cabinet didn't have faith in the U.S. negotiations with Iran taking place in Oman, despite Washington's public pronouncements that a deal was close. For months, the Trump administration has pressed the Israelis not to carry out strikes on Iran and warned that the United States wouldn't support them if they did. By the end of last week, the White House's public tone started to include more support for Israel, and in private it shifted from strong opposition against a widespread military operation to acceptance that it was likely to happen and less resistance to it. Among the reasons for Trump's change of heart was the declaration Thursday by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran was in breach of its nonproliferation requirements. Trump was also concerned by the sense coming from Israel, the United States and the IAEA that Iran had achieved leaps in its nuclear program, and he didn't want to be the president on whose watch it was able to obtain a nuclear weapon. The United States had already been quietly moving some pieces into place to prepare for the Israeli attack. In recent days, U.S. European Command was told some of its P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance planes would be diverted to the Middle East to conduct surveillance. Then, in remarks that drew little attention last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that more than 20,000 U.S. anti-drone missiles meant for Kyiv had been diverted — to the Middle East. Trump and Netanyahu spoke several times in the previous week, but by last Monday, Trump had grown convinced that Israel was going to strike and was starting to put more pieces into place to help support the strike. Soon after that conversation last Monday, the Pentagon directed European Command to send a Navy destroyer to sit off Israel to help defend it in the likely event of a counterattack from Tehran, joining two more and a carrier strike group already there. Witkoff had been expected to travel to Muscat for peace talks as late as Friday. With the conflict still active, the U.S. side acknowledged that those talks were off. But it's not shutting the door to future discussions. "While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon," an administration official told news organizations.
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
As a Fiduciary, I Know the Tesla Board Needs to Fire Elon Musk
Even before Elon Musk's social media posts recently wiped out $152 billion in value from Tesla in a single day, many public pensions and institutional investors had been growing uneasy about the financial risks of investing in Tesla brought about by the CEO's political activity: with Tesla's annual shareholder meeting expected next month, major Tesla investors have written open letters, penned op-eds, and filed lawsuits expressing their concerns. However, most Tesla investors are misunderstanding the nature of the risk of investing in the company. In May, the $500 million Lehigh County pension fund, which I sit on as an elected financial officer, became the first pension fund in the country to halt all new purchases of Tesla stock in our actively managed funds. We took this step because it reflects a basic fiduciary responsibility: when a stock carries outsized risk, as Tesla's now surely does owing to Musk's political activity, the prudent move is to stop buying that stock and reassess whether it's a wise investment of public employees' money. Elon Musk, wearing two hats, speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2025. Elon Musk, wearing two hats, speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images Rather than pausing new investments or considering divestment, many pension officials and asset managers are instead pressing Tesla's board to get Elon Musk to return to working full-time at the company, as if the core problem is simply that Musk is too distracted. However, this assertion overlooks a far more serious problem: Musk's reputation is so tarnished that Tesla won't be able to thrive as long as he remains the CEO. Musk is the reason that Tesla sales have fallen off a cliff, with profits declining by 71 percent in the first three months of 2025. It is well documented that consumers that are left-of-center politically make up Tesla's core consumer base. Between 2012 and 2023, half of all EV purchases in the U.S. were made in the country's 10 percent most Democratic counties. Now that Musk has alienated this core consumer base, the company's sales and profits have nosedived as a result. There was some hope among investors that the Democratic-voting consumers Tesla lost would be made up for by Republican voters purchasing Teslas. However, in spite of President Donald Trump turning the White House into a Tesla commercial earlier this year, there is little evidence that this has happened. As The Economist reported, "Even Republicans now appear to be spurning his EVs." And this was before Musk called for Trump to be impeached and accused him of being in the Epstein files. What's more, Tesla is a global brand―and if anything, Musk's reputation outside of the U.S. is even more toxic. Last year, Musk attempted to make an intervention in the German election, backing the AfD, a party that has been classified as a far-right extremist party by German spy agencies. The backlash was swift with many in Germany repelled by the image of a wealthy foreigner meddling in their elections. Tesla sales in Germany, the largest car market in Europe, are down 62.2 percent so far this year. Musk is also the reason that Tesla's stock price declined nearly 14 percent on June 5, after he publicly attacked President Trump in an incredible tirade on his social media platform X. After wiping out $152 billion of shareholder value, Musk shared a video in which he said, "I don't care. I'll say what I want to say and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." Even if Musk was to turn away from politics, there is little reason to believe that he is the man to turn around Tesla's fortunes. Whether it's the high profile reports of his problems with drug addiction, his controversial stances on social issues, the fact that he also runs half-a-dozen other companies, or that he doesn't care about losing money, it's clear that Musk is no longer the leader that Tesla needs. Those of us who are invested in Tesla, and especially those of us who are responsible for overseeing workers' hard-earned retirement savings, shouldn't be shy about saying what is already clear: the Tesla board should fire Elon Musk and find a new CEO. Mark Pinsley is Lehigh County controller. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here are some of the Texas Democrats eyeing statewide runs in 2026
With the legislative session over, Texas Democrats are turning their attention to the 2026 elections for the state's most powerful offices — with the hope that midterm backlash against the Trump administration will help the party reverse course from its recent blowout losses and snap a three-decade losing streak. More than a dozen statewide offices will appear on next year's ballot, including governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, in addition to one of Texas' two U.S. Senate seats. The comptroller, land and agriculture commissioners, and several statewide judicial seats are also up for reelection. Texas Democrats have struggled to mount competitive statewide campaigns since 2018, when Democrat Beto O'Rourke fell just short of unseating U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in what would have been the party's first statewide win since 1994. Their optimism has since been dashed by a failed push to flip the Texas House in 2020, O'Rourke's double-digit loss to Gov. Greg Abbott in 2022 and a 2024 cycle that saw President Donald Trump carry Texas by 14 percentage points and Cruz win reelection by more than triple his 2018 margin. But Democrats smell an opportunity to finally break through next year, the first midterm under Trump since their near-miss six years ago. Also fueling Democratic hopes is the prospect of Attorney General Ken Paxton, the hardline standard-bearer who has endured numerous scandals, leading the ballot if he topples incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP primary. At least six rising or already prominent Democrats have seen their names floated for one of the top four statewide offices — a pileup of potential candidates that is poised to come into focus over the next few months, with Democrats hoping to present a full, cohesive slate of candidates who can take on the Trump administration, message effectively against Republicans, fundraise and blanket the state ahead of the election. Several are looking closely at the Senate race and the chance to run against Paxton, who has led Cornyn by a wide margin in early polls. Those considering a run include two statewide campaign veterans: O'Rourke and former U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, who lost to Cruz last year by 8.5 points while overperforming the top of the ticket. Also in the mix are U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio and state Rep. James Talarico of Austin. O'Rourke has hosted several town halls around the state in recent months, including in Republican congressional districts, and said in April he would run for Senate 'if' Texans want him to. In a statement, he continued to leave open the possibility of a statewide run, saying, 'With so many of our neighbors and families being hurt right now, I'll continue standing up for the people of Texas — whether that's holding these town hall meetings, organizing and registering voters or running to serve and deliver for every person in this state.' A prodigious fundraiser with high name ID, O'Rourke would also enter the race with clear political baggage, after losing two statewide campaigns and failing to catch fire in a 2019 presidential run, during which he staked out numerous progressive stances that stymied his appeal to right-leaning moderates when running for governor. Allred, a Dallas Democrat and former NFL linebacker who was endorsed by Republican U.S. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, has also said he is 'seriously considering' another Senate run and would make a decision this summer. Though Allred was criticized by some Democrats for not running aggressively enough last year, he outpaced then-Vice President Kamala Harris' margin atop the ticket by more than 5 percentage points. In a June interview on the Dallas-based Lone Star Politics show, Allred said he would run 'differently' this time around, now that he's out of Congress. A May poll by Texas Southern University found that 45% of voters had a favorable opinion of Allred, the highest proportion of the six potential Senate candidates surveyed. 'I'm looking at it and seriously considering it,' Allred told the Dallas Morning News in March. 'This is a time for everybody to realize just what's at stake and how important it is that we all stay involved.' While Allred and O'Rourke are widely known from their previous statewide bids, Castro and Talarico would start from scratch among most voters outside their districts. Talarico, a seminarian and former public school teacher with a frequently viral social media presence, spent much of the legislative session creating moments of contrast with Republicans on issues like school vouchers and displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. He is often described as one of Texas Democrats' strongest communicators. 'I'm having conversations about how I can best serve Texas, and that includes the Senate race,' Talarico, who declined to comment for this story, told POLITICO this month. 'But in my training as a pastor, you learn the importance of listening and how hard it is to truly listen. With so much at stake for Texas, I'm trying to listen more than I talk right now.' Castro, who has represented his San Antonio-based district in Congress since 2013 after serving 10 years in the Texas House, has spoken to donors and party experts in recent months about the Senate race while holding town halls in both red and blue districts across the state. He was tapped in 2021 by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to help build the case against Trump over the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol for the president's second impeachment. San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who is term-limited after this year, has also seen his name thrown in the mix for Senate or to take on Abbott or Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, though he has emphasized a focus on closing out his tenure and ensuring a smooth transition to the next mayor, Gina Ortiz Jones, over the next few weeks. He has not said anything publicly about his 2026 aspirations. Most of the would-be Democratic candidates have voiced interest in the U.S. Senate race, with little chatter about who will step forward for the tall order of challenging Abbott, who has walloped all three Democratic gubernatorial candidates he has faced and established himself as the most prolific political fundraiser in Texas history. Further down the ballot, the attorney general post will be open for the first time since 2014 as Paxton leaves office to pursue his Senate bid. And Comptroller Glenn Hegar is departing at the end of the month to become chancellor of the Texas A&M University System, meaning the comptroller seat will either be open or defended by an unelected incumbent, depending on whether Hegar's Abbott-appointed successor decides to seek a full term. Democratic state Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas lawyer, is circling a likely run for attorney general, though he said that he had yet to make a final decision and had received encouragement to run for governor, lieutenant governor and comptroller. 'When I do decide, it will be a calculation of where I think I could be most useful, both from the standpoint of electoral viability and service in the office,' said Johnson, who can run without giving up his Senate seat. Two Republicans have already launched campaigns to succeed Paxton on the GOP ballot: state Sen. Mayes Middleton of Galveston and former Paxton aide and Department of Justice Trump appointee Aaron Reitz. Candidates in both parties have until early December to file for the 2026 ballot, though the scope of who is running for which office will likely shake out well before then, with candidates looking to have enough runway to build up their campaign war chests and start introducing themselves to voters. Allred, for instance, launched his Senate campaign in May 2023, and O'Rourke got into the Senate race against Cruz in March 2017. 'There's a funneling effect, and we're near the bottom of the funnel now,' Johnson said, adding that there were discussions about 'what might it look like if different people run in different places.' 'I'm thinking of this in terms of a functioning machine with different parts,' he added. 'If we have everybody vying to play one single part, the machine's not going to work.' State Rep. Vikki Goodwin of Austin has already announced her bid for lieutenant governor, giving up her safe Texas House seat to take on Patrick, the three-term Republican with more than $33 million in campaign funds and no shortage of conservative support. And while Abbott maintains a solid 44% approval rating — slightly better than where he stood at the same point four years ago, according to the Texas Politics Project — he is under pressure to veto an unpopular ban on THC products spearheaded by Patrick and approved by the Legislature this session. Democrats hope his next move could create an opening for them, though political experts say that issue alone is unlikely to pose a serious political threat. 'A lot of the headwinds that have limited Democrats' chances in the past couple of elections have at least reduced, if not blown themselves out,' Johnson contended. 'We're going to have a highly qualified array of candidates running for a variety of offices, and you will see an additive effect that I don't think Texas has seen in several cycles.' Disclosure: Politico, Texas A&M University, Texas Southern University - Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs and Texas A&M University System have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
