States sue over Trump cuts to research funding, STEM diversity efforts
By Daniel Wiessner
(Reuters) -A group of U.S. states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to block the administration of President Donald Trump from making massive cuts to federal funding for scientific research and projects focused on increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering, and math fields.
The attorneys general of 16 states, including New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey, say the Trump administration lacks the power to cap research funding and eliminate diversity programs provided by the National Science Foundation that were mandated by Congress.
The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court.
Earlier this month, 13 major U.S. universities sued over NSF's decision to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs such as lab space and equipment at 15%, which mirrored funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy that judges have temporarily blocked.
Wednesday's lawsuit also challenges the cap at NSF along with the elimination of programs designed to boost the participation of women, minorities and people with disabilities in STEM fields. The states say both efforts could cause the U.S. to lose its position as a global leader in STEM research.
"Institutions will not be able to maintain essential research infrastructure and will be forced to significantly scale back or halt research, abandon numerous projects, and lay off staff," they said.
The NSF declined to comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The White House has proposed slashing NSF's $8.8 billion budget by more than 55%, and said it plans to restructure and drastically downsize the agency.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said people use technology made possible by NSF funding every time they go online, scan a barcode at a store, or get an MRI scan.
'This administration's attacks on basic science and essential efforts to ensure diversity in STEM will weaken our economy and our national security," James, a Democrat, said in a statement.
The states claim that the reimbursement cap would devastate scientific research at universities throughout the country.
James' office said New York state universities received $104 million in NSF funding last year, which supported research into microelectronics, climate research and battery technology.
They claim the cap and the elimination of diversity programs violate a federal law barring "arbitrary and capricious" actions by agencies, and violate the constitutional separation of powers by encroaching on funding decisions made by Congress.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine's memorandum proposes ceasefire across land, air, and sea, NYT reports
Ukraine's proposed memorandum to Russia includes provisions for a ceasefire on land, in the air, and at sea, to be monitored by international partners, the New York Times (NYT) reported on May 30, citing an unnamed senior Ukrainian official. Ukraine has submitted its document to the Russian side ahead of a second round of peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow that may take place in Istanbul on June 2, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said on May 28. The points reported by NYT echo Ukraine's and its partners' long-standing call for a comprehensive, unconditional ceasefire on land, in the air, and at sea for at least 30 days — a proposal Russia has consistently ignored. The peace talks in Istanbul also concluded on May 16 with no agreement between the two sides on a ceasefire. Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Serhii Kyslytsia, who was present at the Istanbul talks, said that Russia's negotiating team in Istanbul has repeatedly stated that "an unconditional ceasefire is categorically unacceptable." Moscow has proposed June 2 as the date for the next round of talks with Ukraine, despite escalating its attacks on the country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on May 29 that the Russian delegation, led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, is prepared to present the ceasefire memorandum to the Ukrainian side and provide necessary clarifications during the next Istanbul meeting. Presidential Office Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak said that Ukraine is ready to hold the new round of talks next week but insists on receiving the memorandum in advance. Reuters reported that Putin's conditions for ending Russia's war against Ukraine include a written pledge by NATO not to accept more Eastern European members, lifting of some sanctions, and Ukraine's neutral status, among other demands. Read also: Infighting around EU rearmament undermines grand ambitions for European defense We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Politicians, scared of truly open primaries, offer ‘limited' alternative for nonpartisan voters
Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) A ballot measure to establish an open-primary, ranked-choice voting system in Nevada may have been rejected by voters last November, but its underlying message of voter disenfranchisement clearly struck a chord with Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager. The Assembly's top Democrat, who opposed that ballot measure, said he suspects changes to Nevada's closed primary system are coming whether the political establishment wants it or not: 'The dam is going to break one way or another. The question is: Are we going to be part of the process?' To that end, Yeager is proposing Assembly Bill 597, which would allow nonpartisan voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic primary. He introduced the bill as an emergency measure on Monday, a week before the end of the session, and presented it to the Senate and Assembly committees on legislative operations and elections during a joint meeting Thursday. Yeager described his bill as a 'pushing back' to Question 3, the election reform proposal approved by voters in 2022 but rejected by voters in 2024. That ballot measure, which needed to pass twice because it proposed amending the state constitution, was heavily funded by out-of-state election reform groups. Those groups viewed Nevada as 'a playground in which they can experiment,' Yeager said. 'We know they will continue to attempt to exploit this issue' of closed primaries 'to fool around with our elections.' AB 597 is 'much simpler' than Question 3. There would still be Republican and Democratic primaries. The only change would be that a registered nonpartisan voter could cast a ballot in one of them. (Question 3 proposed putting all candidates on the primary ballot regardless of political party, with the top five finishers appearing on the general election for voters to rank in order of preference.) Yeager described AB 597 as a common sense solution that addresses the growing number of nonpartisan voters in the state. As of April 2025, 34.9% of registered voters in Nevada are nonpartisan, 29% are Republican and 29% are Democrats, according to the Secretary of State's Office. The remaining 7% of registered voters are members of minor parties like the Independent American or Libertarian parties. That means nonpartisan and third-party voters are the biggest voting bloc in the state. Yet they are unable to participate in the primary elections their tax dollars pay for unless they agree to temporarily affiliate with a major political party. The Nevada State Democratic Party, which opposed Question 3, has not expressed support or opposition for AB 597. But Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat and the state's top election official, spoke in support of the bill. The Nevada State Republican Party is strongly opposed to AB 597, as they were to Question 3. Representatives from the state party and affiliated local party groups argued that allowing nonpartisans to participate in party primaries would dilute party values and invite interference from outsiders. Opponents also argued the bill is unnecessary because nonpartisan voters can already participate in a primary by temporarily registering to a political party. Nevada offers same-day voter registration, which means nonpartisan voters have that option all the way through election day. 'I think that practically that just doesn't happen,' Yeager countered. 'People are not going to change party registration and then change back. They're not partisan for a reason or not affiliated for a reason.' Some election advocates worry nonpartisan voters may similarly be turned off by the process laid out in AB 597. Yeager plans to introduce an amendment to require nonpartisan voters request a political party primary ballot by 'the 7th Monday before the election day.' (In real terms: That would have been April 23 for last year's June 11 primary.) Nonpartisans after that date would have to vote in person. Yeager's proposed amendment would also keep the state-run presidential preference primary closed. Doug Goodman, the founder of Nevadans for Election Reform, has pushed for fully open primaries for more than a decade. He took a neutral position on AB 597, saying the bill is 'far from ideal' and only 'a small start.' The bill doesn't address disenfranchisement of voters registered to minor parties, who still would be unable to participate in a major political party primary without leaving their preferred party. It also doesn't address the issue of voters not being able to cast ballots in the significant number of races decided in competitive primaries where the winner goes on to run unopposed in a general election. That is a particularly common occurrence in districts that lean heavily toward one party. Sondra Cosgrove, another outspoken advocate for election reform in Nevada, took a similar position as Goodman, though she described herself as 'reluctantly in support' of AB 597. 'In America elections belong to the people, not the political parties,' she said in a statement to the Current. 'So, I plan to run a ballot question in 2026 to adopt a fully open primary so that the people of Nevada can discuss how we would like our primary election to be managed. Many political commentators believe major election reform will only come to Nevada through a ballot measure backed by outsiders because the existing political establishment benefits from the current system. The Legislature must adjourn Monday, leaving lawmakers only a few days to pass Yeager's bill. If they do, it could still be vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who has already vetoed one election bill this session.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel's actions in Gaza are genocide, says Ben & Jerry's
The independent board of Ben & Jerry's has claimed that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in a move that threatens to further inflame tensions with its parent company Unilever. The ice cream brand, known for its outspoken approach to social issues, said: 'We join with those around the world who denounce the genocide in Gaza. 'We stand with all who raise their voices against genocide in Gaza – from petition-signers to street marchers to those risking arrest.' The independent board made the comments in a statement seen by Reuters. Its description of Israel's actions as genocide comes just weeks after one of the brand's co-founders, Ben Cohen, was arrested in the US Senate for protesting against the provision of military aid to Israel during testimony by Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary. The statement by the independent board threatens to deepen the disagreement between Ben & Jerry's and Unilever. The two sides have been at odds over Israel and Gaza for many months. The ice cream brand sued Unilever in November 2024, claiming that the company had attempted to block it from making public statements about the conflict. The two companies have clashed over Israel before, including in 2021 when Ben & Jerry's stopped selling its ice cream in the occupied West Bank, arguing that doing business there was 'inconsistent' with its values. In response, Unilever sold its Israeli ice cream business, causing a legal battle that was later resolved. Founded by Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in 1978 in Vermont, Ben & Jerry's has repeatedly spoken out on issues such as refugees' rights, LGBTQ+ issues and climate change. Though it has been owned by Unilever since 2000, an agreement was written into its $326m (£241m) acquisition deal to allow the company to continue operating with an independent board. This effectively protected the company's ability to take a stand on social issues. However, Ben & Jerry's has accused its owner of undermining that deal. In March, the brand accused Unilever of ousting Dave Stever, its chief executive, over his outspoken approach to political and social issues, rather than because of performance. Escalating tensions threaten to overshadow the much-anticipated spin-off of Unilever's ice cream arm into a separate business in an effort to streamline and focus on its core business of consumer goods such as Dove soap and Hellmann's mayonnaise. A Unilever spokesman said: 'We took notice of the comments made by members of the social mission board of Ben & Jerry's. 'Unilever supports efforts for a peaceful resolution and the end of violence to conflicts around the world. Unilever is in litigation with the above mentioned board and will not comment on its positions.' Ben & Jerry's and its founders were approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
