&w=3840&q=100)
MIT to cut student intake, staff jobs due to fund reduction by Trump govt
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US will reduce the number of graduate students it admits and lay off staff because of budget problems caused by less government funding and new tax rules. The announcement has fuelled broader concerns over the future of academic research in the United States.
According to a Bloomberg report, MIT will admit about 100 fewer graduate research students in the 2025 academic year. This is an 8 per cent drop from the current year. The cuts are happening because MIT is getting less money from federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health.
MIT is also reducing jobs in its administrative departments. A spokesperson, Kimberly Allen, said the university is asking all departments to cut their budgets by up to 10 per cent. However, she did not say how many staff members will lose their jobs.
Bloomberg reported, MIT President Sally Kornbluth anticipates more problems in the future. 'There could be more damage to MIT and to universities all across America, and to the entire American research ecosystem,' she said. 'While we do everything in our power to prevent that, we'll also be working to prepare the Institute and our community for a range of outcomes.'
Why is MIT cutting admissions and staff?
These budget problems are partly due to new policy changes under the Trump administration. One proposal passed by the US House of Representatives would raise taxes on colleges with large endowments. Private universities like MIT could face a 21 per cent tax on investment income—much higher than the current 1.4 per cent rate.
MIT's endowment is worth $25 billion, but most of it is already committed to specific purposes. Kornbluth warned that the new tax would be 'a devastating level of taxation' and could cost MIT hundreds of millions of dollars. This money usually supports research and student aid.
How is MIT responding to funding challenges?
Although MIT is doing better than nearby Harvard University—which has faced even more serious funding issues—Kornbluth said the cuts are still difficult for any research university. 'I truly wish there were another way to do this,' she said about the staff layoffs.
MIT has also launched an online campaign to show how important its research is for the country. Kornbluth asked former students to speak up for science funding. 'We need the whole country to appreciate that by investing in university research and educating the next generation of explorers and innovators, the country has reaped, and will continue to reap, tremendous rewards,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Harvard vs. Trump round two: US blocks foreign students over national security concerns
Trump blocks foreign students from entering Harvard over security concerns In a sweeping proclamation issued Wednesday evening, Trump barred the entry of foreign students under Harvard-hosted student and exchange visitor visas, citing national security concerns. The order, effective immediately, suspends new admissions under the F, M, and J visa categories, halting the arrival of students who were set to begin their academic journeys at Harvard. The proclamation also places current international students and researchers at the university under review, directing the U.S. Department of State to consider revoking existing visas on a case-by-case basis. The suspension is set to last for six months, with the possibility of an extension. The move comes on the heels of the Department of Homeland Security's earlier, failed attempt to decertify Harvard's ability to enrol international students — a decision that was blocked by a federal court after the university sued. Trump's proclamation appears to be a legal workaround, invoking presidential authority under Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act — the same basis used for the travel bans upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court during his first term. A Policy with Far-Reaching Impact Harvard currently hosts more than 10,000 international students and scholars. The ban disrupts not just their mobility, but also their education, research, and career trajectories. While current students may remain temporarily, their visa status is now subject to review under the banner of "national interest." Unlike previous broad travel bans that targeted specific countries, this order is unique in singling out one academic institution. It accuses Harvard of failing to report disciplinary and criminal information regarding international students — despite the university stating that no such convictions exist for the past two years. The administration's rationale includes a mix of national security concerns, allegations of ties to the Chinese government, and accusations that Harvard has hosted individuals affiliated with the Chinese military. In a supporting fact sheet, the administration pointed to over $150 million in foreign funding since 2020, rising campus crime rates, and support for diversity and inclusion policies as further justification. Shifting Sentiments Among Global Students This proclamation has introduced fresh instability for students who once saw American education as a sure investment in their futures. Many who had secured admission to Harvard are now left in limbo, unable to enter the U.S. and uncertain whether they'll be able to pursue their degrees at all. The ban is likely to accelerate a trend already in motion — international students exploring alternative destinations such as Germany, Ireland, Australia, and Asian countries, where policies have remained relatively stable and welcoming. Institutions in those regions may now benefit from an outflow of highly qualified students deterred by U.S. restrictions. For generations, the United States has been the top destination for international students seeking academic excellence, innovation, and global opportunities. From Ivy League campuses to cutting-edge research labs, American institutions have drawn the best minds from across the world. But the latest move by the U.S. President Donald Trump has cast a shadow over that reputation. With rising visa restrictions and unpredictable policy shifts, many are questioning whether the U.S. remains a reliable choice for higher education. Beyond Harvard: A Larger Pattern? While the immediate order targets Harvard, it raises concerns that similar actions could extend to other American universities, especially those receiving significant foreign funding or engaged in global partnerships. The precedent set by targeting a specific institution based on political grievances introduces a degree of unpredictability previously unseen in U.S. higher education policy. International students — once seen as cultural ambassadors and economic contributors — now face a climate where geopolitical narratives can redefine their eligibility overnight. Even institutions with strong global reputations are no longer immune from federal scrutiny or political backlash. The Long-Term Cost to U.S. Education International students are integral to American universities, contributing billions of dollars annually to the economy, diversifying campuses, and driving innovation in STEM and business fields. Policies that restrict their participation may erode the global standing of U.S. education, damage institutional competitiveness, and discourage future applicants. As the world watches Harvard's next legal move — and the outcome of any new court challenges — many students are quietly shifting their aspirations elsewhere. In an increasingly uncertain environment, academic excellence alone may no longer be enough to outweigh the risks of studying in the United States. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!


Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
'There's nothing there in the file': Did Jeffrey Epstein die by suicide? What FBI deputy said
The rumours around Jeffrey Epstein 's death have finally come to a full stop as FBI deputy director Dan Bongino gave some insightful information on this. In an interview with Fox News, Bongino confirmed on Wednesday that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide and there could be no other cause that was possible. Regarding the Epstein investigation, Bongino explained that surveillance footage, though not of optimal quality, documented the final hours. "The video does show in that specific block, that he goes in, made a phone call; you'll see 12 hours of guards going in basically check on him, come back. You'll see nobody really comes out of that bay in that area than him. There's no one in there." "There's nothing there in the file at all that indicates anything other than in fact a suicide," Bongino added. The American financier passed away in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges. Bongino outlined the FBI's renewed focus on various investigations, including the origins of COVID-19. He stated firmly that the public would receive answers about the pandemic's beginnings, noting "I ordered that case immediately to be looked into again. We have a great investigator on it." Discussing the Mar-a-Lago raid, Bongino indicated significant findings: "We found some troubling, really troubling items in there that we actioned immediately, to say the least." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo He acknowledged apparent differences in how classified documents cases involving Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden were handled. The Deputy Director confirmed ongoing investigations into several high-profile matters, including the discovery of cocaine at the White House in 2023, the 2022 Dobbs decision leak, actions against pro-life protesters, and the handling of parents at school board meetings. Emphasising the significance of these investigations, Bongino stated: "I get a kick out of it on social media. People are like, 'this case isn't a big deal. I don't care.' Well, I don't care that you don't care. I care." He particularly stressed the importance of resolving the White House cocaine incident, committing to finding answers with his team.


Mint
44 minutes ago
- Mint
US trade delegation arrives in India for fresh round of bilateral trade talks
New Delhi: A US trade delegation arrived in New Delhi on Thursday ahead of a fresh round of negotiations on the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA) with India, scheduled to begin on Friday, two people told Mint. This marks the fifth round of in-person discussions overall and the second led by the US side, which is led by Brendan Lynch, assistant US trade representative for South and Central Asia. The Indian side previously took part in three face-to-face rounds in Washington, with the most recent held from May 19 to 24. Earlier talks were conducted in both virtual and physical formats, during which both sides exchanged priority lists and initial proposals. The upcoming discussions are seen as a crucial step toward resolving tariff-related issues and strengthening bilateral trade ties. India is seeking tariff concessions for key sectors such as textiles and pharmaceuticals, while the US is pushing for broader access to dairy, e-commerce, and digital trade. 'Lynch is accompanied by officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the US Department of Commerce, and senior negotiators including Emily Ashby,' one of the persons mentioned above said, requesting anonymity. 'The Indian side will be led by chief negotiator Rajesh Agarwal, and both teams are working under a tight deadline to reach a pre-harvest deal before July 8, when the temporary 90-day pause on US reciprocal tariffs is set to expire,' this person added. As first reported by Mint on 16 May, the looming deadline has intensified efforts on both sides to stitch a trade deal. On 29 May, Mint reported that an American negotiating team was expected to arrive in New Delhi in early June for potentially the final round of face-to-face discussions between India and the US. Both sides are aiming to close the deal by the last week of June, According to the second person mentioned above, the upcoming negotiations will focus on finalising issues related to market access, tariff reduction, and non-tariff barriers, and potentially outlining a framework for a formal BTA. 'Key areas on the table include digital trade, intellectual property, agricultural goods, and critical minerals,' this person added, also requesting anonymity. Spokespersons for India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the US Embassy in New Delhi did not immediately respond to emailed queries. The latest round of in-person talks between India and the US come amid rising tariff tensions. The US recently rejected India's notice at the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenging the 25% tariffs imposed on Indian steel and aluminium exports. India hopes to resolve these issues through the BTA negotiations but has indicated it may exercise its right to retaliate at the WTO if no resolution is reached by 8 June. The talks also carry geopolitical weight, taking place amid US concerns over India's recent defence deal with Russia—an issue that has reportedly unsettled Washington. Both countries are also seeking to diversify their supply chains and reduce dependence on China, adding strategic urgency to the talks. Meanwhile, experts have advised caution as India moves forward with broader free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with the US. On 28 May, the US Court of International Trade struck down US President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' reciprocal tariffs, ruling them illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While the court held that trade deficits do not constitute the 'unusual and extraordinary threat' required to invoke emergency powers, the ruling blocks a key pillar of Trump's trade policy, though Section 232 tariffs on steel and automotive imports remain unaffected. 'India should resist any agreement shaped by threats or based on unlawful measures. Not only do these Trump-era tariffs violate World Trade Organization rules, but the US court has now confirmed they also breach US domestic law,' said Ajay Srivastava, a former trade service official and founder of economic think-tank Global Trade Research Initiative. 'With the Trump tariffs standing on shaky legal ground, India must pause and reassess its negotiation strategy before committing to an FTA that could disproportionately favour US interests,' he added.