Latest news with #FederalFunding
Sky News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
What you need to know as Harvard and Trump administration in court over funding
The Trump administration and Harvard University have gone head-to-head in federal court over the government's threats to cut billions from the school's funding. The Ivy League institution, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, sued the Trump administration in April for seeking "unprecedented and improper" control of the school, after it froze $2.6bn (£1.9bn) of its federal funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the government of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a list of 10 demands from a federal antisemitism task force, which included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, with the department of justice arguing that funding cuts are a means to protect against antisemitism, after it accused Harvard of ideological bias and violating the rights of its Jewish students when campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza took place last year. The case is now being heard before US district judge Allison Burroughs, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama. Both sides have sought a summary judgement, which ends a legal case early without the need of a full trial. But there is no indication on when Judge Burroughs will deliver a verdict. With the ruling potentially leading to larger implications on how much influence the US government has over schools, here is what you need to know. Research, careers and labs at stake During Monday's hearing at Moakley Federal Courthouse, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky asked Judge Burroughs to reverse the series of funding freezes. He said if the cuts remain in place, it could lead to the loss of research, damage careers and the closing of labs. "It's not about Harvard's conduct," he said. "It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard." Already, government agencies have begun to end their contracts with the school, citing a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Sky News' US partner network NBC News reported the cancelled contracts were worth an estimated $100m (£74m). Despite having a $53bn endowment - a collection of assets, typically built up from donations, that generate income for the school - Harvard has said it cannot absorb the full cost of the cuts. Although, it has begun to self-fund some research. Donald Trump also separately warned in a post on Truth Social that Harvard could lose its tax exempt status and be "taxed as a political entity". 'The government is pro-Jewish students' In court, the parties continually went over whether antisemitism on campus justified the removal of federal funding. Michael Velchik, the lawyer representing the Trump administration, argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the 7 October 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters chanting antisemitic slogans and Jewish students being attacked. "Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Mr Velchik, who is a Harvard graduate, said. "The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard." Harvard has said it has made changes to combat antisemitism, but Mr Lehotsky argued that the issue is not relevant to cutting research to do with, for example, Alzheimer's research. Judge Burroughs also pushed back at Mr Velchik, saying the government had provided "no documentation, no procedure" to "suss out" whether Harvard administrators have or haven't done enough to combat antisemitism. "The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering," she said. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech." Mr Velchik responded by saying the case comes down to the government choosing how best to spend billions in research funding. After Monday's hearing, Mr Trump took to Truth Social, calling Judge Burroughs a "total disaster". Enrolling international students row The lawsuit over federal funding is separate to a complaint Harvard filed in a Boston federal court in May over the Trump administration's plan to stop the school from enrolling international students. Judge Burroughs, who is overseeing both cases, issued a temporary restraining order which stops the government from revoking Harvard's certification in the student and exchange visitor programme, which allows the university to host international students with visas to study in the US. 2:17 The government first brought about the plan after accusing Harvard of creating an unsafe campus environment by allowing "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators" to assault Jewish students on its premises. It also accused the university of coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), contending the school had hosted and trained members of a Chinese paramilitary group as recently as 2024. Harvard argued the move violated the First Amendment and would have had an "immediate and devastating effect" on the school and "more than 7,000 visa holders".
CBS News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Fordham's WFUV is among hundreds of radio and TV stations to feel the pinch of federal funding cuts
Public radio and television stations across the country are bracing for major cuts after Republicans in Congress passed legislation that will strip more than $1 billion in federal funding. CBS News New York went to a station in the Bronx on Monday to see how the cuts will be felt there. Alisa Ali has been hosting a radio show at WFUV on the campus of Fordham University for 20 years, playing classics and shining a light on up-and-comers. "We're going to give artists who may not be heard on other outlets a chance to gain an audience," Ali said. The National Public Radio-member station also helps train the next generation of journalists, like student Lainey Nguyen. "It's incredibly valuable to be here and learn how to pitch stories, learn how to edit audio on industry-standard equipment," Nguyen said. The dual missions of music discovery and education are at risk at around 1,500 local public radio and TV stations. WFUV, for one, will lose more than $500,000 a year in federal funding. General manager Chuck Singleton said that will mean, "less public service, less music discovery, fewer live studio sessions with artists." President Trump called for the cuts, saying public media's news programming was biased against him and fellow Republicans. In a statement, the White House's Office of Management and Budget said, "The federal government will no longer subsidize this trash." Stations like WFUV are turning to listeners to try and make up for those cuts. "Hopefully our community will step up and realize that this is important and it is worth saving," Ali said. From the boroughs to back roads, public radio is not ready to go silent just yet.
Medscape
21-07-2025
- Business
- Medscape
Foundations Rethink Research Dollars as Funding Is Pulled
This spring the notices came without warning: Federal funding for thousands of approved research projects, many already under way, had been delayed or canceled. Among those left in the lurch were grant recipients seeking to do things like reduce vaccine hesitancy, improve access to healthcare for minority populations, or treat an aggressive form of brain cancer. All told, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation withdrew or placed on hold almost $4 billion in funding. And that money may be gone for the foreseeable future because the White House's proposed budget for the next fiscal year slashes support for those agencies themselves by 40% and 56%, respectively. 'So much has been cut by the wrecking-ball, bludgeoning approach that went on at NIH,' said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), Princeton, New Jersey. 'They're not just cutting bureaucrats and funding for projects that are not efficient. These are the pipelines that have put American bioscience at the forefront of the world, provided treatments that saved your family members' lives.' Foundations are trying to meet the moment, doling out emergency support to the extent they can. RWJF, for its part, has several such initiatives, including grants for information gathering on climate change and health, tracking AIDS/HIV, and science-based assessments of childhood vaccines. Still, foundations can't replace the government. 'The billions and billions that have been cut are orders of magnitude bigger than anything philanthropy can patch,' Plough said. 'We can keep certain things on life support, but life support is not a good thing to be on.' Private-Public Partnerships Drive Discovery It won't surprise you to hear that medical and health research requires a lot of money — $245.1 billion in 2020 alone. Industry investment accounts for more than half of that, but corporations generally don't step up until a concept is pretty far along, when they're confident it will pay off. Most early-stage research doesn't qualify. 'Basic, fundamental research may not have an obvious application. Some of it may never lead to one,' said Cynthia Friend, PhD, chief executive officer of the Kavli Foundation, Los Angeles, which helps fund early research. 'When those applications do come forth, the time scale is on average 20 years to end up at something useful.' Support for the long haul, beginning at a stage when researchers may not know the usefulness of their findings, is where the federal government has made a big difference. It normally supplies 25.1% of all medical and health research funding. In comparison, foundations, associations, and societies provide just 1.2%. 'All of science philanthropy together, if you add it up, doesn't come close to the amount of support in the federal budget,' Friend said. The government also plays a large role in building and maintaining complex machinery and large-scale facilities where significant discoveries may be made. Case in point: the synchrotron, a sophisticated x-ray machine used, for example, with CRISPR gene editing technology. The one at Brookhaven National Laboratory costs nearly $1 billion. 'An individual could never make these things or have them,' Friend said. 'But individuals can go use them because they've been built for the overall community.' There's a compelling upside to such spending: Economists estimate that for every dollar invested in research, the US gets $5-$20 in benefits. Foundations Seek New Strategies Although they can't match the government's financial clout, philanthropic organizations are looking for ways to address the extraordinary, nationwide funding gap. When the Council on Foundations surveyed its members in March, 80% of respondents said they were making or considering at least one change to their approach. Many indicated that they were open to ideas like collaborating with other funders, reexamining priorities to address the gaps, and increasing their flexibility in grant-making. 'Philanthropies that care about a particular area have an opportunity,' said Shaady Salehi, co-executive director of the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project. 'What's the range of things they fund as an institution — and what is being defunded? They can step in and support the necessary research.' While many science-focused foundations have yet to comment on how they're dealing with the new reality, some have gone public: The Kavli Foundation is offering bridge funding to early-career scientists who've lost federal support, Friend said. Its relatively small, individual grants are good for up to 2 years. The Spencer Foundation — along with the Kapor Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation — has also made bridge funding available: $25,000 grants to 'address immediate needs following grant cancellations.' The Prebys Foundation has designated $7 million in emergency support for biomedical research in San Diego. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) has created new AACR Trailblazer Cancer Research Grants: $15 million to support early-stage and mid-career researchers. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation has announced new grants for early-career investigators facing delays or disruptions, emergency funding for affected projects, and nine new research grants. Funders Emphasize Coordinated Efforts Even before the current crisis, the Kavli Foundation had invited fellow funders to preliminary discussions. That conversation will continue as the foundation works with scientists to shape the projects that receive its support. 'The idea is that if you have more resources to focus in a particular area that you think is important, that will accelerate progress,' Friend said. 'And it will also accelerate if something doesn't work out. We have to be prepared for things not working.' Other foundations are also looking for fresh ways to work together. More than 170 philanthropic organizations of all kinds have signed on to a pledge from the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project. It calls for them to go beyond business as usual — to collaborate, to pool funds, and to be responsive to grantees in a coordinated way. As Salehi sees it, this is essential. 'I think the next level up is going to be a higher level of coordination among private funders, comparing notes on who they're funding, who's not funding, who's being left behind,' she said. 'Where are the gaps?'
CNN
17-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Trump's victory over PBS and NPR ‘bias' will be ‘devastating' for rural areas, station leaders say
Public television stations will be 'forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,' PBS CEO Paula Kerger said Thursday, after the Senate voted in the middle of the night to approve a bill that cancels all the federal funding for the network. Once the House passes the bill, as expected, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's budget will be zeroed out for the first time since 1967, back when television stations still broadcast in black and white. It is a long-sought victory for President Trump, who has harshly accused PBS and NPR newscasts of being 'biased,' and a long-dreaded disruption for local stations that bank on taxpayer support. Public media executives say some smaller broadcasters will be forced off the air in the months and years to come. That's because stations in rural areas and smaller communities tend to rely more heavily on the federal subsidy. Stations in larger markets typically have a wider variety of other funding sources, like viewer donations and foundation support. Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. Kerger said in a statement that 'these cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas.' She pointed out that the stations 'provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts.' The two Republican senators who voted against the rescission, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, both said they valued those aspects of public media, even while criticizing perceived bias of some NPR programming. Most other Republicans, however, concentrated on the bias complaints above all else, and argued that the entire system is obsolete in the streaming age. David Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, which has campaigned against the federal support for decades, celebrated the 'historic rollback' in an X post overnight. 'PBS and NPR were chartered to provide objective journalism,' Bozell wrote. 'Instead, we got drag shows for kids, gushing coverage of Democrats, and silence or smears for conservatives.' Public media officials say critics completely distort what actually airs on stations. Thursday morning's report about the clawback on NPR's 'Morning Edition,' for example, was studiously neutral, and the hosts pointed out that NPR management was not involved in the news coverage of its own funding dilemma. An NPR spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the Senate vote. But the public radio network has previously pointed to polling that showed broad support for public media. Early Thursday morning, America's Public Television Stations, an advocacy group for the stations, argued that the rescission 'defies the will of the American people,' citing both the polls and the fact that Congress actually allocated the next round of funding earlier this year. In 1967, when Congress created the corporation, it declared that noncommercial TV and radio 'for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes' was in the public interest. Shows like 'Sesame Street' and 'Antiques Roadshow' sprang forth. The public media system continued to enjoy bipartisan support from lawmakers for many years, even as conservative activists sought to strip away the taxpayer funding. Congress ignored proposals from past Republican presidents to cut the PBS and NPR budgets. But Trump has proven to be much more assertive. Earlier this year Trump made it a priority to claw back the funding before the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was set to receive it in October. 'For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now,' Trump boasted in a Truth Social post last month. The exact impacts are uncertain, given the complex structure of public media and the various other revenue streams that exist. But some local stations are already making changes. In New York, the operator of the powerhouse NPR station WNYC said Wednesday that its CEO LaFontaine Oliver is moving into a new position, executive chair, that's been created in response to the threats to federal funding. Oliver will focus on 'new funding models' and try to find financial support from other non-federal sources, the station said. In San Francisco, the KQED radio and TV network said it is laying off about 15 percent of its staff, citing financial uncertainties. 'Despite today's setback, we are determined to keep fighting to preserve the essential services we provide to the American public,' Kerger said.
Bloomberg
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump's Cuts to Public Broadcasting and Foreign Aid Clear Key Vote
Public broadcasting and a swath of foreign aid programs are on track to lose federal funding after the Senate voted to advance a $9.4 billion package of cuts on a 51 to 50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie. The procedural vote is a strong sign the bill will pass the Senate after a marathon amendment session planned for Wednesday. That would be a victory for President Donald Trump, who overcame reluctance on the part of some moderates by making political threats and tweaking the bill to allay some objections.
