Latest news with #RussellT.Vought
Forbes
03-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
The 10 Biggest Higher Education Losers In Trump's Skinny Budget
Higher education and research spending would see dramatic cuts under a budget proposal released by ... More President Trump President Trump has proposed a $163 billion reduction in discretionary federal spending for Fiscal Year 2026, a plan, which if enacted by Congress, would slash funding for a wide swath of education, research, health, environmental, and safety net programs. The cuts are contained in a budget letter and proposal sent by OMB Director Russell T. Vought to Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, on May 2. Using language similar to that Trump has often invoked to criticize federal programs he doesn't like, the letter outlines a 22.6% cut in non-defense discretionary spending below current year levels. It describes such expenditures as 'contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.' If Congress were to go along with Trump's so-called 'skinny budget,' here are 10 of the biggest reductions that higher education would experience, ranging across scientific research, financial aid, support for the arts and humanities, and programs designed to increase students' access to higher education opportunities. Trump's plan would slash $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health's budget, reducing it from to $45 billion to $27 billion. The document accuses NIH of having 'broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.' Claiming that NIH ' has grown too big and unfocused,' Trump calls for a consolidation of NIH funding streams into five focus areas: the National Institute on Body Systems Research; National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research; National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Institute of Disability Related Research; and National Institute on Behavioral Health. Funding would be eliminated completely for the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities (-$534 million), the Fogarty International Center (-$95 million), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (-$170 million), and the National Institute of Nursing Research (-$198 million). NSF would lose $4.9 billion in funding, more than half of its enacted $9 billion budget. Included in the cuts would be about $1 billion in programs intended to broaden participation in the STEM fields. Also targeted is funding for climate, clean energy, and what is characterized as 'woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science.' Billions of dollars in research support would be eliminated or reduced at several other federal agencies. For example, the Department of Energy would take a $1.1 billion hit to its science budget, thereby "eliminating funding for Green New Scam interests and climate change-related activities." At the Department of the Interior, the US Geological Survey would see a reduction of $564 million. All federal funding, amounting to $1.579 billion, would be eliminated for TRIO and GEAR UP, two outreach programs aimed at increasing college enrollment and success for low-income students. Describing the two programs as 'a relic of the past' when financial incentives were needed to motivate colleges and universities to engage with low-income students and increase access, Trump's plan insists that institutions should use their own resources to increase student access and success. The Federal Work Study program would lose $980 million in funding. It was appropriated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2024. According to the OMB document, FWS is a 'poorly targeted program' and 'a handout to woke universities and a subsidy from Federal taxpayers, who can pay for their own employees.' SEOG grants would be stripped of their funding to the tune of $910 million. These grants are intended to provide aid to undergraduate students with exceptional financial need to help pay for their education. However, the Trump administration believes that they contribute 'to rising college costs' and that colleges have used them "to fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success.' English Language Acquisition would have $890 million stripped from its budget. That reduction would 'end overreach from Washington and restore the rightful role of State oversight in education.' The OMB document claims the program is 'misnamed' and 'actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding NGOs and States to encourage bilingualism.' FIPSE is a competitive federal grant program that supports innovative educational reforms and encourages their dissemination. It would lose $195 million in because, according to Trump's plan, it has 'allowed colleges and universities to fund ideologies instead of students, while still raising tuition costs.' Consistent with aims he expressed in his first term, Trump proposes eliminating all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He also calls for ending support for the Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps). All three programs have provided grant funding or staffing to a broad range of colleges and universities. Under a category, titled 'small agency eliminations,'the total amount of funding that could be eliminated for all the listed agencies exceeds $3.5 billion. The cuts are described as 'consistent with the president's efforts to decrease the size of the federal government to enhance accountability, reduce waste, and reduce unnecessary governmental entities.' Trump wants to cut the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' budget by $49 million, a 35% reduction. 'This rightsizing is consistent with the reduction across the Department and an overall smaller Federal role in K-12 and postsecondary education,' according to OMB. The Education Department's budget for program administration would be reduced by $127 million, or about 30%. U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a statement Friday that Trump's skinny budget reflects 'funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.' President Trump's proposed budget puts students and parents above the bureaucracy,' McMahon said. 'The federal government has invested trillions of taxpayer dollars into an education system that is not driving improved student outcomes—we must change course and reorient taxpayer dollars toward proven programs that generate results for American students.' While it is unlikely that all of the proposed cuts in Trump's budget blueprint will be enacted by Congress, the plan sets up what is likely to be a protracted battle with lawmakers over the details of a final budget deal. 'Look, we're supportive of this administration, what it's trying to do,' House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week, according to Politico. 'But with all due respect to anybody, I think the members have a better understanding of what can pass and what can't than the Executive Branch does.' But even after Congress reaches agreement on a budget, there is no guarantee that the money it appropriates will be spent according to its wishes. Trump could veto any funding bills, or he could continue simply to withhold the funds for congressionally approved appropriations he dislikes, an action that would deepen growing concerns about the president's constitutional authority.
New York Times
16-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Court Scraps $8 Credit Card Late Fee Limit, at Consumer Bureau's Request
A government-imposed $8 limit on most credit card late fees is the latest consumer protection regulation to be scrapped by President Trump's administration. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted the fee cap last year, estimating that it would save households $10 billion a year. A coalition of banking and business trade groups immediately sued to block the rule, arguing that the bureau had exceeded its statutory authority, and won an injunction that prevented it from taking effect. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Texas vacated the fee limit at the joint request of the banks and the consumer bureau. Now under the leadership of Russell T. Vought, the White House budget office leader who is also serving as the bureau's acting director, the consumer bureau reversed its stance and said in court filings that it agreed with the banks that the fee limit illegally stretched beyond the agency's bounds. Banks and lenders, whose late fees typically average around $32, celebrated their victory. 'This is a win for consumers and common sense,' the lawsuit's plaintiffs said in a joint statement. The group included the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association and the United States Chamber of Commerce, along with three Texas business associations. 'If the C.F.P.B.'s rule had gone into effect, it would have resulted in more late payments, lower credit scores, higher interest rates and reduced credit access for those who need it most,' the group added. 'It would have also penalized the millions of Americans who pay their credit card bills on time and reduced important incentives for consumers to manage their finances.' Consumer advocates took the opposite stance. 'This decision will allow big banks to exploit consumers to the tune of $10 billion annually by charging inflated late fees that far exceed what late payments cost them to collect,' said Chi Chi Wu, a senior lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
04-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
How Trump Has Tuned Out a Key Justice Dept. Legal Office
The Trump administration has taken steps and made claims that clash with legal opinions issued by a traditionally powerful agency that is part of the Justice Department, the Office of Legal Counsel. The office has typically had an influential role in shaping internal government legal deliberations, and its court-like opinions are supposed to bind the executive branch unless the attorney general or the president overrides them or the office itself revokes them. The disregard for its precedents is part of a broader pattern in which the clout and influence of the agency have eroded in the opening months of the administration. Here are some examples that show that disconnect. Spending What the Trump administration has done The Trump administration has frozen large amounts of spending authorized by Congress. It has justified those blocks with shifting legal rationales in court. But both President Trump and his White House budget chief, Russell T. Vought, have said that they believe the president has constitutional authority to refuse to spend taxpayer money that Congress appropriated for things the president does not like. That tactic is called impoundment, and Mr. Trump and Mr. Vought have said that they intend to re-establish that power despite a 1974 law that largely banned it. What the Office of Legal Counsel has said An opinion from 1969, written by William H. Rehnquist before he became chief justice, says the 'existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.' The office reinforced that conclusion in a 1988 opinion that says 'the weight of authority is against such a broad power in the face of an express congressional directive to spend.' Birthright Citizenship What the Trump administration has done Mr. Trump signed an executive order declaring that babies born on domestic soil to undocumented parents are no longer eligible for birthright citizenship and instructing government agencies not to issue them citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
