Attorneys general from 16 mostly Democrat-controlled US states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Wednesday, arguing that some of the federal government’s attempts to gut National Science Foundation research programs are illegal. The suit, filed in federal court Wednesday afternoon, asks a judge to put a stop to NSF policies that are halting millions of dollars’ worth of research spending. The move comes after the NSF announced in April that it would do away with hundreds of grants — mostly related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) and misinformation research — that amounted to more than $230 million. The cancellations have mounted since then, so far affecting a total of 1,753 grants worth nearly $1.4 billion across numerous areas of research, according to NSF data. Neither the National Science Foundation nor the White House responded to a request for comment. The agency also announced a new policy in May that caps how much researchers can spend on “indirect costs,” which include operating expenses such as the use of laboratories, safety programs and equipment, at 15%. (The cap is currently on hold through June 13, pending a legal hearing.) The attorneys general argue such a policy would “slash millions of dollars for groundbreaking scientific research across the country, jeopardizing national security, the economy, and public health,” according to a news release from New York State Attorney General Letitia James. The coalition’s lawsuit also argues that the Trump administration’s efforts to shutter research related to diversity is illegal. The NSF “has a Congressionally-mandated focus on improving diversity in STEM fields,” according to the news release from James’ office. “Congress has instructed in law that a ‘core strategy’ of NSF’s work must be to increase the participation of people who have historically been left out of STEM occupations.” A federal law states that the National Science Foundation should work to increase the “participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.” The new lawsuit argues that recent NSF directives “violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by unlawfully changing NSF policy and ignoring Congress’s intent for how NSF should function,” according to the news release. “The lawsuit seeks a court order ruling NSF’s new policies are illegal and blocking them from being implemented.” A battle over DEIA The National Science Foundation is a $9 billion agency charged with advancing discoveries across the scientific spectrum, largely by evaluating the scientific merit of grant requests and doling out dollars, mostly to universities and other research institutions. The agency’s staff has been asked in recent weeks to ensure funding requests comply with Trump’s executive orders that have sought to dismantle DEIA-related activities and a “free speech” directive that argues efforts to combat misinformation can be “used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States.” Many researchers, stakeholders, and institutions that work with the NSF have decried the new policies. The Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences, for example, said in an April 24 statement that the Trump administration’s directives have put scientists in the “middle of a political tug-of-war, wasting valuable time and resources.” Former NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, who was tapped to lead the agency during Trump’s first term, also resigned in late April — 16 months before his term was set to end. “I believe I have done all I can to advance the critical mission of the agency and feel that it is time for me to pass the baton to new leadership,” Panchanathan said on April 24 in parting remarks, which were provided to CNN by an agency spokesperson. The White House has proposed a sweeping 55% budget cut for the NSF, and the agency could face sweeping layoffs. The coalition of states suing the Trump administration over NSF changes include New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington. The lawsuit mirrors another filed May 5 by 19 states and Washington, DC, against the Trump administration for allegedly taking “a wrecking ball to the Department of Health and Human Services.” The Trump administration had in late March announced plans to cut some discretionary federal health spending and transform several health agencies. The restructuring plans include consolidating the 28 agencies of HHS into 15 new divisions, including the Administration for a Healthy America. The lawsuit over the HHS changes alleges that the impacts of the restructuring already have been harmful, leading to the shutdown of some regional HHS offices that provide services to low-income families, children with disabilities, youth experiencing homelessness and preschool development programs.
This will ‘devastate scientific research’: 16 states sue the Trump administration over National Science Foundation directive
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"16 States Sue Trump Administration Over National Science Foundation Research Policy Changes"
CNN
6.3
TruthLens AI Summary
Attorneys general from 16 states, primarily led by Democrats, have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging recent directives from the National Science Foundation (NSF) that they argue are detrimental to scientific research across the country. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, seeks to halt policies that have already resulted in the cancellation of numerous research grants, particularly those focused on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) as well as misinformation studies. The NSF's announcement in April to eliminate over $230 million in grants has escalated into a broader concern, with total cancellations affecting 1,753 grants valued at nearly $1.4 billion. The lawsuit contends that these actions are illegal and undermine the NSF's Congressionally-mandated mission to enhance diversity within STEM fields, as outlined by federal law. Moreover, the attorneys general argue that a new policy capping indirect costs for researchers at 15% would severely limit funding for essential scientific operations, threatening national security and public health interests.
The National Science Foundation, which operates with a budget of $9 billion, plays a crucial role in advancing scientific research by funding various projects through grants predominantly awarded to universities and research institutions. The lawsuit comes in the wake of the Trump administration's directives that have restricted DEIA-related funding and imposed a controversial cap on grant allocations, which critics argue undermines the integrity and inclusivity of scientific inquiry.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights a significant legal challenge posed by attorneys general from 16 states against the Trump administration concerning the National Science Foundation (NSF). This lawsuit emerges from concerns that recent federal directives threaten to undermine critical research funding, particularly in areas related to diversity and misinformation.
Intent Behind the News Release
The primary goal of this news article appears to be to inform the public about the legal actions taken against federal policies that are believed to be detrimental to scientific research. By emphasizing the impact of these policies on funding, especially for diversity initiatives, the article aims to rally public support for the lawsuit and create awareness about the potential consequences of reduced research funding.
Public Perception and Messaging
The narrative crafted in the article seeks to foster a perception that the Trump administration is actively working to dismantle essential research programs. By quoting figures and providing context about the financial implications, the article aims to evoke concern among readers regarding the future of scientific research, national security, and public health.
Potential Omissions
While the article focuses on the lawsuit and its implications, it does not explore the rationale behind the Trump administration's changes to NSF funding policies. This omission could suggest an attempt to present a one-sided view, potentially masking motives or justifications for the administration's actions.
Truthfulness of the Information
The information presented appears to be factual, as it cites specific data points from the NSF and includes a legal framework for the lawsuit. However, the portrayal of the situation may lean towards a narrative that emphasizes the negative consequences without adequately representing the opposing viewpoint.
Public Sentiment Targeted
The article likely resonates more with progressive and scientific communities, particularly those advocating for diversity in STEM fields. It aims to appeal to individuals and groups concerned about equity, scientific integrity, and the potential fallout from reduced funding for research.
Economic and Political Implications
The outcomes of this lawsuit could have significant repercussions for both the scientific community and federal funding mechanisms. If successful, it may restore funding and bolster research efforts, thereby influencing economic growth and public health initiatives. Conversely, failure to overturn these policies might lead to a decline in innovative research and a loss of competitive edge in global scientific standings.
Impact on Stock Markets
While the article does not directly address stock market implications, changes in federal funding for research could influence companies engaged in technology and healthcare sectors. Stocks related to research and development may react to news of funding cuts or reinstatements, especially those companies that depend on NSF grants.
Geopolitical Relevance
In the broader context of global power dynamics, the article reflects the ongoing tension between scientific advancement and political ideology in the U.S. The emphasis on diversity and misinformation research aligns with current global discussions on equity, technology, and information integrity.
AI Involvement in Content Creation
There is no explicit indication that artificial intelligence was used in the crafting of this article. However, if AI tools were employed, they might have influenced the selection of data points or the framing of the narrative to emphasize particular themes that align with progressive values.
In conclusion, the article effectively portrays a significant legal battle over NSF funding and its implications for scientific research, particularly in the realm of diversity. It raises awareness and stimulates discussion, while also potentially manipulating public sentiment against the Trump administration’s policies. The overall reliability of the article hinges on the accuracy of the cited data and the transparency of the opposing viewpoints presented.