Dr. David Miller 🏳️‍🌈

@davidimiller.bsky.social

8922 Followers 860 Following

Physicist Turned Psychologist | Senior Researcher in #STEMed | Meta-Analysis Nerd | https://d-miller.github.io/ Also posts about 🧪 science funding to focus my attention. Personal account. I don’t speak for my employer or any other orgs.

(2) Each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations, and each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee's standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.
“The University of Texas system is honored that our flagship — the University of Texas at Austin — has been named as one of only nine institutions in the U.S. selected by the Trump administration for potential funding advantages under its new Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” Kevin P. Eltife, the chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents, said in a statement on Thursday. “We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately.”
“I am out of office for the foreseeable future because Senate Democrats voted to block a clean federal spending bill (HR 5371), leading to a government shutdown that is preventing the US Small Business Administration from serving America’s 36 million small businesses. Every day that Senate Democrats continue [to] oppose a clean funding bill, they are stopping an estimated 320 small businesses from accessing $170 million in SBA-guaranteed funding.” The email goes on to say that once the shutdown is over, “we are prepared to immediately return to the record-breaking services we are providing under the leadership of the Trump Administration.”
Brief Summary of significant agency activities that will continue during a lapse: National Science Foundation (NSF) will use available carryover balances to continue daily operations. Once those balances are exhausted, electronic systems for proposal preparation and submission will remain available for use during a lapse in appropriations, (i.e., Research.gov, and Grants.gov). The Awards Cash Management Service (ACM$) and the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) will remain available for the submission and processing of valid payments for recipients and contractors. Recipients may continue performance under their NSF awards during a lapse in appropriations, to the extent funds are available, and the period of performance of the grant or cooperative agreement has not expired. In the event of a lapse, more detailed information on NSF operations for recipients, panelists, and employees will be posted at www.NSF.gov, and will be updated as necessary during a lapse. 2 Brief Summary of significant agency activities that will cease during a lapse: In general, no new grants, continuing grant increments, cooperative agreements, or contracts will be awarded. No new funding opportunities (program descriptions, announcements, solicitations or Dear Colleague Letters) will be issued. Responses to any inquiries received regarding upcoming deadlines will be deferred until normal operations resume. All panels (including virtual panels) scheduled to occur during a lapse in appropriations will be cancelled and will likely be rescheduled to a later date.
The Court finds that it likely lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ retrospective APA claims, so it must deny Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief as to those claims. In analyzing Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm flowing from their prospective APA claims and have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. As a result, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction without considering the other preliminary injunction factors
It may well be that these differences would not distinguish these claims in the eyes of the Supreme Court, although that remains unclear under existing caselaw. But this is not Calvinball and there are rules. Under those rules, which are set by existing Supreme Court precedent, this Court cannot conclude that core First Amendment claims or pure statutory violations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. A
13 SEC. 224. In making Federal financial assistance, the 14 provisions relating to indirect costs in part 75 of title 45, 15 Code of Federal Regulations, including with respect to the 16 approval of deviations from negotiated rates, shall con17 tinue to apply to the National Institutes of Health to the 18 same extent and in the same manner as such provisions 19 were applied in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017. None 20 of the funds appropriated in this or prior Acts or otherwise 21 made available to the Department of Health and Human 22 Services or to any department or agency may be used to 23 develop or implement a modified approach to such provi24 sions, or to intentionally or substantially expand the fiscal 25 effect of the approval of such deviations from negotiated 131 •S 2587 RS 1 rates beyond the proportional effect of such approvals in 2 such quarter.
SEC. 235. None of the funds made available by this 17 Act to the National Institutes of Health may be used for 18 facilities and administration costs (as defined in section 19 200.414 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations) that ex20 ceed 30 percent of an award to an applicable educational 21 institution that is an organization subject to taxation 22 under section 4968 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – The bill includes a total of $7.4 billion for CDC, a cut of $1.7 billion below the 2025 level. Within this amount, the bill: o Eliminates all funding for domestic and global HIV/AIDS activities:  Domestic HIV/AIDS Prevention and Research, a cut of more than $1 billion below the 2025 level, including the elimination of the $220 million Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.  Global HIV/AIDS program, a cut of $129 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Research, a cut of $12.5 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for Tobacco Prevention and Control, a cut of $247 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for Global Tuberculosis, a cut of $12 million below the 2025 level. o Reduces funding for Global Vaccine Preventable Diseases, a cut of $50 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for the Climate and Health program, a cut of $10 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, a cut of $160 million below the 2025 level.
Provides $48 billion for the National Institutes of Health, maintaining America’s edge in basic biomedical research for cures to cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and rare diseases, and supports the Trump Administration’s priority of increasing research for other chronic diseases impacting Americans
Boccanfuso said UIDP’s pilot design will explore requiring students to perform a significant amount of their research “embedded within a company” to increase the company’s return on investment. Brennan noted that an additional graduate fellowship program could enable GRFP to support a wider variety of research by relieving some of the pressure to concentrate awards on a relatively narrow set of agency “priority areas,” such as AI and quantum information science. “If you have hot research areas that can be supported by Intel or OpenAI or whoever is willing to fund these partnered fellowships, then there’s less pressure on the rest of the program, which really is focused on basic research,” Brennan said. “You don’t want to cut out all the talented people in geosciences and life sciences and psychology and sociology in favor of giving everyone who’s doing AI a fellowship.”
Comparing NSF STEM K-12 Versus ECR:Core Last updated: 8/27/25 Sign up for an NSF-hosted webinar on September 4 to learn more. On August 22, 2025, NSF announced the new NSF STEM K-12 solicitation, which restructures funding opportunities for research in formal preK-12 education and informal settings. This page briefly clarifies high-level differences with the existing EDU Core Research (ECR:Core) solicitation, including recent changes to ECR:Core. The following content is for informational purposes only. See the above links for official guidance from the NSF.gov website. For further questions, you can email a program officer (ECR@nsf.gov for ECR:Core; STEMK12@nsf.gov for STEM K-12).
Susan Monarez is no longer director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We thank her for her dedicated service to the American people. @SecKennedy has full confidence in his team at @CDCgov who will continue to be vigilant in protecting Americans against infectious diseases at home and abroad.
Screenshot showing the Discovery Research PreK-12 program as archived.
Solicitation The NSF STEM K-12 program will support innovative, multidisciplinary research that explores how AI and other emerging technologies can be leveraged to study and enhance STEM teaching and learning. This program seeks projects that produce new tools and frameworks, harness exemplary formal and informal learning and unlock new avenues of scientific inquiry and discovery in STEM education. This broad funding opportunity has a particular focus on research and development advances that will be translated to STEM classroom practices.
The following solicitations are currently archived. Investigators who would have applied to these programs are particularly encouraged to consider NSF STEM K-12. Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) Computer Science for All (CSforAll) Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12) Translation and Diffusion (TD) Investigators who would typically submit to the EDU Core Research (ECR) solicitation for research in K-12 and informal settings are encouraged to apply to NSF STEM K-12. ECR will only accept proposals for DUE and DGE focused projects.
For a cautionary tale about lawmaking on the emergency docket, look no further than this newest iteration. By today’s order, an evenly divided Court neuters judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief. Neither party to the case suggested this convoluted procedural outcome, and no prior court has held that the law requires it. But, in the view of the deciding vote, California compels this conclusion. “So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today’s.” Trump v. Boyle, 606 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (KAGAN, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 2).
The Resulting Grant Terminations pursuant to the Directives are DECLARED to be unlawful, arbitrary and capricious final agency actions under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the Resulting Grant Terminations are hereby OF NO EFFECT, VOID, ILLEGAL, SET ASIDE AND VACATED.
Court order excerpt listing directives from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that are declared unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). It enumerates 11 memoranda and directives from February–May 2025, including guidance on DEI-related funding, NIH review of agency priorities, award assessments, grant terminations, and COVID-19 grant termination. The final section states that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), these directives are declared of no effect, void, illegal, set aside, and vacated.
Crucially, this ruling does not affect the Equity Termination Class in this case,whose injunction rests upon First Amendment claims, not Administrative Procedure Act claims. Indeed, the government agreed at oral argument on July 3 l, 2025 that its Tucker Act jurisdictional argument did not apply to the Equity Class. For the Form Termination Class (as well as the Equity Class), there is another crucial difference between this case and the NIH case: Plaintiffs here are individual researchers who have been injured by grant terminations. The Court of Claims likely would have no jurisdiction to hear their claims, because they are not parties to the grants. Dismissing their claims from federal district court could One Bush Street, Suite 900 - San Francisco, CA 94104 - P: 415.954.4400 - F: 415.954.4480 SAN FRANCISCO . ST. HELENA c fbm.com Case: 25-4249, 08/21/2025, DktEntry: 40.1, Page 2 of 40 V Farella Braun + Martel Molly C. Dwyer August 21, 2025 Page 2 leave them with no forum, raising serious due process issues not addressed in the Supreme Court's stay, and contravening the basic principle that complete preclusion of jurisdiction should not be allowed without express indication from Congress. See, et., McNarjy v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496 (1981) ("well-settled presumption favoring interpretation of statutes that allow judicial review of administrative action", "it is most unlikely that Congress intended to foreclose all forms of meaningful judicial review.")
Of course, whether claims about the guidance in this case will succeed is another question. It is not obvious, for instance, that NIH’s guidance is final agency action. Yet the Government did not press this argument—or any other—in its stay application.2 Instead, its application largely ignores the guidance, which suggests that this —————— 2 Citing stray references to the guidance, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH draws a different conclusion. Post, at 1–2 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully disagree with his reading of the filings. In my view, the Government plainly raised merits-based arguments regarding the grant terminations, not the guidance. See Application 29– 34. 6 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH v. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSN. BARRETT, J., concurring aspect of the judgments causes it no irreparable harm. The Government has therefore failed to show that it is entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance. Of course, it remains free to challenge the District Court’s vacatur of the guidance before the First Circuit.
Of course, whether claims about the guidance in this case will succeed is another question. It is not obvious, for instance, that NIH’s guidance is final agency action. Yet the Government did not press this argument—or any other—in its stay application.2 Instead, its application largely ignores the guidance, which suggests that this —————— 2 Citing stray references to the guidance, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH draws a different conclusion. Post, at 1–2 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully disagree with his reading of the filings. In my view, the Government plainly raised merits-based arguments regarding the grant terminations, not the guidance. See Application 29– 34. 6 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH v. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSN. BARRETT, J., concurring aspect of the judgments causes it no irreparable harm. The Government has therefore failed to show that it is entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance. Of course, it remains free to challenge the District Court’s vacatur of the guidance before the First Circuit.
Study 2 Intervention Materials Base Intervention Text The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide funding for scientific research that leads to major breakthroughs for cancer, diabetes, dementia, heart disease, infectious diseases, stroke, mental illness, and more. NIH funding is also an excellent financial investment. For every dollar NIH invests in research, an average of $2.56 of economic activity is returned–a gain of over 250%. The White House recently ordered major changes to NIH funding, which would take back funds already promised to the states. States have sued to challenge the order, arguing that the changes are unlawful. [page break] There are two major sources of cuts to NIH funding, which will result in current and future losses. First, many NIH grants for health research have already been cancelled, interrupting ongoing studies and clinical trials. These cancelled grants are projected to result in economic losses of $4.9 Billion and over 21,000 jobs. Second, another change would greatly reduce NIH funding that covers “indirect costs” of research. These funds help pay for essential facilities, equipment, skilled staff, and safety checks needed across many research projects. Medical research would not be possible without funding to cover indirect costs. In the future, this proposed change to funding for indirect costs of research would reduce the U.S. economy by about $16 Billion and over 68,000 jobs every year.
A2: Amounts apportioned, but not yet obligated as of the date of this reapportionment, are available for obligation consistent with the latest agreed-upon spending plan for Fiscal Year 2025 between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). HHS may continue to make obligations for salaries and related administrative expenses. Any revisions or additions to such spending plan shall be proposed to OMB in writing no later than five business days before the anticipated obligation of funds based on such revisions or additions. If OMB agrees to such revision or addition, OMB will notify HHS in writing, and the latest agreed-upon spend plan shall include that modification.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Tuesday that an initial pause had come in the form of a footnote from the Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s office, in a document that doles out federal funds to the National Institutes of Health. The footnote stipulated that the agency’s funding for the remainder of the fiscal year could only go to staff salaries and expenses, not to new grants or certain grants that are up for renewal. Most NIH-funded research is done by outside scientists at labs across the country. Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services spent the past several days fighting the funding pause, people familiar with the matter said. The OMB reversed course after the Journal’s story was published Tuesday, the people said.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/08/supreme-court-analysis-panic-gay-marriage-equality.html Obergefell is not Roe v. Wade. It did not unite the Republican Party in a tireless crusade to change the law. Indeed, Trump has expressed no interest in ending marriage equality, even as his administration has enacted other anti-LGBTQ+ policies. A couple of sitting justices would likely leap at the opportunity to cast Obergefell into the dustbin of history. But it is pretty clear that they haven’t yet secured a majority for their mission. And in the unlikely event that they do, Kim Davis’ case will not be the vehicle they use to eradicate the equal dignity of same-sex couples.
Facebook post from June 30, 2015: Oh hell no Human Rights Campaign. Marriage equality won, but they insist still focusing on it and not other issues like trans rights??? *tap tap microphone* Marriage only skims the surface, especially when it comes to the "T" part of LGBT rights Followed by screenshot of HRC fundraising campaign.
That’s not to say that gay rights are safe at this Supreme Court. Far from it: They are under active attack, albeit in a subtler way. In the past several years, the conservative supermajority has weaponized the First Amendment to legalize discrimination against same-sex couples in the marketplace. It has forced public schools to censor LGBTQ+ books and compelled states to fund private schools that discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. Next year, it will probably strike down state bans on LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy” for minors. Rather than take aim at Obergefell itself, the Republican-appointed justices have settled on curtailing gay rights in the name of religious liberty and free speech. They have also blessed overt discrimination against transgender people, cruelly denying them equal protection under the law. These rulings merit far more attention and scorn than a long-shot bid to take down marriage equality.
NSF’s actions violate the Preliminary Injunction. Though there may be situations where a “termination” and “suspension” are not the same thing, there is no principled difference between a “termination” and the immediate, indefinite, and “final” “suspension” of funding in this context. The suspensions have the same effect, and are based on the same type of deficient explanations, as the original terminations. NSF communicated the suspensions by means of a form letter that failed to provide the requisite grant-specific reason for halting funding, and that failed to adequately consider grant-specific interests, including the reliance interests of the researchers. Therefore, pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 55), NSF’s suspension of the grants at issue here is VACATED. For avoidance of doubt, the Court also clarifies that grant “termination,” as the term is used in the Preliminary Injunction, encompasses circumstances where grant funding is cut off on a long-term or indefinite basis, like the suspensions carried out by NSF on July 30
CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 8/12/2025 02:00 PM. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar. Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/lin-rita-f-rfl/ Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.
The Preliminary Injunction Order had required NSF to reinstate grants that it had terminated between January 20, 2025 and June 23, 2025, and NSF has already done so (“Previously Reinstated Grants”). NSF represents that it did not attempt to revisit any Previously Reinstated Grants to UCLA by suspending them in this latest action. Does NSF agree that suspending those Previously Reinstated Grants would have violated the Preliminary Injunction Order? 2. It has been widely publicized that NSF and other Agency Defendants halted research funding to various universities based on allegations similar to those listed in NSF’s August 1, 2025 letter to UCLA. Did NSF “terminate” those research grants as to the other universities, while calling the halt a “suspension” only as to the University of California? What about the other Agency Defendants? 3. Does NSF represent that it has conducted an individualized grant-by-grant Case 3:25-cv-04737-RFL Document 89 Filed 08/11/25 Page 1 of 2 2 analysis to evaluate the impact of immediately halting funds on the interests of the researchers relying on each grant or on the public interest in that research? If so, does NSF represent that such analysis included an assessment for each grant of: the stage of the research and its staffing requirements, the educational value of the research to graduate students, any wasted resources from halting funding midstream, and the loss to the public if the research were not published?
Finally, NSF’s single sentence that it considered reliance interests is obviously not enough. As this Court explained, “Agency Defendants terminated grants for active programs, some of which have been receiving federal funding for decades. The terminated grants were being used to pay Plaintiffs’ and their staff’s salaries, and to fund graduate student programs, field research, and community outreach. These facts indicate significant reliance interests that cannot simply be ignored.” Id. at 30. The Court found there was no evidence that NSF took any of these factors into consideration. Id. at 14-15 (“On the current record before the Court, it appears that terminations occurred without individualized consideration of the extent to which the projects continued to serve stated agency priorities, or the reliance interests of those whose careers and livelihoods were upended by the abrupt termination of previously issued grants.”). NSF’s letters do nothing to demonstrate that NSF has now given “individualized consideration” Case 3:25-cv-04737-RFL Document 78 Filed 08/04/25 Page 5 of 8 Honorable Rita F. Lin August 4, 2025 Page 6 to class members’ “significant reliance interests,” as required by the Order. Id. To the contrary, it indicates NSF’s belief that it can defy the Court’s mandate as long as it makes a single unsupported statement that it complied. The Order clearly requires more.
Agency Defendants are ENJOINED from giving effect to any grant termination that results in the termination of funding as to a member of the Form Termination Class, where the termination was communicated by means of a form termination notice that does not provide a grant-specific explanation for the termination that states the reason for the change to the original award decision and considers the reliance interests at stake.
The parties have filed letter briefs regarding whether Defendant NSF’s suspension of grants to UCLA violates the Preliminary Injunction Order in this case. (Dkt. No. 55.) Therefore, NSF is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE at a hearing on August 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., via zoom, why it is not in violation of the Preliminary Injunction provisions granting relief to the Form Termination Class, or—if the suspensions are not technically a violation of the Preliminary Injunction—why the Preliminary Injunction should not be extended to encompass suspensions of grants. Defendants may submit supplemental briefing of no more than 7 pages by August 7, 2025, addressing why the Court should not so extend the Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs may file a response of no more than 7 pages by August 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
But now we know where NSF decided to use its resources: finding a workaround for the Preliminary Injunction so that it could suspend grants indefinitely. NSF has violated the Preliminary Injunction and must immediately rescind the suspension of grants implicated in the July 30 and August 1 Letters. NSF’s argument that it did nothing wrong is unavailing for the reasons discussed below. II. NSF VIOLATED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. In Sea Shepherd, the Ninth Circuit provided that “it is proper to observe the objects for which the relief was granted and to find a breach of the decree in a violation of the spirit of the injunction, even though its strict letter may not have been disregarded.” Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 774 F.3d 935, 949 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co., 128 F.2d 981, 983 (2d Cir. 1942)). Here, the Preliminary Injunction’s express language and clear objective were to prevent the actions that NSF has taken against the Form Termination Class and the Equity Termination Class. Id.; Dkt. No. 55.
The July 30 letter from Ms. Lisa Scott-Morring, NSF’s Acting Division Director of Grants and Agreements to Dr. Julio Frenk, UCLA’s Chancellor says, “Effective immediately, the attached awards are suspended until further notice.” Attach. 1. This is indistinguishable from the grant terminations enjoined by the district court. The letter repeats the language used earlier when grants were cut off: “The agency has determined that suspension of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals.” Id. The indefinite grant suspensions were effected without notice, hearing, or findings of fact as required by the Constitution and federal law. As with the earlier cut off of grants, they were done without individual explanation and, in part, based on the viewpoints expressed. Because defendant NSF did not seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit, today plaintiffs are submitting a request to the district court to enforce its preliminary injunction. Nonetheless, plaintiffs thought it important to bring this to this Court’s attention because defendants’ actions are pertinent to their candor toward this Court in seeking a partial stay.
NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2025 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 3- In Person before Judge Jia M. Cobb. (zcll)
Plaintiffs’ first two causes of action plead claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Through these causes of action, Plaintiffs ultimately advance two kinds of claims. First, Plaintiffs challenge NSF’s already-completed grant terminations and ask the Court to order those grants—and thus the funding for Plaintiffs’ IHEs—restored. The Court concludes that it likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this type of retrospective claim because Plaintiffs, in essence, seek monetary relief from the federal government in an amount exceeding $10,000 and the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over that kind of claim. Second, Plaintiffs’ causes of action under the APA also assert a claim to vacate the Priority Directive and prospectively enjoin its implementation. While in isolation such a claim would tend to lay comfortably within this Court’s jurisdiction under the APA, at this preliminary stage Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of persuasion of showing that splitting their claims with the Court of Federal Claims would be permissible. The Court also concludes that subject matter jurisdiction is likely lacking over Plaintiffs’ three nonstatutory review causes of action because alternative procedures exist for the review of those claims and because Plaintiffs have not established that NSF plainly acted contrary to a clear and mandatory statutory prohibition or otherwise disregarded a clear statutory command. Thus, and for reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
"Sec. 239. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to increase the proportion of multi-year grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health in fiscal year 2026 that are fully funded in the first year of the award, relative to the comparable proportion in fiscal year 2024, unless the National Institutes of Health awards at least the same number of total grants in fiscal year 2026 as in fiscal year 2024."
TAFS: 075-0849 /2024 - National Cancer Institute Iterations: 1: 4/12/24 (this iteration) Adjustment authority: Yes Reporting categories: No Bureau: National Institutes of Health Account: National Cancer Institute Line # Split Description Amount Footnotes 1100 BA: Disc: Appropriation $7,224,159,000 1120 BA: Disc: Approps transferred to other accounts -$259,652,000 1121 BA: Disc: Approps transferred from other accounts $259,652,000 1151 BA: Disc: Appropriations:Antic nonexpend trans net -$2,918,000 Footnotes 1740 BA: Disc: Spending auth:Antic colls, reimbs, other $70,200,000 1920 Total budgetary resources avail (disc. and mand.) $7,291,441,000 6001 Category A -- 1st quarter $2,443,713,143 6002 Category A -- 2nd quarter $1,561,085,084 6003 Category A -- 3rd quarter $2,125,100,000 6004 Category A -- 4th quarter $1,161,542,773 6190 Total budgetary resources available $7,291,441,000 Footnotes Footnotes for line 6190: A1: The total amount apportioned may be increased for additional spending authority from reimbursables received by an amount not to exceed 10% of the sum of such amounts identified in the calculation of total budgetary resources available. The amount of such increase is to be applied to the appropriate line in the application of budgetary resources. [Rationale: Footnote signifies that this TAFS has received or may receive an automatic apportionment.]
NIH officials are hoping to remove or alter the restriction Vought’s office placed on their funds, according to an email viewed by The Wall Street Journal. The funding halt sets up a battle with lawmakers, who have already voiced concerns about slowed research funding.
Whatever the potential upsides might be, the sudden nature of the policy's application means it is a terrible idea now. We are arriving at the last few months of an already challenging and financially complex fiscal year. Research laboratories across the country are struggling with instability introduced by new federal policies. Many grants have been terminated, some institutions have had their funding completely frozen, and grants that would have been awarded are stuck behind administrative bottlenecks. Given these unprecedented attacks on science, scientists and institutions are faced with impossible decisions. Staff layoffs are widespread, investigators are fleeing to other countries, and research projects are being shuttered. Scientific work is not something that can be stopped and started on a whim: the required specialized expertise, reagents, cells, and animal models require predictability over several years to allow planning. If you are a PI with a well-scored grant, just waiting for council review, and you think you are sure to receive an award, you should think again. Paylines have changed just in the past few weeks due to this Trump multi-year funding policy. Even strong grants that you would have expected to be funded based on last year's paylines may not be awarded.
4. Withholding of Appropriated Funds As of July 2, 2025, some $2.2 billion of NSF’s $9 billion FY2025 appropriation remained illegally withheld by the Office of Management and Budget, despite being authorized by Public Law 119-4. This not only impairs the agency’s operations but violates public law requiring transparency in disbursements (P.L. 117-328).
August Advocacy Challenge – advocates are requested to take a specific action each week for four consecutive weeks: Week #1: August 4-8 – Request a meeting with your Senators/Representative either virtually or in-person at one of their local/state offices. Use FASEB’s template to request a meeting and or the Contact Me form on your Representative's or Senator's website. Invite other researchers, graduate students, or trainees to join you in the meeting. Week #2: August 11-15 – Subscribe to your Senator's/Representative’s electronic newsletter and/or follow them on social media (BlueSky, Instagram, etc.) Their websites will list links to their social media channels, and most have a pop-up message that allows you to sign up for their e-newsletter. This is also a good time to follow up on the meeting request you submitted during week 1 if you did not receive a response. Week #3: August 18-22 – Respond to FASEB’s e-action alert focused on NIH funding. Subscribe to the e-action alert list to make sure you do not miss the opportunity to email your members of Congress using FASEB’s trusted online system. Week #4: August 25-29 – Write and submit an op-ed or letter-to-the-editor (LTE) to your local or regional newspaper. Members of Congress pay far more attention to the local press than national outlets. Not sure how to get started? Watch the recording of FASEB’s op-ed/LTE training session, which features tips from a researcher who has published multiple letters, including several already this year.
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION SALARIES AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) Appropriations, 2025 ............................................................................. $128,000,000 Committee recommendation ................................................................. 122,000,000 The Committee’s recommendation provides $122,000,000 for the National Security Division [NSD]. The recommendation is $6,000,000 below the fiscal year 2025 enacted level. The NSD coordinates the Department’s national security and counterterrorism missions through law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, and handles counterespionage cases. The NSD works in coordination with the FBI, the Intelligence Community, and USAO. Its primary function is to prevent acts of terrorism and espionage from being perpetrated in the United States by foreign powers.
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION SALARIES AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) The recommendation includes $117,200,000 for the salaries and expenses of the National Security Division, which is $10,800,000 below fiscal year 2025 and equal to the OMB Budget request. Countering Espionage by the PRC.—The Committee believes it was deeply irresponsible for the Department to end its China Initiative. The Committee understands that the Department established the China Initiative in 2018 in response to troubling trends indicating 80 percent of all economic espionage prosecutions brought by the Department allege conduct that would benefit the Chinese state, and that there was at least some nexus to China in around 60 percent of all trade secret theft cases. The initiative’s goal was to identify and prosecute those engaged in trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage as well as protecting our critical infrastructure against external threats through foreign direct investment and supply chain compromises. Additionally, the initiative aimed to combat covert Chinese efforts to influence the American public and policymakers. Within funds provided, the Committee directs the National Security Division to reestablish an office dedicated to countering espionage and influence efforts against American businesses, research institutions, and academia emanating from the PRC.
Washington, D.C. – Please note, due to the change in the House calendar for the week of July 21st, the below originally scheduled markup for July 24th, 2025, has been postponed. A revised date will be announced once confirmed. Thursday, July 24, 2025 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies POSTPONED: Full Committee Markup – Fiscal Year 2026 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Bill 10:00 a.m., 2359 Rayburn
Name email Victor R. McCrary, Acting Chair vmccrary@nsf.gov Roger Beachy rbeachy@nsf.gov Aaron Dominguez dadoming@nsf.gov Dario Gil dgil@nsf.gov Yolanda Gil ygil@nsf.gov Juan E. Gilbert jgilbert@nsf.gov Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska dgrejner@nsf.gov Joan Ferrini-Mundy jferrini@nsf.gov Melvyn Huff mhuff@nsf.gov Jeffrey Isaacson jisaacso@nsf.gov Matthew Malkan mmalkan@nsf.gov Willie E. May wmay@nsf.gov Alondra Nelson alnelson@nsf.gov Sarah O’Donnell saodonne@nsf.gov Ryan Panchadsaram rpanchad@nsf.gov Julia M. Phillips juphilli@nsf.gov Marvi Matos Rodriguez mmatosro@nsf.gov Scott Stanley sstanley@nsf.gov Keivan Stassun kstassun@nsf.gov Merlin Theodore mtheodor@nsf.gov Wanda E. Ward weward@nsf.gov Bevlee Watford bwatford@nsf.gov Heather Wilson hewilson@nsf.gov
All the N.S.F. employees in the letter that was released publicly signed anonymously, except for Dr. Jesus Soriano, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403, the union representing the N.S.F. Nearly 50 of the signatories included their names in the private letter. “It is the expectation that comes with being a union leader that you stand up for the employees you represent,” Dr. Soriano said in an interview. “But we don’t fight only for the employees. We fight as well for the mission of the agencies where we work.”
Petition for Action As provided under the Lloyd-La Follette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211), the signatories respectfully petition the Committee to: 1. Ensure that NSF employees are shielded from politically motivated firings and protected under merit-based personnel systems. 2. End illegal impoundments of monies appropriated to NSF. 3. Defend the agency from further interference in its peer review process. 4. Demand transparency from OMB, DOGE, and NSF leadership regarding internal employment policies and future agency relocations. 5. Reaffirm NSF’s scientific independence and support for world-class research that advances national prosperity and security. NSF employees are committed to serving the American people through research, education, and innovation. But they cannot do so under fear, censorship, and institutional sabotage. Without immediate oversight and corrective action from Congress, one of our nation’s greatest engines for scientific and technological advancement faces irreversible long-term damage. Put simply, America will forfeit its scientific leadership position to China and other rival nations.
3 SEC. 526. (a) None of the funds made available by 4 this Act may be used for the National Aeronautics and 5 Space Administration (NASA), the Office of Science and 6 Technology Policy (OSTP), or the National Space Council 7 (NSC) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, 8 or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract 9 of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilat10 erally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned com11 pany unless such activities are specifically authorized by 12 a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
1) Amendment by Senator Collins and Senator Murray (Indirect Cost Rate) On page 9 of the report before the paragraph entitled “Federal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities” insert the following paragraph titled “Indirect Cost Rate” “The Committee recognizes that indirect cost recovery has been essential for supporting federally-funded research at university and private laboratories, enabling critical institutional functions such as federal compliance, research facility operations, and administrative support. The Committee acknowledges that optimizing indirect cost rates can further enhance the efficiency of funding allocation for direct research and programmatic activities, benefiting earlycareer researchers, smaller institutions, and community-based organizations. Ensuring an effective balance in indirect costs is key to sustaining U.S. leadership in scientific research and technological innovation. The Committee notes the academic research community’s efforts to develop a consensus proposal to refine this balance. In anticipation of that effort, the Committee introduces a new Title V General Provision on indirect cost rates.”
10 SEC. 542. In making Federal financial assistance, the 11 Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics and 12 Space Administration, and the National Science Founda13 tion shall continue to apply the negotiated indirect cost 14 rates for Institutions of Higher Education in section 15 200.414 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, including 16 with respect to the approval of deviations from negotiated 17 indirect cost rates, to the same extent and in the same 18 manner as such negotiated indirect cost rates were applied 19 in fiscal year 2024: Provided, That none of the funds ap20 propriated in this or prior Commerce, Justice, Science, 21 and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, or otherwise 22 made available to the Department of Commerce, the Na23 tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Na24 tional Science Foundation may be used to develop, modify, 143 •S 2354 RS 1 or implement changes to such fiscal year 2024 negotiated 2 indirect cost rates.
Provided, That of the amount made available under 19 this heading, the total amount specified in the table under 20 this heading in the report accompanying this Act shall be 21 for the purposes and in not less than the amount for each 22 such purpose specified in such table
Broadening Participation.—The Committee recognizes that the future of U.S. economic competitiveness and our Nation’s ability to address national, economic, and health security threats depends on sustaining a robust STEM workforce. As the demographics of our Nation evolve, ensuring individuals from underrepresented communities across the country can enter and sustain a career as part of the STEM workforce is essential to securing the workforce going forward. The Committee is deeply concerned that entrenched financial barriers are increasingly deterring students, particularly those from underrepresented communities, from pursuing STEM careers. The Committee encourages NSF to evaluate the adequacy of compensation for trainees and early career researchers supported through fellowships, training grants, and research awards. NSF is also encouraged continue supporting the recruitment, retention, and advancement of underrepresented faculty at U.S. institutions of higher education through relevant existing programs. The Committee continues to support the Broadening Participation in STEM programs.
In FY 2026, NSF also proposes integrating the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) into the R&RA Account, retiring the standalone STEM Education Account. The R&RA appropriation already supports STEM education. This consolidation brings these efforts into a single, cohesive structure. This change enhances administrative efficiency, reduces complexity, and improves NSF’s ability to execute its mission while aligning with administration priorities, particularly during the year of execution.
Perhaps most shortsighted of all, this bill disinvests in the scientific research that drives American innovation, technological leadership, and economic competitiveness. This bill cuts the National Science Foundation by more than two billion dollars and ends STEM education programs altogether—abandoning the next generation of scientists and engineers who will shape whether America continues to be a leader or becomes a follower in the global economy. As other countries are racing forward in space exploration and climate science, this bill would cause the United States to fall behind by cutting NASA’s science account by over $1.3 billion. The bill also makes huge cuts to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has helped American industry overcome technical challenges, innovate manufacturing, and work on the cutting edge of technologies like quantum and artificial intelligence. I disagree with this bill’s approach. As I have said repeatedly, I believe we should be doubling down on the investments in science that grow our economy and incentivize advancements that improve life for all Americans.
Graph comparing NSF actual budget for STEM ed ($1.2B in recent years) to CHIP authorizations levels ($2+ billion), asking where is it going to go next year?
STEM EDUCATION Appropriations, 2025 ............................................................................. $1,172,000,000 Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000,000