Translate

Wednesday, March 05, 2025

US natalist conference to host race-science promoters and eugenicists at UT-Austin: This is downright disgraceful

Friends,

As I read this and came up with all the labels for this piece, this development at UT-Austin  is quite the smorgasbord. 
eugenics, UT-Austin, race and IQ, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), scientific racism, white nationalism, scientific racism, Mankind Quarterly, neo-fascism, Great Replacement, extremism
I encourage people to read books and take courses that actually address how race is NOT a biological but rather a social construct. The very concept of race is a modern one that any close reading of the historical record reveals. In the U.S., according to race and ethnicity scholars Michael Omi and Howard Winant in their book, "Racial Formation in the United States," race is something that is very unstable and that occurs within historical and contemporary process of racialization.

I remember an Arab Studies colleague at UT speaking to my class after 9-11, telling me that for the first time in his life, he experienced getting treated racially. Indeed, 9-11 resulted in the Arab/Muslim community becoming a race like other Black and Brown people. 

Racialization also happens regularly, if not casually, through everyday practices that result in the elevation of one race, color, or ethnicity over the other. That this is the norm is what not only gives racialization its power, but its invisibility. This gets complexified when adding sex, gender, ability, and other axes of demarcation.

I also urge readers to check out this earlier post of mine that lays it out all pretty well and that I encourage you to read:


Super disappointed that my university is opening the door to these discredited, white nationalist, neo-fascist frameworks. Whoever is responsible needs to take a course or two on race and ethnic relations themselves. 

This is beyond shameful. It's downright disgraceful. A new low, for sure.

-Angela Valenzuela 


Reference

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial formation in the United States. Routledge.


US natalist conference to host race-science promoters and eugenicists

Details emerge about Natal conference in Austin later this month, set to feature figures linked to far-right politics




The campus of the University of Texas at Austin. It is the second time the Natal conference has been held. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images

by Jason Wilson, March 3, 2025, The Guardian

A natalist conference featuring speakers including self-described eugenicists and promoters of race science, apparently including the man behind a previously pseudonymous race-science influencer account, and the founder of a startup offering IQ screening for IVF embryos, will be held at a hotel and conference venue operated by the public University of Texas, Austin.

Details of the conference have emerged as a prominent supporter of pro-natalist positions, the tech billionaire Elon Musk, lays waste US government agencies under the banner of his “Doge” initiative, with the blessing of Donald Trump.

Natalism in its current often rightwing iteration encourages high birth rates, and Musk has been a vocal proponent. He also maintains a large compound home near Austin, where reportedly he plans to house some of his children and two of their mothers.

The Natal conference website embeds a Musk post on X, reading: “If birth rates continue to plummet, human civilization will end.” Musk, who reportedly has at least 13 children by four mothers, was in recent days confronted on X by musician Grimes and the rightwing influencer Ashley St Clair over his alleged neglect of the children he has fathered with them.

The conference, scheduled for 28-29 March, is being organized by Kevin Dolan, who the Guardian identified in 2021 as the person behind a Twitter account that was prominent in the far-right “DezNat” movement, and last year as the organizer of the first conference. It is the second time the conference has been held, and once again, the speakers roster runs from provocateurs who emerged from the “fascist fitness scene” to practitioners of “liberal eugenics”.

Patrik Hermansson, a researcher at Hope Not Hate, a British anti-hate non-profit, said that the pro-natalism beliefs informing the Natal conference was one of the crucial planks of “the modern race science movement”.

“It’s about having more babies,” he said, “but it’s important to ask whose babies. It’s about promoting the idea that certain people should have babies that have been improved with positive eugenics.”

Locating the Natal conference

On the ticketing page of the website for the conference, prospective attendees are told of the venue: “Register to see address.” However, in small print on the main page, prospective attendees are told that on day one they can “mingle with speakers and experts for dinner at the Bullock Museum of Texas History in Austin”, and the following day attend a “symposium at the AT&T Conference Center, featuring keynote speakers as well as a closed-door, facilitated ‘unconference’”.

A promotional email sent out by the organization said the conference had secured “discounted accommodations at the AT&T Conference Center for attendees”, accessible with a discount code. Standard tickets are $1,000, according to event’s ticketing page, but buyers are warned that purchases will “require approval”.

The Guardian emailed the University of Texas for comment on their venue hosting the conference.

Jordan Lasker, AKA ‘Cremieux’

One of the speakers at the conference is billed under a social media alias, Cremieux, but the Guardian has corroborated that the account is apparently run by Jordan Lasker, a long-time proponent of eugenics.

The @cremieuxrecueil X account has been boosted or engaged with dozens of times by that platform’s proprietor, Elon Musk, often on the topic of falling birthrates.

On 27 November, Musk reposted a Cremieux comment on falling birthrates, adding: “With rare exception, all countries are trending towards population collapse.”

On 29 April, Cremieux posted: “Only about a third of the world even meets replacement rate fertility. This is the biggest problem of our time.” Musk responded: “Yes.”

Musk has also boosted or responded favorably to Cremieux posts on other rightwing hobby horses such as crime in Portland, Oregon, and allegations that Democrats had created loopholes in the asylum system.

Away from X, Cremieux runs a Substack also featuring posts on the supposed relationships between race and IQ. A prominently featured post there seeks to defend the argument that average national IQs vary by up to 40 points, with countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia at the high end and countries in the global south at the low end, and several African countries purportedly having average national IQs at a level that experts associate with mental impairment.

Those arguments, first made in a book by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, are now so discredited that journals including Proceedings of the Royal Society and Psychological Science have retracted articles that relied on the data. In 2020, the scholarly European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association published a blanket condemnation of Lynn’s data alongside its code of conduct on its website, writing: “Any conclusions drawn from these data are both untenable, and likely to give rise to racist conclusions.”

Lynn, whose work Cremieux seeks to defend in the post, was a self-described scientific racist, and is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the most unapologetic and raw ‘scientific’ racists”.

Until his death in 2023, Lynn was a key figure in organized scientific racism. He served on the board of the Pioneer Fund, which funded “leading Anglo-American race scientists” for decades. He was editor of Mankind Quarterly, a long-standing “pseudo-scholarly outlet for promoting racial inequality”. He held a position on the advisory board of the Occidental Quarterly, a key platform for far-right intellectuals to express pseudo-scientific antisemitic views. He also presented at the American Renaissance conference, a white nationalist gathering where in 2002 he claimed higher rates of psychopathy and psychopathic behavior existed among Black populations compared to others.

Jordan Lasker has also sought to rehabilitate and employ Lynn’s work in papers published under his own name, perhaps most controversially in a co-written paper, Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability. One of his co-authors, Bryan Pesta, was later dismissed from his tenured professorship at Cleveland State University over the use of National Institutes of Health data in the paper.

Last October, the Guardian reported that Pesta had joined a video call with a network of race-science researchers who claimed to have “under the table” access to sensitive genetic data at the UK Biobank. Another of Lasker’s co-authors on Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability, Emil Kirkegaard, was the host of that video call.

Kirkegaard is a self-described eugenicist, explicitly advocates “race science”, and has credentialled himself as a senior fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research (UISR), an organization headed by Richard Lynn until his death.

Lasker’s role in running the Cremieux account has long been a subject of social media speculation, and recent efforts by some writers to further substantiate that identification have not been disputed by Lasker or the Cremieux account.

While previous investigations have focused on Lasker’s alleged history across several Reddit accounts, the Guardian obtained a scrape of the website of the 2024 Manifest conference via a source whose identity is being protected over fears of retaliation.

Last year, the Guardian reported that Manifest was held at a venue that FTX bankruptcy administrators alleged was partly secured with donations from the company Sam Bankman-Fried led into bankruptcy. Lighthaven, owners of the venue, subsequently denied that they had seen the money.

Source code from the site detailing conference registrations indicates that Cremieux, a guest speaker there, registered under an email associated with Lasker.

When the Guardian reached out on that Lasker-linked email to ask about the registration and other evidence pointing to his operation of the Cremieux, Lasker replied with a message containing a promotional code for discounted subscriptions to the Cremieux Substack.

Between the Guardian’s request for comment and Lasker’s response, the “neofascist lifestyle influencer” Charles Cornish-Dale, who posts under the pseudonym Raw Egg Nationalist, told his X followers that the Guardian was about to “doxx another anon”, that is to identify another pseudonymous rightwing influencer account.

Cornish-Dale was one of the influencers who responded with dismay after the Guardian identified Jonathan Keeperman as the man behind the “L0m3z” X account and rightwing publisher Passage Press last year. Later in the year, Cornish-Dale was himself identified as Raw Egg Nationalist by Hope Not Hate.

Cornish-Dale is a figurehead of the rightwing bodybuilding scene, and has been a keen promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory. He had nevertheless lived with his mother in sleepy south Dorset during the entirety of his career as a rightwing influencer, according to Hope Not Hate.

Cornish-Dale and Keeperman are both also slated to speak at Natal this year.

‘Liberal eugenics’

Other Natal speakers are affiliated with organizations that promote eugenicist ideas and practices.

Broadly, eugenics is a group of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of a human population. It became the basis of a popular movement from the late 19th century, and led to governments around the world adopting policies such as forced sterilization of disabled and mentally ill people. The field was discredited due to its association with racial policies in Nazi Germany, and many critics have attacked it as a pseudoscience.

One scheduled speaker, Jonathan Anomaly is a former academic and an advocate of what he has called “liberal eugenics”.

The Guardian reported in October that he was a senior staff member at Heliospect, a startup offering to help wealthy couples screen their embryos for IQ even though screening embryos for these traits would be illegal in the UK.

On the podcast of “new right” figure Alex Kaschuta, in an episode published on Tuesday, Anomaly said of his company’s services: “What can you do? Well, through embryo selection, you’re going to be able to calculate polygenic scores that reduce disease, boost IQ at least a bit, and maybe more in the future.”

Diana Fleischman, another speaker scheduled to appear at Natal, is a podcast host and contributor at online magazine Aporia, as well as an academic evolutionary psychologist, according to her personal website.

The Guardian also reported last October that Aporia was at the center of an “international network of ‘race science’ activists seeking to influence public debate with discredited ideas on race and eugenics”.

One of Fleischman’s articles at Aporia is entitled “You’re probably a eugenicist”. On her Substack feed she has promoted excerpts from Aporia articles, including one on 29 November that used the Holocaust to bolster the claim that black people are innately less intelligence than whites: “If anti-black racism has such devastating effects on cognitive performance among blacks, why did the Holocaust leave no discernible impact on cognitive performance among Jews?”

The publication is operated by the Human Diversity Foundation, an organization registered in Wyoming by Emil Kirkegaard.

Aporia’s executive editor Bo Winegard was by his own account fired by Ohio’s Marietta College in March 2020 after, in a seminar hosted by the University of Alabama, Winegard reportedly said: “People in colder climates, because the differences in brain size, have more propensity for cooperation”.

Aporia editor Noah Carl was stripped of a postdoctoral fellowship at Cambridge University after it emerged that alongside his academic work in sociology, he had simultaneously been publishing scientific-racist articles in outlets notorious for peddling scientific racism, including Mankind Quarterly.

Returning to Natal for a second year running are also Malcolm and Simone Collins, the so-called “hipster eugenicists” who have become the prominent advocates of pro-natalism. The Guardian reported in November that the Collinses, after being approached by a man posing as a potential investor in their projects, produced a proposal for a city-state on the Isle of Man that “contained ideas that seem plucked out of a dystopian science fiction movie”.

The plan envisioned a society that would “grant more voting power to creators of economically productive agents”, and be ruled by a periodically rotated “dictator”. They said the arrangement would make the British crown dependency a center for the “mass production of genetically selected humans”.

The previous month, Hope Not Hate published an investigation, also derived from undercover interactions with the Collinses, showing that “despite [their] rejection of the label, what the couple propose is often reminiscent of eugenics”.

The Guardian reported on the 2024 iteration of the Natal conference ahead of the event, detailing the far-right history of event organizer Dolan, and the prominent place of other speakers in eugenicist and far-right politics.

Politico reporting from the event, and revealed that long-time white nationalist activist Taylor, founder of the American Renaissance conference, had been in attendance.

Tuesday, March 04, 2025

Texas House Bill Proposes to Ban DEI in Required University Curriculum: We must OPPOSE HB 2548, HB 2311, and HB 2339

These extremists think they are so clever with their Defunding Indoctrination in Education (DIE) Act which is, of course, a play on words with the ongoing attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.  Geez, what a lie that it "harms community" without providing evidence that this is so and without being transparent that this is an attack by white leaders on the 1964 Civil Rights Act that allowed Black and Brown communities access to public accommodations, education, employment opportunities, and voting rights by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Now, their contrived deployment of the scientistic language of "a positive return on investments...after graduation" is white supremacy disguised as race-neutral economic rationality, while reinforcing systemic barriers to access and success for marginalized communities and obscuring the structural inequalities that shape educational and career outcomes that the 1964 CRA addressed.

By framing education solely in terms of financial returns, they ignore the historical and ongoing discrimination that limits opportunities for Black and Brown communities, perpetuating the very inequities the 1964 Civil Rights Act aimed to eliminate.

Rep. Ron Reynolds is absolutely correct that HB 2548 in his analysis of the bill:
"H.B. 2548 is nothing more than an ideological gag order designed to keep students from learning the full truth about American history and society," he said in a written statement shared by AJC.

Please learn from this piece and these links about HB 2548HB 2339, and HB 2311—and the damage that they portend. How? These bills are not just misguided—they are weapons designed to disfigure public education, siphoning resources, eroding equity, and dismantling the foundation of opportunity for marginalized communities. We must recognize this threat for what it is: a deliberate assault on our future. And we must resist—vigorously, relentlessly, and without compromise.

-Angela Valenzuela


Texas House bill proposes to ban DEI in required university curriculum

Lily Kepner, Austin American-Statesman. March 1, 2025




Before students at the University of Texas graduate, they are required to take global cultures and cultural diversity courses. It's part of a plan set in 2006 to ensure students take "skills and experiences courses" to prepare them to enter the world and hold successful careers after graduation.

Former UT President Jay Hartzell has said the university is reviewing its graduation requirements to ensure they are still best for students and the workforce. But state Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, has filed a bill to limit diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education curriculum.

House Bill 2548 — one of several proposals to legislate courses and curriculum over race, gender or sexuality at public universities — comes after similar attempts in the 2023 legislative session to pass legislation to keep faculty members from "compelling" students to adopt a belief about race, sex, society or politics died in the House.

HB 2548 specifically seeks to ban coursework that is required or otherwise "constrain(ed)" — such as by "failing during any semester to provide sufficient open seats in alternative courses" — on the following topics as they "relate to contemporary American society":

  • Critical race theory, whiteness, systemic racism, institutional racism, anti-racism, microaggressions, decolonization
  • Race-based reparations, privilege, diversity, equity, inclusion, stratification, marginalization
  • Intersectionality, gender identity, social justice, cultural competence, decolonization
  • Systemic or structural bias, implicit bias, unconscious bias, decolonization

The bill would not prevent required classes on "historical movements, ideologies, or instances of racial hatred or discrimination," including slavery and the Holocaust, but it says the courses can't "distort significant historical events" or consist of curriculum based on "theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States." If degree programs specifically state they concern one of those topics, such as LGBTQ+ or African American studies, they can continue with the requirements, but other majors, like sociology, cannot.

The Austin Justice Coalition, university professors and community members came together last week to oppose Harris' bill, saying the proposal would censor diversity courses.

Chas Moore, founder and co-executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition, a local organization that advocates to improve the lives of people of color and impoverished Texans, said the bill is "another attempt to erase, eradicate and diminish very large groups of people," invalidating the experience of marginalized residents who still face oppression.

"Our college institutions ... are the places where a lot of kids, for the first time, they get to take deep dives into history," Moore said. "But now instead of incentivizing this, we want to penalize institutions, take away academic freedom, put all types of work into the administration just in the name of this crazy attack on diversity, equity, inclusion."

Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, who sponsored the conference room at the Capitol for the AJC and others, said Harris' bill follows a national pattern to "suppress discussions on system injustice and maintain the status quo of inequality."

"H.B. 2548 is nothing more than an ideological gag order designed to keep students from learning the full truth about American history and society," he said in a written statement shared by AJC. "We will not let extremists erase our history or dictate what knowledge students can access."

Harris did not return multiple American-Statesman calls seeking comment.

Other proposals

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, on the first day of the legislative session had indicated his desire to ban "critical race theory" in higher education, and many GOP lawmakers have been outwardly critical of diversity-related coursework.

Moore said at the Feb. 20 news conference that the group was highlighting Harris's bill because of his seniority. Rep. Daniel Alders, a freshman republican from Tyler, introduced a similar bill on course requirements.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, released draft legislation that would push civic education as required coursework and establish an "independent School of General Education" at each higher education institution that has the "sole control over most of the new required courses," also reflecting a push to center civics and Western history over more diverse requirements.

Rep. Carl Tepper, R-Lubbock, and Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, both proposed bills that would sunset programs that do not give students a positive return on investments on average after graduation, likely in response to an interim charge from Patrick seeking to prioritize "credentials of value" over "DEI."

Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, has filed legislation to further expand the state's DEI ban in higher education. HB 2311 would fully eliminate DEI-related coursework, student organizations, research and recruitment — which were exempted in Senate Bill 17, the 2023 law by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, that prohibited DEI-related offices, programs and hiring at public universities and colleges effective Jan. 1, 2024.

Harrison also filed HB 2339, the Defunding Indoctrination in Education (DIE) Act, which would prohibit LGBTQ+ courses and programs at colleges and universities as well as any program "in diversity, equity, and inclusion, including but not limited to, promoting differential treatment of individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity."
'Going to inevitably harm our communities'

Esmeralda Rubalcava Hernandez, an adjunct professor in social work at St. Edwards University and a doctorate candidate at the University of Texas at Arlington, who studies how immigration and policing intersect, said at the news conference that bills targeting higher education curriculum would prevent requiring sociology students from taking courses in diversity, giving them a limited understanding of the future people they might serve.

"To send social work, sociology, criminal justice and other students out into the profession without knowing the realities that impact every single one of us today, regardless of our racial identities, of our ancestries, we are all impacted," she said. "Not having students who know this and are out doing work in communities, is going to inevitably harm our communities. It is going to cause a great amount of danger to people who are already marginalized."

Sully Snook, at St. Edward's University senior, said they became a sociology major to "learn how the world works" and has gained valuable knowledge about society by taking diversity courses. They spoke at the conference to ensure other Texas students wouldn't lose that chance.

"I'm learning so much that lower ed doesn't teach people," Snook said in an interview after the news conference. "It's so important and impactful to be able to see the truth."

Mary Elizabeth with the Austin Justice Coalition, said Harris' bill will "stifle free exchange of ideas" and prevent societal problems from being addressed. Elizabeth, a white woman, said she was shocked to see Harris' bill would restrict required courses mentioning gender too.

"That's new for me," Elizabeth said. "While I support all marginalized groups, I want women across Texas to know they're in the spotlight as well."

Dominique Alexander, a minister who is the founder and president of social justice organization Next Generation Action Network, said Harris' bill would prevent students from learning about the racism, gender inequity and injustice in today's world and thus prevent them from solving it.

"We understand that the American history, the true American history, is a history of all," Alexander said. "This kind of censorship creates the fear of classrooms. It forced professors to second guess their words and suppress a critical conversation that is necessary to shape and inform citizens, limiting students' educational exposure."

The House Committee on Higher Education has not yet met to consider these bills. The Senate Committee on K-16 Education has not yet heard bills related to higher education curriculum.

"We cannot build a society if students are denied the tools to understand injustice," Alexander added. The next "Thurgood Marshall, Angela Davis, Barack Obama could be sitting in a Texas classroom right now. We cannot rob them of the knowledge or the courage that's needed to form and transform our society."

Eric Hepburn, a San Gabriel Unitarian Universalist fellow, introduced himself as a white Christian man who is against HB 2548 because he believes it would prevent Texans from confronting the hard truth about modern society.

"I walk here with only love in my heart," he said. "No one can be protected from the truth."

Monday, March 03, 2025

US Department of Education Tattle-Tale Line: Let’s Flood It with the Truth by Dr. Julian Vasquez-Heilig

Friends,

I agree with Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig that we need to respond to this weaponization of DEI by the U.S. Department of (Mis)education. We must all speak our truths now.

-Angela Valenzuela


US Department of Education Tattle-Tale Line: Let’s Flood It with the Truth

Julian Vasquez Heilig March 2, 2025 



In yet another attempt to weaponize the federal government against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in education, the U.S. Department of Education—at the urging of Moms for Liberty and other far-right extremist groups—has launched the “Stop DEI Portal” (https://enddei.ed.gov).

This taxpayer-funded snitch line is designed to invite anonymous complaints against public schools, colleges, and universities that are actively working to create inclusive and equitable environments for all students. Their goal? To stoke fear, intimidate educators, and dismantle efforts to address racial, gender, and socioeconomic inequities in education.

Let’s be clear: this is not about stopping discrimination—it’s about silencing efforts to eliminate it.

But here’s the thing: if this portal is truly meant to address discrimination, then let’s make sure it serves that purpose.

Let’s Turn the Tables: Report REAL Discrimination

If the Department of Education wants reports of discrimination, let’s give them exactly that. But let’s report real, documented cases of discrimination—the kind that actually harms students and families every single day, especially in underregulated charter and voucher-funded schools.

Here’s what they don’t want reported, but what we should be flooding their portal with:

1. Discrimination Against Students with Disabilities

• Many charter and voucher schools systematically exclude students with disabilities, either by refusing to provide necessary accommodations or pushing them out with discriminatory discipline policies.

• Special education students in voucher programs often lose their federal protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when they transfer to private schools.

• Some schools refuse to admit students who require additional supports, effectively segregating students with disabilities from their peers.

📌 If you or someone you know has experienced this, report it here: https://enddei.ed.gov

2. Discrimination Against LGBTQ+ Students

• In some states, charter and private schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers have explicit policies that allow them to deny admission to LGBTQ+ students or expel them for their identity.

• LGBTQ+ students often face harassment, deadnaming, misgendering, and bullying—sometimes by school officials—without intervention.

• Books and curriculum that acknowledge LGBTQ+ history and experiences are being banned, erasing the existence of LGBTQ+ students and families from the classroom.

📌 If you’ve seen LGBTQ+ students being targeted or erased, report it here: https://enddei.ed.gov

3. Racial Discrimination and Segregation in Schools

• Many charter and private schools resegregate students by race and income, creating de facto segregation that mirrors the Jim Crow era.

• Black and Brown students face harsher disciplinary actions than their white peers for the same behaviors.

• AP African American Studies, ethnic studies courses, and other curriculum that acknowledges systemic racism are being banned or watered down, denying students an accurate understanding of history.

📌 If you have evidence of racial discrimination in schools, report it here: https://enddei.ed.gov

4. Discrimination Against Low-Income Students

• Voucher programs siphon public dollars away from neighborhood schools, making it harder for low-income students to access well-funded, high-quality education.

• Private voucher schools are not required to provide free or reduced-price lunch programs, effectively shutting out students who rely on school meals.

• School choice programs increase economic segregation, allowing affluent families to access better resources while leaving lower-income students in underfunded public schools.

📌 If you know of schools pushing out or underfunding low-income students, report it here: https://enddei.ed.gov

Weaponizing the Portal Against Its Own Purpose

The Stop DEI Portal is not about protecting students—it’s about political theater and furthering a radical agenda to dismantle public education.

Conservative groups like Moms for Liberty, the Heritage Foundation, and other well-funded organizations have pushed for Project 2025, a policy plan designed to eliminate federal civil rights protections, dismantle DEI initiatives, and privatize public education.

They want to create a parallel education system where only privileged, wealthy families benefit—while marginalized students are left behind.

What You Can Do Right Now

✅ Step 1: Submit REAL complaints to the Stop DEI Portal

Visit https://enddei.ed.gov and report discrimination against students with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and low-income students.

✅ Step 2: Share this far and wide

Encourage educators, parents, and students to flood the portal with real discrimination complaints.

✅ Step 3: Support organizations fighting back

Groups like Our Schools Our Democracy (OSOD) and the Network for Public Education (NPE) are exposing the harms of privatization and the discriminatory practices of charter and voucher schools.

✅ Step 4: Stay engaged in the fight to protect public education

The NPE/NPE Action Conference on April 5-6 in Columbus, Ohio is bringing together educators, advocates, and policymakers to discuss how to defend public schools and stop the Project 2025 playbook. I’ll be there.

There’s no time to sit on the sidelines. The Stop DEI Portal is just the beginning of a much larger battle. If we don’t fight back now, the next generation will inherit an education system built on exclusion, discrimination, and privatization.

Let’s make sure the truth is louder than deception.

🔗 Submit your complaint now: https://enddei.ed.gov

🔗 Support OSOD and the Network for Public Education

🔗 Register for the NPE/NPE Action Conference before spots fill up!

This is about more than DEI. This is about democracy, justice, and the future of public education. Let’s fight back—together.

Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig

Julian Vasquez Heilig drives change, delivers results, and disrupts inequityView all posts by Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig



Saturday, February 22, 2025

INVITATION:. “For the Love of Texas: A Unity Summit for Higher Education”

 INVITATION: “For the Love of Texas: A Unity Summit for Higher Education”

Event Hashtag: #FLOT2025

For the Love of Texas: A Unity Summit for Higher Education” (FLOT), takes place on Saturday, March 1, 2025, from 8 AM-5 PM at the Austin Community College Rio Grande Campus’ Center for Government and Civic Service located at 1218 West Ave, Austin, TX 78701

An initiative of 
Black Brown Dialogues on PolicyFLOT (pronounced "float") represents the first-ever grassroots coalition for higher education in Texas that is already over 20 organizational members strong.

Summit Highlights

Keynote Speakers: House Democratic Caucus Chair, Rep. Gene Wu and Texas State Rep. Aicha Davis, and additional speakers to be confirmed.

Workshops & Panels: Addressing key issues such as legislative advocacy, faculty rights, and student engagement.

Networking Opportunities: Bringing together educators, students, policymakers, and community leaders.

Free parking in the parking garage on 12th St. (at the corner with West).

Toward the end of the event, we'll celebrate with bomba music that reflects our shared African and Latino, especially Puerto Rican, heritage!

This is historic, my friends. If you’re interested in attending, please register at our event website, fortheloveoftexas.org We will livestream the morning session from our Black Brown Dialogues on Policy website. Please like us on Facebook.

A world of thanks to our co-sponsors.

-Angela Valenzuela

Links

  FLOT Program

 Summit Website: fortheloveoftexas.org

PayPal Fundraiser Link

Event Hashtag: #FLOT2025





Sunday, February 16, 2025

What You Need to Know about the US Department of Education as Linda McMahon Goes Before Congress

Trump is aiming to shut down the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE)—a long-standing conservative goal—but everyone should know that doing so would require congressional approval (also read "Trump wants to shut education department heres why what that means") Sometime soon, Trump is expected to sign an executive order directing the future secretary of education to carry this out with the idea of transferring education responsibilities to the 50 states, with the presumptive nominee, Linda McMahon, developing a plan for closing the USDOE

The Chronicle of Higher Education article below raises a lot of important questions should this dismantling occur. Where would its essential functions like student financial aid be transferred—to the Treasury or Justice department? How is Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) involved in overseeing budget cuts? Why are universities concerned about funding cuts, and what legal challenges have arisen regarding unauthorized access to student data?

How are House Democrats and college leaders opposing the move, especially as related to research funding and institutional stability? What federal agency or mechanism would Trump's administration use to enforce education-related policies such as bans on DEI programs and transgender athletes in women's sports?

It's incredible to learn that 20 House Democrats were recently locked out of the USDOE building after demanding a meeting with the acting secretary to protest Trump's closure plans.

-Angela Valenzuela

What You Need to Know as Linda McMahon Goes Before Congress

By Alissa Gary February 12, 2025

Linda McMahonTom Williams, AP

Linda McMahon, President Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, will testify before the U.S. Senate’s education committee on Thursday.

If she’s confirmed, Trump has said her first task would be to “put herself out of a job.”

Trump has promised to shut down the department in favor of reducing federal spending and putting education in the hands of the states — a sentiment embraced by conservatives since the department’s founding 45 years ago.

A president can’t unilaterally eliminate the department without congressional approval.

But the Trump administration has already tried to shutter an agency — directing mass budget and staffing cuts at the United States Agency for International Development — and pause billions in federal funding, including for higher-ed research. Courts have ordered the administration to unfreeze funding; news reports indicate that some parts of the government, including the National Institutes of Health, have not fully complied.

What the Department Does

In higher education, the Education Department distributes grants for minority-serving institutions and student success, manages the federal work-study program, argues civil-rights cases, and awards more than $120 billion a year in federal student aid.

It’s unclear what exactly Trump plans to do with essential functions, such as financial aid, if he closes the department. Some Trump allies have floated moving financial matters, like grants and loans, to the Treasury Department. Civil-rights cases could fall under the Department of Justice, said Kenneth L. Marcus, a lawyer who served as an assistant education secretary for civil rights during the first Trump administration.

Marcus believes some shifts could be beneficial: Integrating education with other departments could result in more staffers with certain skill sets — like accountants and lawyers — handling non-policy matters like finances and investigations, as opposed to former educators and school administrators.

“That could facilitate a smoother function and greater efficiency and possibly a shift from administrative approaches,” Marcus said.

Christopher F. Rufo, a conservative activist and trustee at New College of Florida, a small public institution that’s seen its curriculum and culture reshaped by Republicans, laid out his own vision for the shutdown in an article on Tuesday.

If the Education Department closes, Rufo wrote, student financial assistance should “spin off” into a different, independent financial entity that would evaluate costs and reduce the total amount of loans. (Federal Student Aid is an office of the Education Department but already operates independently, thanks to a decision made nearly three decades ago by Republican lawmakers.)

Even if the department remains operational, Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, spearheaded by the tech mogul Elon Musk, could severely reduce its size and capabilities. DOGE posted Monday on X that it had ended 89 contracts with the Education Department worth $881 million. Most of those cuts fell within the Institute of Education Sciences.

Trump’s attempt to dismantle the department is another example of “unprecedented governmental overreach and intrusion” into higher education, said Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, or AAC&U.

Even if the department’s responsibilities and funds are transferred elsewhere rather than cut, “it’s not clear that there’s capacity to handle these enormous tasks,” she said.

Other Closure Attempts

Trump is far from the first Republican politician to try to eliminate the Education Department. In 1980, Ronald Reagan called the agency a “bureaucratic boondoggle” during his campaign against then-President Jimmy Carter, who had founded the department the previous year. Reagan later said he’d seek to close it as president.

In 1996, conservatives were united behind shuttering the department, but the idea was blocked by then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. More recently, in 2023, a Republican representative from Alabama introduced a bill that aimed to “abolish” the Education Department and transfer responsibility of Pell Grants and federal loans to the Treasury Department. That bill died in committee.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, introduced a bill this year that states simply: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2026.” The bill hasn’t advanced further.

Trump in his first term proposed cutting $9.2 billion, or about 13 percent, of total federal funding to K-12 and higher education, but his cuts were not adopted by Congress. His administration also came up with a plan to merge the Education and Labor Departments, but that didn’t go anywhere, either.

This time around, Trump seems more intent on eliminating the department and cutting federal spending, said Patrick McGuinn, an associate professor of political science at Drew University who studies federal education policy.

“The pace and scope of change that we’ve seen in just the first few weeks of Trump’s administration indicates that he’s quite serious about doing some of these things,” McGuinn said.

Closing the department could complicate Trump’s education agenda, McGuinn added. In his first week in office, Trump issued executive orders that aimed to end diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts across the public and private sectors. Last week, he issued another order banning transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

To ensure those rules are enforced, Trump needs a government agency, McGuinn said.

“Same department,” McGuinn said, “but used for a different purpose.”
Pushback and Privacy

On Friday, about 20 House Democrats were barred from entering the Education Department’s building after gathering to demand an impromptu meeting with the acting secretary, Denise L. Carter, hoping to protest Trump’s plan for closure.

“A year ago, I’d be able to walk into this building and not be locked out,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost, Democrat of Florida, in a video posted to his X account. “This is what they’re doing. Elon is allowed in. But not you, not your elected representative, not parents, not students.”

Musk, who owns the social-media platform, responded to Frost by saying the Education Department “doesn’t exist.”

Musk came under fire last week when some of DOGE’s employees received access to Education Department databases containing confidential student data, including Social Security numbers, personal information needed to receive financial aid, and even family members’ immigration status.

That worried the University of California Student Association, a group representing the UC system’s 295,000 students. The association filed a lawsuit on Friday against Carter and the department to block the DOGE employees’ “unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous” access to student information.

Amid DOGE’s targeting, analytics data show a spike in downloads for the complaint form used to allege violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA.




After a judge intervened, the Education Department agreed to suspend DOGE’s permissions until at least February 17. The Federal Student Aid office published a statement asserting that its staff “have not engaged in any activities that would expose data through unauthorized or unlawful means.”

On Thursday, McMahon could also face questions about Trump’s orders banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and threatening cuts to grant funding; those moves have prompted lawsuits.

In an email to the campus community last weekend, Jeffrey P. Gold, president of the University of Nebraska system, provided guidance on grant cuts and implored faculty, staff, and students to continue conducting research. “As we work through this time of change, please continue to do what you do so well,” Gold wrote.

Pasquerella, the AAC&U president, advised colleges to keep an eye on executive actions but to focus time and energy on their institutional missions.

“It creates such disruption, chaos, and uncertainty,” Pasquerella said, “that people are spending a good deal of time focusing on putting out fires and how they can respond to the latest executive order, and not being able to focus on the day-to-day work.”


Dan Bauman, a Chronicle senior reporter, contributed reporting.
Read other items in this What Will Trump's Presidency Mean for Higher Ed? package.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Learn about Texas v. Becerra that Threatens Crucial Protections, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Friends:

The Texas v. Becerra case has the potential to shape the future of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, potentially jeopardizing decades of legal protections that guarantee accessibility in education, healthcare, and other public services.

My daughter benefitted from Section 504 when she experienced a disabling injury. I shudder to think what would have happened without Section 504. I urge all concerned to write to Atty. General Ken Paxton about this. I provide a template letter below that you can fashion for your purposes and upload to his website.

For More Information: https://dredf.org/protect-504/ Also read the blog I post below from the Educator's Room. Let's not find yet another way to hurt kids.

-Angela Valenzuela


[Link to send Letter: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/contact-us-online-form]

Dear Attorney General Ken Paxton,


I live in [CITY NAME], Texas, and I have friends with disabilities. One of which is hard of hearing and uses hearing aids and a transcription service to be able to attend college.

I care about Section 504, because I I can see how without Section 504 my friend and others with disabilities would not be able to access primary school, higher education, and have the right to have accessible communication, have building and spaces that have ramps and elevators help those who struggle with mobility, as well as not allow workplaces to discriminate against individuals with disabilities, as well as many other ways to make daily life accessible. I support the updated Section 504 rules. The updated rules are stronger and provide examples of what disability discrimination is.

I am very upset and angry that you have joined a case in Texas called Texas v. Becerra that goes against Section 504 and the updated rules. You are asking the court to get rid of the Section 504 rules and the entire law. If the court does what you ask, people like my friend would not be able to attend college classes and get equal treatment. She will not have equal rights. Without having the tools for these individuals to access education and the workforce, you severely limit their ability to be productive members of society, and hinder their abilities to grow educationally and professionally. Revoking this law would corner many of these individuals whose life is already difficult to not even be able to financially support themselves, and this would be an unkind and merciless treatment of our fellow citizens.

I want you to withdraw our state from Texas v. Becerra. You should support Section 504 and its rules. You should not be attacking our rights.

Sincerely,



[YOUR NAME]




















A high-stakes lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, is currently making its way through the courts, threatening crucial protections for people with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Seventeen states have challenged the federal government’s updated rules, putting at risk decades of legal safeguards that ensure accessibility in education, healthcare, and other public services.

Join our community of 70,000 other educators as they navigate hot topics in education.

In this case, a coalition of 17 states (Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia) has sued the U.S. government, arguing that Section 504 is unconstitutional and should be eliminated. If successful, the lawsuit could dismantle essential protections that prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.

What is Section 504?

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, first implemented in 1977, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by entities that receive federal funding. The law mandates that schools, hospitals, and other federally funded institutions provide equal access and accommodations to disabled individuals. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently updated the rules under Section 504 in 2024, incorporating stronger protections based on extensive input from disability advocates.

These regulations require schools to provide appropriate support for students with disabilities, ensure that hospitals have sign language interpreters, mandate captioning for videos, and require accessible medical equipment for wheelchair users.

Why the Lawsuit Matters

The states behind Texas v. Becerra argue that the federal government overstepped its authority in implementing the updated Section 504 rules. However, rather than targeting specific provisions, the lawsuit seeks to dismantle Section 504 in its entirety. If successful, this case could strip away fundamental protections, making it easier for discrimination against disabled individuals to go unchallenged.
What Comes Next?

The legal process is already underway. By February 25, 2025, both the 17 states and the federal government will submit legal briefs outlining their positions. Other states that support Section 504 may also file documents in its defense. Disability advocacy organizations are expected to submit amicus briefs—legal arguments from non-parties explaining the broader implications of the case.

Once the court reviews all submitted documents, a ruling will be issued. The outcome will shape the future of disability rights and accessibility laws in the United States.

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Grad programs have been a cash cow; now universities are starting to fret over graduate enrollment

Friends:

Check out this recent Hechinger Report on graduate degrees and programs in the U.S. Despite a brief enrollment rebound in 2023, we are witnessing that domestic student numbers are declining, with international students now driving most growth. This is some extent an artificat, I believe, of the growing economic divide that is playing out currently within all communities regardless of race or ethnicity. College is simply very expensive and student debt is crushing for the working and lower middle classes.  High tuition, rising debt, and uncertain returns on investment have made prospective students circumspect about getting a master's or doctoral degree. 

So unfortunate since it's such a gift and privilege to be able to pursue one's intellectual passions in and with one's life.

Experts warn that continued enrollment declines could create workforce shortages in fields requiring advanced degrees. Yet, the issue has received less attention compared to falling undergraduate numbers. Universities are now racing to adapt, balancing financial sustainability with evolving student demands.

They're also having to manage the recklessness of a Trump-Musk administration that is disfiguring American higher education, as we speak (see earlier post, "NIH Budget Cuts Are the ‘Apocalypse of American Science,’ Experts Say, Time Magazine.") Aside from the courts, the only thing that will save us are the midterm elections taking place in approximately 17 months.

-Angela Valenzuela

Grad programs have been a cash cow; now universities are starting to fret over graduate enrollment

by Jon Marcus, June 10, 2024 | Hechinger Report



Emily Sharkey, executive director of MBA admissions and recruiting, and Peter Severa, assistant dean for MBA student engagement, at Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business. Adding a designation in science, technology, engineering and math “seemed like a natural fit, and we were seeing some of our competitors doing it,” Severa says. Credit: Terrell Clark for The Hechinger Report

ATLANTA — Two construction cranes hover over a giant worksite just outside the Scheller College of Business at the Georgia Institute of Technology.



What they’re building is both a show of optimism in and a way to attract more students to something universities badly need but are beginning to worry about: graduate education.

The $200 million project will house Scheller’s graduate and executive business programs in one tower, connected to Georgia Tech’s School of Industrial and Systems Engineering in another. Linking graduate business programs with other disciplines has proven to increase demand; Scheller has already added a science, technology, engineering and math designation to its master’s program in business administration, with a resulting bump in applications, the school says.

At a university focused on technology, doing this “seemed like a natural fit, and we were seeing some of our competitors doing it,” said Peter Severa, Scheller’s assistant dean for MBA student engagement, in a conference room overlooking the construction site.

It’s also a kind of enticement that’s become essential in response to signs that, after years of increase, the graduate enrollment on which universities heavily rely for revenue may be softening as prospective students question the cost of grad school and as shorter, cheaper and more flexible alternatives pop up.

“What we’re seeing now is a combination of a leveling off and a big question mark as to where this long-term trend will go,” said Brian McKenzie, director of research at the Council of Graduate Schools.

Unlike undergraduate enrollment, which has been on a steady decline, graduate enrollment has gone up over the last decade. Undergraduate numbers fell by 15 percent between 2010 and 2021, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, while graduate enrollment grew by 9 percent. That was fueled in part by a change in 2007 that let graduate students borrow up to the full cost of their educations, unlike undergraduates, who can borrow only a limited amount.

Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter

This growth made graduate programs a lucrative source of revenue for universities. To cash in, private, nonprofit, bachelor’s degree-granting universities and colleges in particular vastly expanded their graduate offerings, listing more than three times as many by 2021 as they had in 2005, according to research conducted at the University of Tennessee.

It seemed a good bet. Not even the pandemic slowed the increase in graduate enrollment. It reached its highest level ever in 2021, as workers who had been laid off or furloughed opted to get graduate degrees. Then, in 2022, it fell.

A new building for Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business under construction beside the existing school. The complex will also house the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering. Linking graduate business schools to other programs has proven to increase demand. Credit: Terrell Clark for The Hechinger Report

There was a slight rebound in the fall of 2023. But that was largely driven by an increase in master’s degree enrollment at public as opposed to private, nonprofit universities and in the number of international students, who have quietly come to constitute much of the growth at graduate schools. Among domestic students, graduate enrollment was starting to decline.

Sheer population trends helped drive graduate enrollment during the last decade, with an increase in the number of Americans who are candidates for it — ages 25 to 44, with bachelor’s degrees.

But even as there are more of those 25- to 44-year-old candidates for graduate education, the proportion of them who actually go has started to erode. It’s down from 8.4 percent to 6.5 percent over the last 10 years, the higher education research and advisory firm Eduventures found.

“If that continues, and you see a slowing in the underlying population growth, then we’re starting to talk about some challenges,” said Clint Raine, senior analyst at Eduventures.

That’s because of a looming decline in the number of 18-year-olds beginning next year, which is projected to take another big toll on undergraduate enrollment. Basic math suggests that it will eventually hit graduate programs, too.

Continue reading here.


This story about graduate enrollment was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

NIH Budget Cuts Are the ‘Apocalypse of American Science,’ Experts Say, Time Magazine

Friends:

This publication in Time Magazine explores how research institutions and hospitals, which serve our communities, operate. In short, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest biomedical research funder, recently announced major cuts to the "indirect expenses" covered in its grants—reducing them by nearly half. This is an agenda that Elon Musk is championing under the guise of "efficiency."

In case you don't know, "biomedical research" are fancy words for conducting research on diseases, medical conditions, and biological functions. Research of this kind explains all the innovations to treatments like cancer—that happens to be on the rise for young people in the U.S.—as well as therapies, and healthcare technologies. It consists of laboratory studies, clinical trials, and data analysis, all of which enhance medical advancements and improve patient care. 

I understand, for example, that there will soon be new, more effective chemotherapy treatments on the horizon that could revolutionize the treatment of cancer. Radiation therapy treatments are always improving, too. I should know. I'm the beneficiary of these technological advances.

However, the consequences of this decision could be dire, posing a significant threat to scientific progress. With fewer resources, layoffs, hiring freezes, and slowed research advancements are likely. Additionally, the funding reduction may discourage young scientists from entering the field. Experts warn that these cuts will delay the development of future medical treatments and limit the availability of new drugs in the years ahead.

In response, states across the country have mobilized against the policy change. While a temporary restraining order has given researchers some time to adjust, concerns remain about how the U.S. can maintain its leadership in biomedical research with significantly reduced NIH support.

As someone who has personally benefitted from biomedical research, I urge us all to get our voices heard.

What can you do? Reach out to whoever represents you in Congress and let them know how you feel about this horrible blow to the research enterprise.

Go to this link and put in your zip code so that you can find out.

Regardless of their party affiliation, believe me, it makes a difference for you to reach out to them via phone calls and emails. Phone calls are better, in my opinion, but both are good as this creates a record that impacts their decisions.

-Angela Valenzuela


NIH Budget Cuts Are the ‘Apocalypse of American Science,’ Experts Say

The main historical building of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) inside Bethesda campusGetty Images



The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and its grants create the foundation of basic science knowledge on which major health advances are built. On Feb. 7, the NIH announced that it would cut "indirect expenses" in the funding it provides to research grants by nearly half.

“We were all just dumbstruck,” says Dr. Richard Huganir, professor and chairman of the department of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who relies on NIH grants for his research into therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities. “I’m calling it the apocalypse of American science. This will basically change science as we know it in the U.S.”

"We're going to see health research kneecapped," says Dr. Otis Brawley, professor of oncology and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Brawley has overseen grants at the National Cancer Institute (which is part of the NIH) as well as received them for his cancer research.

The funding cut took effect on Feb. 9 and targets indirect costs, which include facilities and administration costs.

In an immediate response, 22 states sued the NIH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (which oversees NIH), calling the action “unlawful” and saying it would “devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.”

Hours later, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a temporary restraining order preventing the NIH from immediately cutting billions in the grants it issues to scientists and their institutions.

Here's what to know about the ongoing funding turmoil at the NIH.


What's an 'indirect cost'?

NIH awards around $30 to $35 billion in grants each year to a wide range of disease-related research projects. It helped fund the mRNA technology that eventually led to the recent COVID-19 vaccines, for example.

In a Feb. 7 post on X, the agency said about $9 billion of its annual research grant budget goes toward indirect costs, which are charged by academic institutions receiving the grants. Institutes that receive NIH grants negotiate indirect cost rates, taking into account how much they need to pay for things like heat, air conditioning, and electricity inside research facilities. Administrative costs include those required to comply with legal and regulatory requirements to conduct the research. Once a rate agreement is reached, it applies to all federal grants from NIH to that institution.

Indirect costs can range from nearly 30% to 70% of a research grant, depending on the institution. Certain non-academic institutes that have fewer resources than academic universities tend to have higher indirect rates, from 90% to 100%, says Brawley. In its X post, the NIH says Harvard has charged 69%, Yale 67.5%, and Johns Hopkins 63.7% in indirect costs. (Johns Hopkins' rate recently changed to 55%, Brawley and Huganir say.) Under its new policy, the NIH would cap indirect costs for all institutions at 15%.

Huganir says indirect costs are essential for modern-day research. In addition to keeping the lights on in labs, they cover maintaining and staffing critical scientific equipment and resources such as animal facilities, DNA sequencing, and imaging.

“Right now we are in the middle of developing therapies that could really cure certain forms of intellectual disability for millions of kids across the world,” he says. “We are terrified that the research is going to stop.”

Why is the NIH cutting indirect cost payments?

The NIH did not immediately respond to a request about what prompted the change, directing journalists to the agency’s Grants Policy Statement. However, Elon Musk—tasked by the Trump Administration to address efficiency in government spending—called out the high percentage of indirect costs that the NIH had been supporting. “Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for “overhead?” he wrote on X on Feb. 7.

The 15% cap puts NIH grants in line with those from private philanthropic agencies that support research. The NIH says that these entities—such as the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative—allow a maximum of 10% to 15% of a research grant for indirect costs. But philanthropic foundations and academic institutes aren’t comparable to the federal government when it comes to funding science, Brawley and Huganir say, since foundations tend to support more focused and specific endeavors, such as individual faculty members or targeted projects.

Who will pick up the slack?

So far, it's unclear. In his post on X, Musk hinted that endowments should be part of the solution. But health experts say endowments aren’t a consistent or practical source of funding for overhead costs, since many outline narrow purposes or projects for the funds that are legally allocated and can’t be redirected to cover things like research expenses.

“Nobody else can really afford to pay for it,” says Brawley. “What’s worked nicely over the last 50 to 60 years is that the NIH does a lot of basic science research, asking questions that people can’t make money from. And the corporations, including biotech, can swoop in, and take that basic science information and do engineering and turn it into things you can sell and treat diseases with.”

How will the new NIH policy affect research?

Without the funding to support indirect costs, much of the scientific work that has been a mainstay of the U.S. biomedical field may not happen, or would take much longer. “The bottom line is that we are going to have a lot less resources, which obviously means we are going to have to lay people off, and research will be slowed down,” says Huganir.

Brawley is also concerned about the quashing effect such actions will have on young scientists to remain in the field and create new labs. “Nobody wins the Nobel Prize for what they did when they were 50,” he says. “I’m worried about the loss of creativity from young people; that’s where all the really good ideas come from.”

Read More8 Symptoms Doctors Often Dismiss As Anxiety

He also notes that while a lot of attention has been focused on large academic universities with big endowments and deeper financial resources, the policy will likely have an even stronger impact on smaller community hospitals that supply many of the patients who participate in clinical trials. “People who are getting treated in clinical trials now for cancer will find many of those trials will close down,” he says.

That will affect the pipeline of new treatments for diseases like cancer. Brawley says that drugs approved in the last six months have been tested in trials over the last decade, so curtailing funding in research today will slow down the pace of progress and eventually result in fewer drugs. “I anticipate that the number of drugs approved is going to go down dramatically in the next five to 10 years,” he says.

What will happen to current NIH research grants?

“We have been working all weekend trying to calm faculty and students and everybody who is concerned about future careers in science,” says Huganir. “We have lots of committees addressing different aspects of this, and we’re trying to come up with ideas about how we can compensate for any losses we are experiencing."

"That may mean laying people off and maybe putting hiring freezes on new faculty," he says. "We will have to make up for the difference through cost cutting in some way.’

With the temporary restraining order, NIH grantees have some time to come up with a plan for how they will try to maintain the pace of scientific research with much less NIH support.

“Perhaps we need to reimagine or re-envision our entire system for how we fund science and how people make money off of science,” says Brawley. “But the way to do that is not to threaten on Friday night to cut everybody’s indirect [costs] down to 15%.”

Ultimately, scientists say the American public will pay a price for the drastic funding cuts. “The American people should know that this is going to impact them—the health of their families and their children,” says Huganir. “And the economies of communities around these institutions that get a lot of NIH funding are going to be impacted as well.”