research

Harvard Suit: Trump Admin Punishing University for ‘Protecting Its Constitutional Rights’

Spread the love

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

A demonstrator holds a sign after a rally against U.S. President Donald Trump’s attacks on Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts on April 17, 2025.  (Photo: Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

“Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”

Harvard University sued multiple federal agencies and members of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Cabinet on Monday over a $2.2 billion funding “freeze” and reported plans to cut off another $1 billion, implemented in response to the nation’s oldest higher education institution rejecting the administration’s escalating demands.

In addition to the funding cuts, the Trump administration has “initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status,” said Alan Garber, the university’s president, in a statement. “These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.”

“Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer.”

“The consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting,” Garber explained. “Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body, to predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield.”

“As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes,” he continued. “The victims will be future patients and their loved ones who will suffer the heartbreak of illnesses that might have been prevented or treated more effectively. Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”

Noting the Trump administration’s attempt to justify funding cuts by citing Harvard’s response to discrimiation against Jewish people, Garber said that “as a Jew and as an American, I know very well that there are valid concerns about rising antisemitism,” and pledged to “fight hate with the urgency it demands as we fully comply with our obligations under the law.” He also promised to soon release task force reports about combating antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus.

The university president’s lengthy message included a link to the 51-page complaint, filed in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. The defendants are the General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and the departments of Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Justice, along with the leaders of those agencies.

Like Garber’s statement, the complaint highlights the sweeping impacts of “the government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard” and other higher education institutions.

“Defendants’ actions threaten Harvard’s academic independence and place at risk critical lifesaving and pathbreaking research that occurs on its campus,” the filing states. “And they are part of a broader effort by the government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights.”

“The government’s actions flout not just the First Amendment, but also federal laws and regulations,” the complaint argues, asking the court “to enjoin defendants from exceeding the bounds of their legal authority and to protect Harvard’s constitutional rights.”

The Harvard Crimson, the campus newspaper, noted that the university “will be represented by Robert K. Hur ’95 and William A. Burck, both lawyers with deep ties to President Donald Trump. Hur was appointed to the United States Department of Justice by Trump in his first term, and Burck has served as counsel for the Trump Organization. Lawyers affiliated with law firms Ropes & Gray and Lehtosky Keller Cohn will also represent Harvard, according to the lawsuit.”

The Ivy League university’s suit was filed the same day that a coalition of 75 groups, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, responded to Trump’s attacks on nonprofits by launching “The Pact: A Civil Rights Coalition Unity Commitment.”

“We have witnessed outrageous attacks on our work,” the coalition’s pact states, citing investigations of nonprofits, terminated grants, law firms fearing retribution, threats to revoke tax-exempt status, and the weaponization of civil rights laws. “We will not be divided. We will not be intimidated into silence or abandoning our communities.”

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Continue ReadingHarvard Suit: Trump Admin Punishing University for ‘Protecting Its Constitutional Rights’

White House Budget Would Slash Funding for NOAA Climate Research

Spread the love

https://www.ecowatch.com/white-house-budget-noaa-climate-research-funding.html

A satellite Image from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows Hurricane Katia in the Atlantic Ocean on Sept. 1, 2011. NOAA via Getty Images

The Trump administration plans to eliminate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s research arm, close climate and weather labs and slash the budgets of several NOAA offices, internal documents said.

If Congress approves the plan, funding for NOAA’s Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) office would be drastically reduced from $485 million to $171 million, reported The Guardian.

Retired OAR Director Craig McLean told The Guardian the cuts would “compromise the safety, economic competitiveness, and security of the American people.”

One document stated all budgets for weather, ocean and climate labs would be emptied, with that level of funding resulting in OAR being “eliminated as a line office.”

“The elimination of NOAA’s research line office and all of its research capabilities is a crushing blow to the ability of our country to protect our citizens and also to lead the world,” said former NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, who called the recommendations “extraordinarily devastating.”

Under the proposed reductions, more than $324 million would be cut from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), with instructions for the agency to follow administration priorities in its work to “unleash American energy.”

Grants for habitat restoration, conservation and species recovery, as well as the fisheries grant program, would all lose their funding.

The uncertainty at NOAA has been felt all over the world, as researchers from other countries become more concerned about potential interruptions to crucial climate data from the many NOAA Earth-observing missions, Inside Climate News reported.

…

Article continues at https://www.ecowatch.com/white-house-budget-noaa-climate-research-funding.html

Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue ReadingWhite House Budget Would Slash Funding for NOAA Climate Research

‘Tax the Super-Rich’ instead of slashing services, Labour told

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/tax-the-super-rich-instead-of-slashing-services-labour-told

Protesters outside the Treasury this evening

Chancellor Reeves’ planned public spending cuts will ‘open the door’ for Reform UK, McDonnell warns as campaigners get set to rally outside the Treasury

TAX the super-rich instead of slashing services, Chancellor Rachel Reeves was told today, on the eve of her Commons statement, expected to announce more public spending cuts.

Campaigners from a range of charities and voluntary organisations are set to rally outside the Treasury this evening to demand a wealth tax instead of “austerity with a red rosette” in the words of a leading trade unionist.

And former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, presently suspended from the Labour whip, has warned that Ms Reeves was in danger of making Labour “just another austerity party” if she missed a last chance to change course.

The wealth tax option is growing in political popularity following recent announcements of a £5 billion cut in disability benefits and huge cuts to overseas aid to fund new arms spending.

It is backed by the TUC and a broad range of Labour MPs.

Just a 2.5 per cent tax on assets over £10 million could raise £36bn annually, according to Greenpeace’s research.

…

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/tax-the-super-rich-instead-of-slashing-services-labour-told

Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer confirms that he's proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Continue Reading‘Tax the Super-Rich’ instead of slashing services, Labour told

Keir Starmer says the UK can decarbonise without disruption – that’s neither true nor helpful

Spread the love
A young girl removes snow from a solar panel at a power plant in Balcombe, southern England. Oliver Rudkin, CC BY

Sam Hampton, University of Oxford and Lorraine Whitmarsh, University of Bath

Keir Starmer’s pledge to cut the UK’s emissions by 81% by 2035 is undoubtedly ambitious. However, his assertion at the Cop29 climate conference that it can be achieved without “telling people how to live their lives” is probably not true – at least, not according to what scientists who study this problem have found.

We are two such researchers. Our work concerns the lifestyle and behaviour changes needed to mitigate climate change and we argue that Starmer’s claim is not only unrealistic, it’s also potentially harmful to the prospects of effective climate action.

Many politicians, including Starmer, subscribe to the belief that technological advancements alone – more efficient wind turbines or electric vehicle batteries – will solve the climate crisis. This kind of “techno-optimism” is rife in government policy statements and strategies, but it is misplaced.

The latest scientific assessments, and our own research, show that systemic changes to society and the global economy are necessary to keep global warming at safe levels. While some progress has been made in shifting the supply of energy from fossil fuels to renewables (in the UK, renewables now account for 40% of electricity generation, though only 25% of total energy), far less attention has been paid to tackling demand – how we use energy and resources – which directly relates to people’s lifestyles and values.

Radically different lifestyles

Telling people “how to live their lives”, or more accurately, encouraging and enabling significant lifestyle changes, is essential for meeting climate targets. Most measures for reaching carbon targets in the UK will require changes to public behaviour. It’s the government’s job to make it easier, cheaper and advantageous for people to make those changes.

The necessary scale of this change is startling. To stay within the emissions budget consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, the average UK carbon footprint must shrink from the equivalent of 8.5 to 2.5 tonnes of CO₂ by 2030.

This cannot be achieved through incremental change. It requires radically different lifestyles which involve flying less, eating more plant-based foods, wasting less and replacing boilers and combustion engines with heat pumps and electric vehicles.

Not everyone needs to change their lifestyle to the same extent. Those with the largest carbon footprints – typically the wealthiest people – need to make the most significant changes. As well as having a moral responsibility to act, wealthy people also have a greater capability to change and have more potential to influence wider change as organisational leaders and investors.

A line graph.
Emissions inequality exists within and between countries. International Energy Agency/Samuel Hampton

Change for the better

Not all climate action is sacrifice. Pro-environmental behaviour and lifestyle change can improve your wellbeing.

There is overwhelming evidence that climate action has health benefits, whether it is eating more plant-based food and less meat, or enjoying cleaner air as you walk or cycle instead of driving.

People with greener lifestyles also tend to be happier. Our international analysis found people who took more environmental action reported higher wellbeing. It can also help manage anxiety about the climate. In this sense going green is more likely to improve your quality of life rather than diminish it.

Importantly, research from numerous countries shows that there is public appetite for radical change. This includes not just a desire for governments and businesses to do more to address climate change, but also a willingness to make personal sacrifices. In a survey of 130,000 people randomly selected across across 125 countries, 69% said they would be willing to contribute 1% of their personal income to climate action.

Achieving the necessary changes to our lives and wider society will require more than public information campaigns (“telling people how to live their lives”, as Starmer calls it). These are what we call downstream approaches: they urge people to make different decisions but have been shown to have little effect in changing behaviour in the long term.

Instead, we need upstream approaches which change the array of options available to everyone. This could involve using regulations, taxes and subsidies to make low-carbon lifestyles easier, cheaper and more attractive to adopt. Most of these measures already enjoy public support.

While Starmer’s emissions target is commendable, his reluctance to discuss lifestyle changes is at odds with the scientific consensus. Tackling climate change effectively requires a shift to a more equal society, where happiness is prioritised over consumption. It necessitates radical behavioural changes, particularly from the wealthiest, and policies that enable these changes.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get our award-winning weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Sam Hampton, Researcher, Environmental Geography, University of Oxford and Lorraine Whitmarsh, Professor of Environmental Psychology, University of Bath

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingKeir Starmer says the UK can decarbonise without disruption – that’s neither true nor helpful

Three quarters of Britons say it’s unacceptable for the Prime Minister to accept gifts from businesses or organisations

Spread the love

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/three-quarters-britons-say-its-unacceptable-prime-minister-accept-gifts-businesses-or-organisations

New research from Ipsos assesses whether the public believes that the Prime Minister and MPs earn too much money, and how the public perceives the acceptability of gifts offered to the PM

  • Three quarters (75%) of Britons say that it is rarely or never acceptable for the Prime Minister to accept gifts from businesses or organisations.
  • More than two-thirds say the same about accepting gifts from private individuals (68%).

New research from Ipsos, carried out 20-23 September, has assessed whether the public believes that the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament (MPs) earn too much money, and how the public perceives the acceptability of gifts offered to the Prime Minister.  

…

[R]espondents were asked for their views on whether it is acceptable for the Prime Minister to accept gifts from a range of sources. Three quarters (75%) of Britons say that it is rarely or never acceptable for the Prime Minister to accept a gift from businesses or organisations. 68% say it rarely or never acceptable for the Prime Minister to accept gifts from private individuals, and 57% say the same regarding gifts from the governments of other countries (though 36% say this is usually or always acceptable). If we take out the proportion that say ‘rarely acceptable’ we find that 48% say it is ‘never acceptable’ to accept gifts from businesses / organisations, 43% say it is never acceptable to accept gifts from private individuals and 32% say it is never acceptable to accept gifts from governments of other countries.

…

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/three-quarters-britons-say-its-unacceptable-prime-minister-accept-gifts-businesses-or-organisations

Continue ReadingThree quarters of Britons say it’s unacceptable for the Prime Minister to accept gifts from businesses or organisations