{"id":419541,"date":"2026-01-02T17:51:43","date_gmt":"2026-01-02T16:51:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=419541"},"modified":"2026-01-02T22:57:27","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T21:57:27","slug":"the-trump-administrations-fight-to-fund-scientists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=419541","title":{"rendered":"The Trump Administration\u2019s Fight to Fund Scientists"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump Administration\u2019s Fight To Fund Scientists is a December 2025 investigative article by Paul D. Thacker.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The piece argues that the Trump administration’s efforts to reform federal research funding\u2014particularly by capping indirect costs (overhead rates) in NIH grants\u2014aim to redirect more money from university administrators to actual scientists conducting research.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article represents a perspective sympathetic to the administration’s cost-cutting rationale, highlighting long-standing debates over how federal dollars (primarily from NIH, ~$47B annual budget) are allocated between direct research and institutional overhead.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Paul D. Thacker<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The panic and outrage were palpable last February when President Trump announced plans to trim reimbursement rates for government-funded scientific research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is going to decimate U.S. scientific biomedical research,\u201d Northwestern University biologist Carole Labonne told Bloomberg<\/a>. \u201cThe lights will go out, people will be let go, and these [medical] advances will not occur,\u201d David Skorton, CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges, told PBS. \u201cThe goal,\u201d University of Washington biologist Carl Bergstrom warned on BlueSky<\/a>, \u201cis to destroy U.S. universities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sky has not fallen on American research in the 10 months since. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is still paying the same 50% to 70% in indirect costs \u2013 the premium added on top of grants meant to reimburse universities for providing labs and other research infrastructure \u2013 because lawsuits have frozen the president\u2019s proposed policy. One Trump official admits this is unlikely to change because the administration will almost certainly lose in court. The current system, which provides the lion\u2019s share of billions of dollars each year for often-unspecified overhead costs to universities, has the backing of Congress. As it stands, there appears to be no momentum, even among Republicans, to reform the practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s basically a slush fund,\u201d one NIH official told RealClearInvestigations. \u201cWe just don\u2019t like to call it that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A RealClearInvestigations analysis of these indirect payments reveals a long, largely forgotten history of concern about taxpayer-sponsored research. Although many researchers have cast Trump\u2019s proposal as an attack on science, this issue isn\u2019t the need to fund research activities that sometimes lead to beneficial discoveries, but whether some of the billions that support the necessary infrastructure and equipment are actually being shifted to purposes such as staffing and buildings that have little or no direct connection to the actual research. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the late \u201980s, Stanford faculty revolted<\/a> against the university\u2019s high overhead charges for diverting research dollars to a bloated administration and a campus building frenzy. Those concerns are still voiced by some.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf the universities truly believe that it takes 60-70% of a research grant to provide facilities, utilities, and other basic support, then that is easy to prove by opening the books,\u201d said Sanjay Dhall, a research physician at the University of California, Los Angeles. \u201cI suspect however, that opening the books would reveal that a significant chunk of these funds, or even the majority, are paying an army of unnecessary administrators.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a time when the value of college is being challenged because of exorbitant tuition and fees, and the federal government is struggling to rein in debt, the story of indirect funding offers a window into the history of runaway costs and the growing power of college officials. RCI has also learned that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has been selling a new plan that makes the grant process more competitive for institutions that were overlooked in the past. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indirect Costs Hard To Define<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distributing over $37 billion in grants every year, NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research on the planet, far exceeding the European Commission, which spends around $12 billion, and dwarfing the Gates Foundation\u2019s $1 billion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every NIH grant a university researcher receives provides two categories of funding: direct and indirect costs. The direct costs include all items the researcher submitted as part of the project\u2019s budget, from laboratory equipment to a percentage of salaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indirect costs are harder to define. The funding goes to administrators, and how they use it is shrouded in mystery. What\u2019s more, indirect rates vary from university to university for reasons that few understand and can explain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While institutions charge private foundations like Gates a mere 10% and Rockefeller 15%<\/a> for indirect costs, they charge the NIH much higher rates<\/a> \u2013 69% for Harvard, 67.5% for Yale, and 63.7% for Johns Hopkins. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow do you think Harvard built all those buildings?\u201d one NIH official, a graduate of Harvard Medical School who insisted on anonymity, told RCI. \u201cNIH indirect costs paid for that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Trump first proposed the 15% cap in 2016, Harvard president Drew G. Faust told the student newspaper in late 2017 that she flew to Washington, D.C., to lobby Republicans in both the House and the Senate to stop it. \u201cWe\u2019re bringing in quite a bit of money through federal contracts which provide money for a lot of buildings and other infrastructure that makes possible what we do going forward,\u201d a Harvard dean told the student newspaper<\/a>. \u201cSo if that was to all go away, we\u2019d have to sit down and look at that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration\u2019s proposal to cap overhead at 15% would cost university administrators billions of dollars that they control. Among the many critics was Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the flagship journal Science and a former university administrator. He wrote an editorial last February titled \u201cA Direct Hit<\/a>\u201d that described the cap as a \u201cruthless takedown of academia.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe scientific community must unite in speaking out against this betrayal of a partnership that has enabled American innovation and progress,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to questions from RCI, Thorp said any change to NIH overhead funding should be done in partnership with the scientific community. \u201cIndirect costs are used to secure debt on research facilities and were treated as very secure by banks and the rating agencies,\u201d Thorp said. \u201cPulling all of that abruptly \u2013 without following processes with decades of precedent \u2013 is certainly betraying a partnership by putting the universities in difficulty with their lenders and bond ratings.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inexorable Rise in Charges<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It turns out that concerns over universities possibly misusing federal grant money date back more than half a century, according to Thorp\u2019s own publication. <\/a>In 1955, the federal government almost doubled the 8% premium<\/a> paid for university overhead. A decade later, Science reported<\/a> that Congress lifted the overhead ceiling to 20%, maintaining a flat rate to assure more taxpayer dollars were targeted at scientific research, and less spent on constructing new buildings. Some members of Congress believed that \u201cthe universities need not accept the grants if they can\u2019t afford them.\u201d Elected officials also worried that indirect costs would not go to research but to support other university efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou might be surprised if you read the list of money being spent for research in various universities,\u201d one senator said in a 1963 Science news story<\/a>. \u201cNot only to pay the teachers, but also to construct buildings and facilities around the school.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these concerns, lobbyists convinced the government in 1966 to remove all caps, empowering universities to negotiate directly with federal agencies to set their own overhead rates. In 1966, overhead consumed 14% of NIH grant expenditures. By the late 1970s, it consumed 36.4%. When the federal government attempted to backpedal in 1976 to bring \u201cspiraling indirect cost rates under control<\/a>,\u201d it failed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both Republicans and Democrats have long championed increasing NIH budgets, partly because grants for research land in congressional districts scattered across the nation. Republicans have often been the NIH\u2019s biggest supporters. Fifteen years ago, Congress launched investigations into the NIH\u2019s poor monitoring of grants<\/a> that were awarded to research physicians with undisclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Despite the unfolding scandal, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter pushed through a 34% increase<\/a> in the NIH\u2019s budget in 2009. During the 2013 government shutdown, the NIH was one of the few agencies<\/a> that Republicans pushed President Obama to keep open. Two years later, Republicans cut many parts of Obama\u2019s proposed 2015 budget, yet gave the president even more money than the increase<\/a> he requested for the NIH.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like some elected officials, academics have also long complained that high overhead harms academic scientists by diverting NIH funding to administrators. In 1981, a University of California researcher published a study in Science, which showed how \u201cFunding has thus been markedly reduced, and this has become a critical factor limiting research support in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 1983, indirect costs accounted for 43% of the NIH grant budget<\/a>. In response, then-NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden<\/a> pushed to make more money available for scientists by paying administrators only 90% of what they claimed in overhead. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[L]egislators tend to sympathize with the investigators who are more interested in seeing federal money spent for equipment and researchers\u2019 salaries in their labs than for light and heat and the services of typists and bookkeepers,\u201d reported Science at the time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Science reported that Wyngaarden was met with stiff opposition from university officials and their allies in Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Wyngaarden tried to deal with the matter by sending a report to Congress, Science reported<\/a>, officials from several university lobby groups shut the report down, calling it not \u201cacceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of Wyngaarden\u2019s biggest critics was Stanford President Donald Kennedy, whose school was then charging one of the highest rates for indirect costs. Kennedy convened a group to attack cost-saving proposals, stating in a letter<\/a>, \u201cThe NIH proposals to reduce reimbursement of those costs \u2026 will directly damage the research effort as a whole.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This effort appeared to succeed until Kennedy himself became ensnared in a scandal that showed Stanford\u2019s indirect costs charged to the NIH paid for a bevy of personal goods and upkeep on a yacht. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stanford\u2019s Taxpayer-Funded Yacht<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stanford\u2019s yacht, the Victoria, was valued at $1.2 million<\/a> and became a symbol of excess, with walnut and cherry paneling, brass lamps, marble counters, and lavish woodwork. Administrators used the yacht as a fundraising venue to wine and dine campus bigwigs. NIH money had paid for overhead to maintain it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Congress and federal investigators dug into Stanford\u2019s accounting, they discovered that administrators had also redirected NIH research overhead to pay $2,000 a month for flowers at President Kennedy\u2019s home, $7,000 for his bed linens, and $6,000 to provide him with cedar-lined closets. Another college official had hosted Stanford football parties and charged the NIH $1,500 for booze.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humiliated in the media, Stanford was forced to lower the indirect rate it charged the NIH<\/a> from 78% to 55.5%, and federal agencies launched audits of overhead charges at dozens of other universities, resulting in millions of dollars returned to the NIH. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the politics and the media on his side, Michigan Congressman John Dingell launched reforms to indirect charges<\/a>. Stanford and other institutions were forced to halt expensive building campaigns. President Clinton proposed a cap<\/a> on indirect costs in a \u201cconcerted effort to shift national spending from overhead to funding research.\u201d As in the past, universities opposed the change, and the White House buckled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOne way or another, I\u2019ve been involved in controversy about indirect cost rates for about 30 years,\u201d a chancellor at the University of Maryland told The Baltimore Sun<\/a> in 1994. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kennedy resigned from the Stanford presidency, as did several of his administrators. Kennedy later joined Science as editor-in-chief \u2013 a predecessor to Thorp \u2013 while universities\u2019 charges for indirect costs to the NIH eventually snapped back to their former pricing, which continues to this day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RCI spoke with several academic researchers at institutions scattered across the U.S., working at both private and public-funded universities. None wished to be named about their concerns about how their administrators spend NIH indirect funding, with one professor noting that administrators determine your career, so it makes no sense to criticize their spending habits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While university presidents say administrators strictly account for NIH indirect funds, the reality appears to be different. Professors who bring in large sums of NIH money, sometimes referred to as heavy hitters, can complain and get some of the indirect costs back from the administrators for their own research and even personal use. At some institutions, department heads can get a cut of the indirect costs to set up slush funds, monies they can dole out to favored professors, or even divert to their own labs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Dhall said that after he published a March letter in the Wall Street Journal<\/a> that supported Trump\u2019s cap on indirect rates, he was contacted by colleagues across the country. \u201cThey congratulated me on going public and vehemently agreed, in private,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A congressional staffer who has spent decades investigating problems at the NIH said that nobody truly understands how universities negotiate their NIH overhead rates. And once that money gets to the university, it disappears into a byzantine accounting system that seems designed to confuse government auditors, who rarely inspect university books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a complete black box,\u201d he said. \u201cI wish someone could explain it to me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s Play To Change the Game<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration will lose the fight to cap indirect costs at 15%, a senior HHS official told RCI, because of the universities\u2019 outsize influence. During the first Trump administration, universities caught wind that Trump planned to cap overhead rates. As they had done for over half a century, university lobbyists ran to Congress to complain, only now they sought an alliance with the pharmaceutical industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Responding to lobbying pressure, Republicans in the House and Senate inserted a provision into the appropriations bill in 2018<\/a> to block Trump\u2019s attempt to change universities\u2019 indirect cost rates. That provision has been included in every succeeding appropriations bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it does not seem likely that Congress will strip the schools in their states and districts of billions of dollars in funding, NIH Director Bhattacharya has been floating his own proposal to revamp indirect payments to make them more equitable in private talks with members of Congress and university leaders. Shortly before Thanksgiving, Bhattacharya gave a dinner talk to the Republican Main Street Caucus, a group of 85 GOP members of Congress who are critical behind-the-scenes players among Republicans now running the House. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A dinner participant recounted to RCI that Bhattacharya noted that more than half of the NIH\u2019s money goes to 20 universities located on both coasts. These elite universities win a lion\u2019s share of the grant money, including indirect costs, because they have the money to attract excellent scientists, in part because NIH money helped them build great infrastructure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This creates a vicious cycle that guarantees NIH will continue to fund institutions that have already won past NIH money \u2013 and which charge high indirect costs. To end this cycle, Bhattacharya wants to break off indirect costs into a separate category of infrastructure grants that universities can compete to win.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the talk, Bhattacharya said that all the universities in the entire state of Florida now get as much money as Stanford. Yet, there\u2019s no reason Florida could not become a hub for scientific research if the federal government invested in its scientific infrastructure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Florida can provide lab space at a lower cost than Stanford, he said, they should get the money. Bhattacharya also wants to make it easier for academics to take their grant to different universities. If a Harvard researcher is offered more space or better facilities at a university in Kansas, because building costs there are cheaper, that professor should be able to transfer his grant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NIH already provides specific grants for infrastructure<\/a>, and the hope is that spreading the billions in indirect costs across the country will gain political support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe wants to get this money out to the middle of the country, not just the coasts,\u201d said Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Republican from Iowa. Dr. Miller-Meeks is one of the few physicians in Congress and said she was impressed with Bhattacharya\u2019s talk at the Main Street Caucus dinner. However, she is uncertain whether Democrats would embrace the new proposal in today\u2019s polarized environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI would think there are members from the center of the country that would like to see more money in their district,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A spokesperson told RCI that NIH remains focused on ensuring that funding is used efficiently and that direct and indirect costs contribute to scientific productivity. \u201cBhattacharya\u2019s proposal represents one of several ideas being discussed publicly about how to structure federal support for research infrastructure,\u201d the spokesperson said. \u201cNIH looks forward to continuing to work constructively with Congress on this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Trump Administration\u2019s Fight To Fund Scientists is a December 2025 investigative article by Paul D. Thacker.
\nThe piece argues that the Trump administration’s efforts to reform federal research funding\u2014particularly by capping indirect costs (overhead rates) in NIH grants\u2014aim to redirect more money from university administrators to actual scientists conducting research.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":419548,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvaTAud3AuY29tXC9jbGltYXRlLXNjaWVuY2UucHJlc3NcL3dwLWNvbnRlbnRcL3VwbG9hZHNcLzIwMjZcLzAxXC9DaGF0R1BULUltYWdlLTI4Li1NYWktMjAyNS0wOV81M18zNy5wbmc_Zml0PTcyMyUyQzQ4MiZzc2w9MSIsInR4dCI6IlRoZSBUcnVtcCBBZG1pbmlzdHJhdGlvblx1MjAxOXMgRmlnaHQgdG8gRnVuZCBTY2llbnRpc3RzIiwidGVtcGxhdGUiOiJoaWdod2F5IiwiZm9udCI6IiIsImJsb2dfaWQiOjE1NTgxMjQ0OX0.xCA4gcwAr0rJI4oTWQG4UOvLaJT1FK0Gw-oM96nEf7oMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691819303,691840478,691840476,691821147,691834133,691818426,691840479,691840477,691833487],"class_list":{"0":"post-419541","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-european-commission","9":"tag-gates-foundation","10":"tag-government-funded-scientific-research","11":"tag-lawsuits","12":"tag-national-institutes-of-health-nih","13":"tag-science","14":"tag-stanfords-yacht","15":"tag-taxpayer-sponsored-research","16":"tag-us-president-donald-j-trump","18":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_37.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1L8N","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":400660,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400660","url_meta":{"origin":419541,"position":0},"title":"Fired Climate.gov Federal Employees Resurrect Website on their Own Dime","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/09\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"See, they didn\u2019t need federal funding after all.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate communication experts\"","block_context":{"text":"climate communication experts","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-communication-experts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375460,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=375460","url_meta":{"origin":419541,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Flagrantly Unlawful Action\u2019: Universities Sue Trump\u2019s Energy Department Over Latest Funding Cuts","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/04\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Several universities and higher education associations filed a lawsuit Monday against the Department of Energy (DOE) over a new policy capping indirect research funding cost rates at 15%.","rel":"","context":"In \"American Council on Education (ACE)\"","block_context":{"text":"American Council on Education (ACE)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=american-council-on-education-ace"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0250211-donald-trump-oval-office-resolute-desk-ac-602p-b91b38.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0250211-donald-trump-oval-office-resolute-desk-ac-602p-b91b38.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0250211-donald-trump-oval-office-resolute-desk-ac-602p-b91b38.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0250211-donald-trump-oval-office-resolute-desk-ac-602p-b91b38.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0250211-donald-trump-oval-office-resolute-desk-ac-602p-b91b38.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":419897,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=419897","url_meta":{"origin":419541,"position":2},"title":"Trump Shook Up Energy Policy In 2025. Disaster Could Still Strike In 2026","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/01\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2025, President Trump's second term brought major shifts to U.S. energy policy through executive orders and deregulatory actions signed from day one. These prioritized fossil fuels, nuclear power, and rapid permitting while scaling back renewables and climate-focused regulations.","rel":"","context":"In \"AI (artificial intelligence\"","block_context":{"text":"AI (artificial intelligence","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ai-artificial-intelligence"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/00-Blackout-33.jpeg?fit=1200%2C648&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/00-Blackout-33.jpeg?fit=1200%2C648&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/00-Blackout-33.jpeg?fit=1200%2C648&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/00-Blackout-33.jpeg?fit=1200%2C648&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/00-Blackout-33.jpeg?fit=1200%2C648&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":407319,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407319","url_meta":{"origin":419541,"position":3},"title":"Biden Admin Streamlined Path For Offshore Wind Boondoggles Despite Internal Red Flags","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/10\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Biden administration granted major offshore wind projects financial breaks despite internal warnings of increased risks to taxpayers, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Functional Government Initiative (FGI).","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMOwAK-ZyBxmofc0i-gmdXPiD43qTjtP8EvlJ2dQ1PWGRn-C-1X91qDo8ZZpXIoqduP-u57ZSIjkJFYhjnCUONmqQFBpgtLhPEUDXtRLqxY8pkmVISrwASAZ6iPysuCFg86vDNuQsWD-vTcmLBez6uQtHet.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMOwAK-ZyBxmofc0i-gmdXPiD43qTjtP8EvlJ2dQ1PWGRn-C-1X91qDo8ZZpXIoqduP-u57ZSIjkJFYhjnCUONmqQFBpgtLhPEUDXtRLqxY8pkmVISrwASAZ6iPysuCFg86vDNuQsWD-vTcmLBez6uQtHet.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMOwAK-ZyBxmofc0i-gmdXPiD43qTjtP8EvlJ2dQ1PWGRn-C-1X91qDo8ZZpXIoqduP-u57ZSIjkJFYhjnCUONmqQFBpgtLhPEUDXtRLqxY8pkmVISrwASAZ6iPysuCFg86vDNuQsWD-vTcmLBez6uQtHet.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMOwAK-ZyBxmofc0i-gmdXPiD43qTjtP8EvlJ2dQ1PWGRn-C-1X91qDo8ZZpXIoqduP-u57ZSIjkJFYhjnCUONmqQFBpgtLhPEUDXtRLqxY8pkmVISrwASAZ6iPysuCFg86vDNuQsWD-vTcmLBez6uQtHet.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMOwAK-ZyBxmofc0i-gmdXPiD43qTjtP8EvlJ2dQ1PWGRn-C-1X91qDo8ZZpXIoqduP-u57ZSIjkJFYhjnCUONmqQFBpgtLhPEUDXtRLqxY8pkmVISrwASAZ6iPysuCFg86vDNuQsWD-vTcmLBez6uQtHet.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298490,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=298490","url_meta":{"origin":419541,"position":4},"title":"Trump\u2019s advisers vow to decimate climate policy and go all-out on fossil fuels","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Scott Waldman at Politico outlines the nightmare scenario where if Trump wins, he might \u201crewrite federal climate reports\u201d or \u201cinstall loyalists atop key science agencies\u201d without seeming to realize that\u2019s the Democrats modus operandi of science for thirty years.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Policy\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Policy","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-policy"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0e4113b7b-e8ce-458f-8f3e-1e81071de20a-USP_News-_Donald_Trump_Iowa_Rally.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0e4113b7b-e8ce-458f-8f3e-1e81071de20a-USP_News-_Donald_Trump_Iowa_Rally.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0e4113b7b-e8ce-458f-8f3e-1e81071de20a-USP_News-_Donald_Trump_Iowa_Rally.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0e4113b7b-e8ce-458f-8f3e-1e81071de20a-USP_News-_Donald_Trump_Iowa_Rally.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0e4113b7b-e8ce-458f-8f3e-1e81071de20a-USP_News-_Donald_Trump_Iowa_Rally.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363447,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=363447","url_meta":{"origin":419541,"position":5},"title":"The Tide of Accountability is Finally Rolling In","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"What a spectacle! As the Trump administration reclaims the reins of power, the scientific elite are reacting with utter dismay to policies that prioritize accountability, budgetary discipline, and a reevaluation of priorities. Judging by the tone of despair emanating from recent articles, you\u2019d think the very foundation of science had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"NIH\"","block_context":{"text":"NIH","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=nih"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=419541"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419541\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":419554,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419541\/revisions\/419554"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/419548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=419541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=419541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=419541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}