Rep. Gerry Connolly, top Democrat on Oversight Committee, dies at 75
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
24 minutes ago
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK -- The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
Democratic governors advise strong counteroffensive on redistricting
Kelly didn't cite California Gov. Gavin Newsom by name, but he is the most high profile, and likeliest, example of a Democrat considering a counteroffensive remapping effort to squeeze more seats from a blue state. On Thursday, Newsom said he'd seek a November special election to have voters approve a new House map that would boost Democrats' numbers. It's an expensive and potentially perilous gamble that his Democratic colleagues throughout the country appear to be backing — a notably more aggressive posture for the party. Various mid-decade redistricting efforts could launch a partisan arms race, as the parties look to redraw competing congressional maps to their own advantages. Democrats face a tougher path, as several blue states are bound by independent redistricting commissions and state constitutions, which would prevent them from quickly remaking maps. By contrast, discussions are already underway in several other Republican-controlled states that could follow Texas' lead, including Missouri, Indiana and Florida. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz acknowledged there's 'validity' to concerns that Republicans might gain even more seats, should redistricting wars escalate. But, Walz and Kelly said, 'there's a bigger risk in doing nothing.' 'We can't just let this happen and act like it's fine, and hope that the courts fix it,' Kelly said. 'We have no idea, quite honestly, at this point, what the courts might do, but by virtue of us responding in kind, we do send a message. We're not going to take this line down.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer told Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys the panel is willing to delay her subpoenaed deposition until after the Supreme Court rules on an appeal she has filed, a decision expected in late September. Maxwell's legal team had warned she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination unless certain conditions were met, including congressional immunity, conducting the deposition outside her prison, receiving advance questions, and waiting for the appeal's conclusion. Comer said Maxwell's testimony remains "vital" to the committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation but ruled out granting immunity or providing questions in advance. He added the panel is "willing to engage in good faith negotiations" and will continue its practice of holding detailed discussions about the scope of testimony. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
