Financial Challenges Forcing More Budget Cuts At Brown University
Brown University announces new cost-cutting steps will be necessary to rein in its budget.
Brown University has announced that 'deep financial challenges' will require it to take additional steps to rein in its spending.
In doing so, it becomes the second premier university in just the past few days to indicate the need for substantial budget reductions. Late last week, Stanford University revealed plans to cut $140 million in general operating funds for the upcoming 2025-26 academic year.
Citing a "rapid pace of funding losses as Brown navigates federal headwinds," Brown University President Christina Paxson, Provost Francis Doyle and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham warned the campus of the 'difficult decisions we may have to make in the coming weeks and months' in their Monday announcement.
Those decisions will involve new measures in addition to several steps Brown has already taken to bring its expenses in line with available revenue.
In a communication to the campus community last December, Doyle and Latham identified several initial actions the university would take to address a structural budget deficit of $46 million, writing that 'without changes to the way Brown operates, the structural deficit is expected to continue to deepen significantly, including a deficit next year that would grow to more than $90 million, with steady increases in subsequent years.'
As part of its new belt-tightening plan, the university will extend the staff hiring freeze it began in March 'at least through the end of the summer.' It will continue a freeze on non-essential travel into September. And a salary freeze for members of the president's cabinet, will remain in effect for FY26 (plus, Paxton, Doyle and Latham will take a 10% salary cut).
But Brown's leaders acknowledged it was now necessary for the institution to do more to cope with the financial woes it's facing. They indicated they would announce more campus-wide actions in several areas over the course of the summer, including:
The administrators pointed to several federal actions that were contributing to what they described as Brown's 'deep financial losses,' including the termination of research grants, threatened reductions in indirect cost recovery rates, the likelihood of a significantly increased tax on university endowment income, substantial reductions to federal research budgets, decreases in Pell Grant awards, and cuts to federal financial aid for graduate and medical students.
The Trump administration's freeze on federal research funding has cost Brown $45 million as of June 30, and that figure grows by about $3.5 million per week, according to the announcement. In addition, NIH has stopped making new grant awards to Brown and has not issued any routine annual grant renewals. The university is providing bridge funds to help investigators affected by those delays and cancellations, but how much longer it can continue to do so is uncertain.
In addition, Brown officials cited these losses:
In addition to formally appealing the termination of research grants and pursuing various litigation strategies to stop the federal research cuts, Brown officials have already taken out a $300 million term loan and they 'are currently assessing other debt options to increase our liquidity even further.' They are also trying to raise more private funds to support the university's research programs.
Recognizing the intense federal scrutiny that major universities are undergoing, the administrators concluded by writing that Brown was committed 'to meeting its legal obligations, as well as our willingness to understand any valid concerns the government may have about the way the University effectively fulfills them.'
At the same time, they attempted to reassure the campus that 'we have continued to stand by our core values of advancing knowledge and understanding and protecting academic freedom in a diverse, thriving community.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
Law firms in the hot seat
Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond. Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben One of the law firms that cut a deal with the White House is on a collision course with the administration on an issue near and dear to President DONALD TRUMP and some of his most senior advisers: the federal government's power to deny asylum claims. Latham & Watkins, which faced a furious backlash after joining a host of firms agreeing to provide free legal services for causes the administration supports, is expected to argue before the Supreme Court next term that federal judges can in some instances second-guess the findings of immigration courts that asylum seekers are unlikely to face 'persecution' in their home country. That puts the firm at odds with the administration's position. It's unclear whether the slew of agreements big law firms made with the administration represented concrete commitments by the firms to avoid further strife with the administration or just a chance for the White House to claim victory over lawyers it regarded as pushing litigation in conflict with Trump's agenda. Latham may be about to find out. The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the asylum case. Latham is representing DOUGLAS HUMBERTO URIAS-ORELLANA, an immigrant from El Salvador whose asylum claim was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the immigration court system housed within the Department of Justice. Latham wants the Supreme Court to make it easier for federal appeals courts to overrule certain findings of the board. That would help immigrants like Urias-Orellana who are challenging their asylum denials. 'The right answer is clear: Federal courts must review de novo whether the mistreatment suffered by a noncitizen meets the legal standard for persecution,' Latham attorneys wrote. One prominent critic of the firms' deals with the Trump White House, former Yale Law School Dean HAROLD KOH, said the high court's action puts Latham in the hot seat. 'Will they stick with the case? If the Trump administration tries to order them not to, citing the deal they made with Latham, will they follow it?' Koh asked. 'Who's in charge of the firm's pro bono docket? Is it the firm or is it the Trump administration?' One Latham attorney listed on the case is GREGORY GARRE, who served as solicitor general under President GEORGE W. BUSH. Garre would be expected to argue the case before the justices, as he has done on 50 other occasions. It would be 'very rare' for a major firm facing a potential Supreme Court argument to back out of the case, Koh said. Garre and spokespeople for Latham did not respond to requests for comment today, but in a letter to House Democrats last month, the firm insisted its deal with Trump wouldn't prevent it from taking on clients the administration might disapprove of. 'Latham continues to maintain its complete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements,' wrote the firm's chair and managing partner, RICHARD TROBMAN. White House spokespeople didn't respond to requests for comment on the looming Supreme Court fight. Trump's Justice Department, in a brief filed last month, endorsed the firm's request that the Supreme Court take up the asylum case. But Solicitor General JOHN SAUER said that the administration will oppose Latham's stance that appeals court judges are entitled to revisit factual findings immigration courts make when denying asylum claims. 'Judicial deference to the determinations relevant to asylum relief is appropriate because immigration officials 'exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations,'' Sauer wrote. Latham lawyers asked the Supreme Court to take up the case on Jan. 17, three days before Trump was sworn in for a second term and about three months before the firm agreed to make peace with the White House. Koh noted that another of the firms that settled with the White House, Milbank, announced last week that its top Supreme Court litigator, NEAL KATYAL, is signing onto a pending legal challenge to Trump's effort to impose wide-ranging tariffs on imports. Katyal and a spokesperson for Milbank did not respond to requests for comment. Koh said the pair of cases highlight uncertainty about what the deals with the White House require and what happens if the firms again draw Trump's ire. 'It's not clear who was intended to be the monitor of these agreements,' Koh said. 'These are kind of acid tests.' Daniel Barnes contributed to this report. MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@ Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe! POTUS PUZZLER What did former President BARACK OBAMA convert the White House tennis court into? Agenda Setting STILL HANGING AROUND: Trump has fired a host of Democratic appointees at independent boards and commissions across the federal government. There's just one catch: Some of them are still working, our HASSAN ALI KANU reports. The overwhelming majority have in fact left, accepted new jobs, dropped their lawsuits, or been otherwise forced out. Yet a handful of officials have successfully resisted, either because they were reinstated by lower-court judges, or because they have simply managed to maneuver around the White House's orders and directives. Trump fired three board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees PBS and NPR, in April. But those members participated in two CPB board of directors meetings this month. Similarly, the JOE BIDEN-appointed chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whom Trump purportedly demoted in March, has maintained her role without interruption. White House spokesperson HARRISON FIELDS said Trump 'exercised his lawful authority' to remove the members because the CPB 'is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime.' GONE FOR GOOD: Hundreds of communities throughout the country are struggling after the Trump administration canceled $4.5 billion for local projects designed to protect neighborhoods from natural disasters, POLITICO's E&E News' THOMAS FRANK reports. The money would have come from a program called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, which Trump first started in 2018. The program's cancellation in April has received bipartisan pushback. But as it becomes clear that the grants are gone for good, communities are being forced to choose between several options, none of them good. 'There are no alternative funding sources,' said ADAM EMRICK, city administrator of Conway, South Carolina, which lost a $2.2 million federal grant to create a stormwater retention area and now needs money for construction. 'The risk to our residents of flash flooding remains.' A FEMA advisory from April said the agency 'is working to develop a new approach to mitigation that is more responsive to state and local requirements, achieves clear mitigation goals, and results in more-timely obligation of funding.' HARVARD ON MY MIND: The Trump administration today formally accused Harvard University of civil rights violations and of failing to mount an appropriate response to alleged campus antisemitism, our JUAN PEREZ JR. and MEGAN MESSERLY report. In a letter to Harvard President ALAN GARBER, administration officials, including DOJ civil rights chief HARMEET K. DHILLON, said that 'Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government.' A spokesperson said the university 'strongly disagrees with the government's findings' and that 'Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community.' The notice marked the completion of a DOJ civil rights investigation into the university pursued by HHS, which, according to the administration, has awarded Harvard more than $794 million in federal financial assistance since the 2023 fiscal year. COVID? THAT OLD THING? The Labor Department today proposed doing away with the Biden administration's attempt to impose workplace safety standards against Covid-19 in hospitals and other health care settings, our NICK NIEDZWIADEK reports. As part of its deregulatory overhaul released today, which Labor estimates will save close to $1.6 million annually, the department is seeking to withdraw record-keeping and reporting requirements that ask employers to log when workers tested positive for Covid-19 as well as any related hospitalizations or fatalities. WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT DC EXODUS: Residents of the Washington metro area are putting their homes up for sale in record numbers — and there is some evidence that the Trump administration's mass firings of federal workers are to blame, Yahoo Finance's CLAIRE BOSTON writes. As of May, there were more than 13,500 homes for sale in the area, according to nearly double the inventory available at that time in 40 percent of surveyed Washington-area real estate agents said they worked with clients who were buying or selling due to federal layoffs or buyout offers last month. What We're Reading A Real Cancer in Washington (The Atlantic's Annie Lowrey) Scammers have a new tactic: impersonating DOGE (FedScoop's Rebecca Heilweil and Tim Starks) 'When is cancer political?' Medical researchers, patients decry Trump admin's layoffs, budget cuts (CBS News' Ted Koppel) 'He's going to do everything to damage the president': Former Musk friend on the Trump fallout (POLITICO's Christine Mui) POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER Right off the bat, Obama converted the White House tennis court so that it could support a basketball court — where he would often play pickup against members of Congress and high-ranking administration officials, including Secretary of Education ARNE DUNCAN and Treasury Secretary TIMOTHY GEITHNER, according to The New Yorker.
Forbes
14 hours ago
- Forbes
Financial Challenges Forcing More Budget Cuts At Brown University
Brown University announces new cost-cutting steps will be necessary to rein in its budget. Brown University has announced that 'deep financial challenges' will require it to take additional steps to rein in its spending. In doing so, it becomes the second premier university in just the past few days to indicate the need for substantial budget reductions. Late last week, Stanford University revealed plans to cut $140 million in general operating funds for the upcoming 2025-26 academic year. Citing a "rapid pace of funding losses as Brown navigates federal headwinds," Brown University President Christina Paxson, Provost Francis Doyle and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham warned the campus of the 'difficult decisions we may have to make in the coming weeks and months' in their Monday announcement. Those decisions will involve new measures in addition to several steps Brown has already taken to bring its expenses in line with available revenue. In a communication to the campus community last December, Doyle and Latham identified several initial actions the university would take to address a structural budget deficit of $46 million, writing that 'without changes to the way Brown operates, the structural deficit is expected to continue to deepen significantly, including a deficit next year that would grow to more than $90 million, with steady increases in subsequent years.' As part of its new belt-tightening plan, the university will extend the staff hiring freeze it began in March 'at least through the end of the summer.' It will continue a freeze on non-essential travel into September. And a salary freeze for members of the president's cabinet, will remain in effect for FY26 (plus, Paxton, Doyle and Latham will take a 10% salary cut). But Brown's leaders acknowledged it was now necessary for the institution to do more to cope with the financial woes it's facing. They indicated they would announce more campus-wide actions in several areas over the course of the summer, including: The administrators pointed to several federal actions that were contributing to what they described as Brown's 'deep financial losses,' including the termination of research grants, threatened reductions in indirect cost recovery rates, the likelihood of a significantly increased tax on university endowment income, substantial reductions to federal research budgets, decreases in Pell Grant awards, and cuts to federal financial aid for graduate and medical students. The Trump administration's freeze on federal research funding has cost Brown $45 million as of June 30, and that figure grows by about $3.5 million per week, according to the announcement. In addition, NIH has stopped making new grant awards to Brown and has not issued any routine annual grant renewals. The university is providing bridge funds to help investigators affected by those delays and cancellations, but how much longer it can continue to do so is uncertain. In addition, Brown officials cited these losses: In addition to formally appealing the termination of research grants and pursuing various litigation strategies to stop the federal research cuts, Brown officials have already taken out a $300 million term loan and they 'are currently assessing other debt options to increase our liquidity even further.' They are also trying to raise more private funds to support the university's research programs. Recognizing the intense federal scrutiny that major universities are undergoing, the administrators concluded by writing that Brown was committed 'to meeting its legal obligations, as well as our willingness to understand any valid concerns the government may have about the way the University effectively fulfills them.' At the same time, they attempted to reassure the campus that 'we have continued to stand by our core values of advancing knowledge and understanding and protecting academic freedom in a diverse, thriving community.'
Scientific American
16 hours ago
- Scientific American
about the Legal Battles around Standing Rock
Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. In 2016 a group of activists who called themselves water protectors—led by members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—set up camp on the windswept plains of North Dakota. Their protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline quickly grew into one of the largest Indigenous-led movements in recent U.S. history. At the protest's height more than 10,000 people gathered to stand in defense of water, land and tribal sovereignty. The response? Militarized police, surveillance drones, and a private security firm with war-zone experience—and eventually a sprawling lawsuit that arguably aimed to rewrite the history of Standing Rock. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. My guest today is Alleen Brown. She's a freelance journalist and a senior editor at Drilled, a self-described 'true-crime podcast about climate change.' The latest season of Drilled, which premiered on June 3, digs into the shocking legal battle the pipeline's builder, Energy Transfer, launched against Greenpeace. Thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. Alleen Brown: Yeah, thank you for having me. Feltman: So for folks who don't remember or maybe weren't paying as much attention as they should've, remind us what the Dakota Access Pipeline is. Brown: Yeah, so the Dakota Access Pipeline is an oil pipeline that travels from kind of the western part of North Dakota to Illinois. And in 2016 and 2017 it was being completed and sort of inspired a big Indigenous-led movement of people who were attempting to stop it. Feltman: Yeah, and what were their motivations for stopping the pipeline? Brown: There were a few motivations. I think the biggest one and most famous one was that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was worried about water contamination ... Feltman: Mm. Brown: The pipeline travels underneath the Missouri River, right next to the reservation and not far from where the tribal nation has a water-intake system, so they were really worried about an oil leak. Feltman: Right, and it had actually—the route had been moved from what was initially planned to [in part] avoid that same concern in a predominantly white area; am I remembering that correctly? Brown: Yeah, there were talks early on—one of the routes that was being considered was across the Missouri River upstream from the Bismarck-Mandan community's water-intake system. And so, you know, that's a more urban area that is predominantly white. Feltman: And again, you know, reminding listeners—it has been a very eventful few years [laughs], to be fair—what exactly happened at Standing Rock? You know, this became a big sort of cultural and ecological moment. Brown: Yeah, so to make a long story short, what became known as the Standing Rock movement started with a small group of grassroots people from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Eventually the tribe itself got really involved, and what started as kind of a small encampment opposed to the pipeline turned into these sprawling encampments, a sprawling occupation that, at times, had upwards of 10,000 people—people were kind of constantly coming and going. And all of these people were there to stand behind the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and stop the construction of the pipeline under the Missouri River. In response—you know, there was a very heavy-handed response from law enforcement and the pipeline company. So, I think, when a lot of people think of Standing Rock, they think of private security dogs kind of lunging at pipeline opponents who are trying to stop bulldozers. Feltman: Mm. Brown: They think of law enforcement spraying water hoses in below-freezing temperatures at people who are protesting. You know, they might think of tear gas. So it was very, very intense for the people who were there. Feltman: So in the new season of Drilled you're digging into a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, the company that built the pipeline, and, you know, folks might be surprised to hear that they sued at all, given that the pipeline was built. It's sort of the opposite direction [laughs] you might expect a lawsuit to be flowing, but then the lawsuit's claims are also very surprising. Could you summarize those for us? Brown: Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I can share what I found in my reporting. I remember when this lawsuit, or another version of this lawsuit, was first filed in 2017—at that time I was working at The Intercept and had been digging into these documents from this private security company, TigerSwan. So I was talking to all kinds of people who had been at Standing Rock and looking at these reports from the private security company. I really didn't hear anything about Greenpeace and this big lawsuit, which started out as a RICO lawsuit—which is [one that regards] the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, designed to go after the Mafia—turned into a conspiracy lawsuit. The lawsuit had Greenpeace at the heart of everything. Feltman: Mm. Brown: The lawsuit was eventually overturned in federal court and refiled in state court in North Dakota, but the damages that they were originally demanding were around $300 million. Ultimately, in that state court case, [the jury] awarded Energy Transfer over $666 million. Feltman: Wow. Could you tell us a little bit more about, you know, what it means to be accusing someone of conspiracy and sort of what Energy Transfer's actually trying to say happened here? Brown: Yeah, so, you know, for there to be conspiracy you essentially have to have multiple parties kind of conspiring together to do crimes ... Feltman: Mm. Brown: And this lawsuit just morphed a number of times since it was originally filed. Again, eventually it was turned into a conspiracy suit, and the players that they were alleging were involved kind of changed over time. So by the time it became a conspiracy suit they were saying two individual Indigenous water protectors—which is what a lot of the pipeline opponents referred to themselves as well as this encampment that called itself Red Warrior Society that was maybe a little bit more kind of into doing direct actions that blocked bulldozers, for example, and Greenpeace were all conspiring together. Feltman: Hmm, and so you had already been investigating the Dakota Access Pipeline for years when this lawsuit came about. In your mind, you know, what are the sort of major points that you had uncovered in your reporting that are, are really conflicting with this narrative from Energy Transfer? Brown: I would say one thing about Standing Rock is that everyone that you talk to who was involved will say, 'I'm gonna tell you the real story of Standing Rock.' So it's like people have very diverse ideas about exactly what happened, and I think that speaks to how many people were there and how many people were kind of approaching this question of pipeline construction from different angles. There were people coming in from all over the world, and some people were really, you know, aligned with what the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe wanted; some people had their own agendas. But people had, I think, overall really good intentions. So there was a lot of diversity, a lot of chaos—you know, the National Guard was called in, and there were kind of federal-level law enforcement resources being used and a lot of pressure from private security, which was working with law enforcement that really amplified the tension in those spaces. There were these lights beaming down on the camp. There were people infiltrating the camps and there were drones flying around. I think, for me, understanding the way, I think, militarism and the war on terror were brought home and into this Indigenous-led resistance space is something that I've really focused on. Feltman: Right. So, you know, based on your reporting this Energy Transfer lawsuit had raised a lot of questions, and was even dismissed initially and had to be sort of repackaged. But then it sounds like they sort of got everything they wanted out of the lawsuit. What do you think are the larger implications of that? Brown: One thing is that a lot of people think of this lawsuit as a SLAPP suit, which stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participation.' So there are a number of groups that have called this lawsuit a SLAPP. Um, there's this coalition called Protect the Protest Coalition, which includes legal advocacy and movement organizations, like the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Union of Concerned Scientists. [ Editor's Note: Greenpeace is also a member of the Protect the Protest Coalition. ] Another group that has called this a SLAPP is the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace Trial Monitoring Committee, which came together to keep an eye on the trial. That group is wide-ranging, but it's mostly lawyers—so human rights attorneys, there's a First Amendment attorney, law professors, nonprofit leaders, attorneys who have represented Indigenous and environmental defenders. Um, Greenpeace, of course, considers this a SLAPP suit. So, the idea is that, you know, it's not necessarily meant to win on the merits; it's also meant to scare people and send a message and drain a lot of different people of time and resources. This jury did deliver the verdict that the pipeline company wanted, and now the pipeline company can point to that verdict, even if it's overturned, and say, 'Well, a jury in North Dakota said XYZ is true about the Standing Rock movement.' Feltman: Mm. Brown: And, you know, a big part of this case, beyond the conspiracy, were these defamation claims. And, you know, Energy Transfer was saying, 'It's defamatory to say that the pipeline company deliberately destroyed sacred sites,' which was a huge issue in this whole pipeline fight ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Brown: 'It's defamation to say that private security used violence against nonviolent pipeline opponents.' The third one is that 'it's defamation to say that the pipeline crossed tribal land.' Feltman: Mm. Brown: So those things—two of those things are things that come directly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stands behind. So now Energy Transfer has this record that they can lean on ... Feltman: Mm. Brown: And we don't know exactly how they'll use that. They've really hit Greenpeace hard, and I think [this] opens the door against the environmental movement at large. Feltman: Yeah, well, thank you so much for coming on to chat about the show with us today. I'm definitely looking forward to hearing more of this story over the course of the season. Brown: Thank you so much for having me. Feltman: And just a small update, listeners: Greenpeace has stated its intention to appeal the jury's verdict. That's all for today's episode. You can start listening to the latest season of Drilled wherever you get your podcasts. For more of Alleen's work, check out her newsletter, Eco Files. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!
