Stanford University will cut $140m from its budget citing ‘federal policy changes'
The budget cuts will likely necessitate staff layoffs, deepening the impact of a staff hiring freeze the university announced in February. The university will continue hiring faculty, 'although the pace may be somewhat slowed', Levin and Martinez wrote. The cuts exclude the School of Medicine, which will make its own budget reductions.
'We believe deeply in the value of universities, in federal support for basic research, and in the endowment model that underpins financial aid and graduate fellowships. We will continue to advocate for these things,' Levin and Martinez said. 'At the same time, we need to be realistic about the current landscape and its consequences.'
Stanford has been hit particularly hard by federal changes to research grants and a proposed endowment tax.
The university has lost millions of dollars in federal grants this year, according to databases tracking cuts to National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation grants maintained by Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Scott Delaney of the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health.
The university would also keenly feel the impact of an endowment tax such as that proposed by Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The House of Representatives has passed a version of the president's budget which would levy a 21% tax on schools like Stanford, up from 1.4%. The Senate is currently debating a version of the bill which would set the endowment tax at 8%. According to the student newspaper the Stanford Daily, a 21% endowment tax would cost the university approximately $750m annually.
At $37.6bn in August 2024, Stanford has the third-largest endowment of any university in the United States, after only Harvard and Yale. During the 2024-2025 academic year, the university disbursed $1.8bn of that endowment to support financial aid and academic programs. In preparation for coming federal cuts, Levin and Martinez said the university would increase its endowment disbursement by 2.9%.
That increased disbursement is intended to support financial aid and doctoral student funding, Levin and Martinez said, as well as continued research. To lessen the impact of budget cuts, the university said it would limit capital and facilities expenditures to the most critical ones or those with external funding.
Stanford has faced growing federal scrutiny this year apart from its finances. In March, the justice department announced it would investigate whether Stanford, alongside three other California universities, was complying with the supreme court's ban on affirmative action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump has hung Ukraine out to dry
Volodymyr Zelensky thought he had done everything right. When Donald Trump demanded he sign away Ukraine's mineral rights in exchange for military aid, he did it. When the White House decided that offering Moscow an unconditional ceasefire was the only way to stop the war, Zelensky quickly acquiesced. When the US asked Ukraine to hold off using Nato military equipment against targets inside Russia, they agreed. In the end it didn't make any difference. This week Politico broke the news that the US Department of Defence had paused key weapons deliveries already agreed to and funded by Congress under the Biden administration; this leaves Ukrainian cities defenceless against Russian missile strikes and its troops dangerously low on ammunition. Trump has already clearly signalled his opposition to future arms shipments from the US. But cutting off arms already promised and paid for seems cruel and gratuitous. 'This decision was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe,' explained deputy White House press secretary Anna Kelly. 'The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned – just ask Iran.' But drill down into the list of weapons withheld this week and the claim that the US is protecting its own dwindling supplies makes little sense. For a start, almost all the pledged weapons are located in American military stockpiles in Poland, not in the US. The Defence Department has blocked the transfer of 250 GMLRS missiles to Ukraine – yet Lockheed Martin makes 14,000 a year. Ukraine will receive 8,496 fewer rounds of 155 mm artillery shells – which is less than a week's production by US industry. And it's hard to see how holding back 25 Stinger missiles is going to help Make America Great Again. There is some debate over whether the delivery freeze comes on the orders of the White House, or whether it's a screw-up by the bean counters in America's defence department. Indeed, just last week Trump signalled that he was willing to find some more Patriot batteries for Kyiv – the holy grail of missile defence that Ukraine so desperately needs as Russia ramps up its missile attacks to unprecedented levels of intensity and frequency. But in the big picture it doesn't matter. Long-term, Trump has made it clear that the US is out of the Ukraine weapons supply game, and he believes that the war must end in diplomacy. Sending more weapons to Kyiv, Trump apparently believes, will only add fuel to the conflict. Trump is wrong, for one simple reason. Ukraine is currently fighting a defensive war on the ground, and slowly losing it in part because of a lack of firepower. Its only successful attacks are targeted at Russian airfields and military factories, and these strikes are undertaken using ingenious weapons of Ukraine's own devising and manufacture. And Kyiv has signalled that it's ready for an immediate ceasefire if Russia follows suit. Ukraine needs weapons to defend against continuous Russian attacks, not to prolong the war. Ukraine's biggest practical problem is that European promises to step into the breach and fill the gap left by the US have so far yielded little in the way of actual arms deliveries. European militaries have been hollowed out by years of budget cuts, and whatever meagre stockpiles existed three years ago have been quickly consumed in the killing fields of Donbas. Pledges to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP agreed at the Nato summit earlier this month will boost Europe's military industrial complex – indeed the market capitalisation of Rheinmetall, the German tank manufacturer, have risen above Volkswagen's. But that extra investment will take years to make a difference. Europe's immediate answer has been to buy US arms and donate them to Ukraine. But if Washington is not able or willing to send crucial armaments to Kyiv, as this week's withheld shipments suggests, then Zelensky's situation is worse than his remaining allies feared.
Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Veteran Democrat Jack Lew expresses dismay at US deficit but blames Joe Biden too
Why you can trust Sky News Jack Lew is as decorated as they come when it comes to US economic leaders from the Democratic side of the aisle having served as President Obama's treasury secretary, and before that as his director of the office for management of the budget (OMB), a role he also held in the Clinton White House, when he was instrumental in the administration balancing the budget in the late 1990s - the last time that has happened. As President Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" makes its way through Congress, Mr Lew expressed dismay at the direction of the US deficit. "The simple rule that in good economic times you ought to come as close to paying your bills in the current sense as possible, certainly not running a deficit more than 3% of GDP, is the right rule." "Then in a bad time, you don't worry about nickels and dimes. You don't worry about a COVID response or a financial crisis response," Mr Lew said on The Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost. "What you can't do is never worry about it because then the hole just gets deeper and deeper and deeper. And that's why we're now looking at a deficit that is going to grow to 6% of GDP with this bill. That's terrible." 2:24 Of course, the deficit, having leapt during COVID-19 at the end of the first Trump administration, did stay elevated through the recent Biden administration, when Lew served as ambassador to Israel, and he said he felt that Biden's Build Back Better Bill was not a great decision. "The reality, the political reality at the time when there was a bill that in my own view was too large, it gave cash to people who were already working at a time when there was a concern about inflation," Mr Lew said. "The political reality was you couldn't get Democrats and Republicans to vote for something without that. If you asked me at the time was the risk of the economy not recovering great enough to take that on, I would have said you can't afford not to come out of COVID strong. "So I didn't think it was a great decision, but I don't think there was an alternative other than doing nothing, and we've seen from experience that the US recovered stronger and better than other countries from COVID, and the inflation is running its way through the system." Need for compromise Giving insights on how to balance the budget, he spoke about the need for political compromise. "I've always been able to convince most of the wisdom and the benefit of the compromise. And I work for presidents who were able and willing to make that case. "As in everything else in life, relationships matter deeply. Having a counterpart that you know and that you've worked with in the past and knows that they can trust you and you can trust them gives you the freedom to explore ideas that might actually work, but if they were prematurely made public, would be potentially very painful to either or both sides. So you have to have a space that you can talk about middle grounds in that isn't totally off limits or poisoned." Ruefully, he added, "there's no bipartisan conversations going on". An economy 'doing ok' Despite being down beat about the Trump administration's economic policies he acknowledged that "the US economy is actually doing ok", and was reassured that despite a 10% fall in the dollar so far this year, which he puts down to "policy chaos in the US", the bond market appeared calm to him - for now at least. "The economy is not yet in a place where it's in distress." But, "I think we have to be careful. Right now, I think we're in a place where there's no alternative to the dollar, which is why you're not seeing more departure from the dollar", he added. "The renminbi is not in a place where it's fully convertible and market-controlled. There's not enough high-rated European debt to meaningfully replace the dollar. "Japan mostly is a domestic lending and borrowing market. So I have always been of the view that the fact that it's not there now does not mean we should take for granted that the US dominance will be perpetual."
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
I'm no fan of Elon Musk. But Trump's threat to deport him is sickening
Elon Musk is an utterly deplorable human being. He has unashamedly flashed an apparent Nazi salute; encouraged rightwing extremists in Germany and elsewhere; falsely claimed there is a 'genocide' in South Africa against white farmers; callously celebrated the dismantling of USAID, whose shuttering will lead to the deaths of millions, according to a study published in the Lancet this week; and increased misinformation and empowered extremists on his Twitter/X platform while advancing his sham 'I am a free speech absolutist' claims. And so much more. So the news that Donald Trump 'will take a look' at deporting his billionaire former 'first buddy' Musk has many smirking and shrugging: 'Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.' I like a good comeuppance, but this doesn't please me at all. It sends a chill down the spine. It is the use of law enforcement agencies as a tool to chill debate, to silence disagreement and dissent, and to punish political opposition. Democracy is dimming fast in the United States, but threats to deport US citizens for disagreeing with the governing administration's policies are the domain of authoritarian regimes such as Belarus or Cameroon. Coming just hours after his officials raised the possibility of stripping Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York who was naturalised in 2018, of his US citizenship, Trump's threat should have all of America – a country of immigrants – appalled, afraid and up in arms. As the Guardian reported on Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, appeared to pave the way for an investigation into Mamdani's status after Andy Ogles, a rightwing Republican congressman for Tennessee, called for his citizenship to be revoked on the grounds that he might have concealed his support for 'terrorism' during the naturalization process. Trump has branded Mamdani 'a pure communist' and said 'we don't need a communist in this country'. Mamdani has not broken any laws. His sin? Running for office. In his threats against Mamdani and Musk, the president comes across like the notorious Republican senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. McCarthy was, according to the Harvard law dean Ervin Griswold, 'judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one'. Trump's threats to Musk and Mamdani are a departure from the administration's modus operandi of targeting foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian organizing on US college campuses. It is now targeting people it disagrees with on any issue. The threats are not based on any generally applicable laws but on the whim of the president or other administration leaders. It is an escalation of the assault on civil liberties using government entities to arbitrarily investigate and potentially punish critics. Over the past four weeks Musk's sin has been to vehemently oppose Trump's sweeping spending bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk is of course not concerned about the bill's slashing of health insurance, food stamps and other aid for the poor, but that it does not slash enough and that its cuts to green energy tax credits may cost his company, Tesla, about $1.2bn. But Musk is a US citizen with the right to oppose a piece of legislation without threats from the highest office in the land and the fear of deportation. When Musk poured $288m of his money into Trump and other Republicans' 2024 candidacies, no one raised a hand to question his credentials as an American. Instead, the administration gave him the run of the White House including midnight ice cream binges and a job as a glorified bean counter at DOGE. The hypocrisy and the corruption embedded within Trump's deportation threats is mind-boggling but unsurprising given his track record. The consequence, like the McCarthyism of the 1950s, is a climate of fear and a chilling of political discourse and action. Proud Americans who arrived here recently, such as Mamdani, are fearful of running for office, of speaking their minds in true American tradition, despite having the same responsibilities and privileges as every other American conferred on them. Trump's threat does to Musk what it does to every immigrant: it shuts them up, it holds over their head the possibility of made-up charges and deportation to El Salvador or some other country. Musk and his like were chortling when the Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil was cruelly detained for months. It is in the nature of those who like to tweet about freedom but do not think about it deeply enough, such as Musk, to not realize that their silence when the rights of a Khalil or a Mamdani are trampled upon will come back to haunt them. The Republican rump is silent today as Musk is threatened with deportation, just as it has been when masked men have come for Khalil and others who dared exercise their first amendment rights. There will be silence when they come for the Republicans. That's because we will all be gone by then, after no one else said a thing. Justice Malala is a political commentator and author of The Plot To Save South Africa: The Week Mandela Averted Civil War and Forged a New Nation
