Author

admin

Browsing

As the war in Ukraine grinds toward its fourth year, US President Donald Trump has made clear which world leader he thinks can help America end the conflict: Vladimir Putin’s ally Xi Jinping.

“Hopefully, China can help us stop the war with, in particular, Russia-Ukraine … they have a great deal of power over that situation, and we’ll work with them,” Trump told political and business elites gathered at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last month.

Trump expressed that hope, he has repeatedly said, in a call with the Chinese leader days before being sworn in last month – and it’s a subject that could be raised in the coming days as officials from around the world gather in Munich for an annual security conference.

While Trump may have complicated his plan to orchestrate peace alongside Xi by imposing a blanket 10% tariff on Chinese imports into the United States earlier this month, the war in Ukraine could be a rare issue of collaboration – especially as Beijing looks to avert deepening trade frictions.

“Given the stakes on US-China relations, if Trump prices China’s cooperation as the one critical issue that could improve US-China relations, I think China will be very tempted … (and could) play a helpful role,” said Yun Sun, director of the China Program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington. At the same time, she added, Beijing will be wary of undermining its alignment with Russia.

China has long sought to position itself as a potential peace broker in the conflict –promoting its own vaguely-worded proposal to settle the war. But in the West, its bid has so far been overshadowed by another reality: Beijing’s abiding support for Putin’s Russia.

The stakes would be high for Xi to risk damaging that partnership, which the Chinese leader has built up as a critical part of his broader goals to counter pressure from the West and reshape a world order in China’s favor.

And a negotiating table where Xi has a prominent seat is also one where Putin, not Trump, has a staunch partner – a reality that Washington would have to navigate carefully if it doesn’t want to risk isolating European allies or reach a solution that’s unacceptable to Ukraine, analysts say.

“The real outcome that Beijing would like to avoid is a very much weakened Russia,” said Chong Ja Ian, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore. “Because then … (Beijing) would be lacking one major partner.”

An end in sight?

The future of the conflict is expected to feature heavily on the agenda of the upcoming Munich Security Conference beginning Friday in Germany, where US Vice President JD Vance is set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi will also lead a delegation from Beijing.

Looming over the gathering is a dramatic tone shift in Washington’s approach to the war. Trump has questioned American aid to the embattled country, which his predecessor Joe Biden and US NATO allies have seen as critical to defending not just Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but the rules-based world order.

In a Fox News interview earlier this week, the notoriously transactional Trump instead suggested that the US should be getting access to Ukraine’s rich natural resources in exchange for military assistance. He also suggested that Ukraine “may be Russian someday,” and said his administration has made “tremendous progress” in laying the groundwork for potential peace talks with Russia and Ukraine, without providing details.

Zelensky has said he is willing to negotiate with Putin – but only if the US and Europe continue to support Ukraine and “provide security guarantees,” while Russia in recent days reiterated that it would only accept a peace that saw Ukraine give up ambitions to join NATO and cede regions annexed by Russia.

But while Trump is pushing for a swift end to the war, his administration has yet to lay out specifics on what kind of peace terms they are hoping to see agreed upon.

How much Trump would look to work alongside Xi – and whether the Chinese leader is amenable – may also depend to an extent on those parameters, observers say. Western leaders in the past have tried, without success, to persuade Xi to push Putin toward a peace in line with the one advocated for by Zelensky and Ukraine.

Even as China has claimed neutrality in the conflict and called for peace, it’s emerged as a key diplomatic and economic lifeline for Russia throughout the war, including by sending it dual-use goods NATO leaders have said are feeding Russia’s defense sector and enabling its military. Beijing defends its trade as part of normal relations with Russia.

It’s likely that in Trump’s eyes, all that gives Xi leverage over Putin. But close observers of China’s foreign policy say it’s not so straightforward.

“Can China threaten to cut off the supply (of essential goods to Russia)? It can’t, because China cannot afford a completely failed Russia,” said Liu Dongshu, an assistant professor focusing on Chinese politics at the City University of Hong Kong. He pointed to Beijing’s calculus that its relations with the US and Europe have already soured to such an extent that they have no choice but to continue to back their only powerful diplomatic ally.

Xi and Putin memorably declared their “no limits” partnership weeks before Russian tanks rolled over Ukraine’s sovereign borders – a pledge made based on their shared opposition to NATO and a view that the US-led West is declining while they are on the rise.

Xi also sees Putin as a potential source of economic and diplomatic support if Beijing were ever to invade Taiwan, some observers say. Xi’s ambition to take control of the self-ruling democracy may be another key reason why he would be wary of any move that could harm that relationship.

The Chinese leader may also be enjoying the war’s role as a distraction for the US away from a focus on Asia and Taiwan – something the Trump’s cohort, including Vice President Vance, have pointed out.

As a US senator, Vance last year argued that the US supplying Ukraine with air defense systems could hurt its ability to aid Taiwan’s defense if China were to attack the island that it claims as its own.

Xi as peacemaker?

Working with Trump to pressure Putin to a negotiating table – whatever the terms of a deal – would also mark a stark shift in Beijing’s approach to the conflict so far.

Xi and his officials have used the war as a platform to promote a vision for a China-led world, one where the American alliance system has been dismantled or weakened.

“China focuses on building a coalition of non-Western nations, including influential developing countries like Brazil, to leverage the Ukraine conflict toward reshaping global security architecture and advancing an alternative vision of world order,” said Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the US.

Beijing will have little incentive to engage in substantial cooperation with Washington for now, said Zhao, noting that its officials would, however, wait and see what benefits could be gained from any potential, broader deal-making with Trump.

That said, the current American president – a NATO critic, who has repeatedly voiced personal admiration for Putin and Xi – may be a more appealing negotiating partner for both strongmen.

Trump before taking office called for an “immediate ceasefire and negotiations” – a position that jives with Beijing’s stated stance on the war that has been criticized by the West as helpful to Russia. He’s also in recent weeks echoed Moscow and Beijing’s talking points, sympathizing with the Kremlin’s view that Ukraine should not be part of NATO and that the war continued because America “started pouring equipment” into Ukraine.

US lawmakers and some members of Trump’s administration remain tough on both countries. But Trump’s stance raises the question of whether there is a deal that Beijing, Moscow and Washington could orchestrate that would please all three – and what that could mean for Ukraine and the future of the conflict.

“You can see how each could take something from (certain peace deals) – Putin can save face, Xi and Trump can claim to be peacemakers,” said Robert Ward, director of geo-economics and strategy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain.

But there’s a risk in any agreement where Russia is left in possession of the parts of Ukraine it’s now occupying that this becomes “a conflict that isn’t at an end, it’s just a lull,” he said.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

A rampaging rebel group has claimed the capture of another mining town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a little over a week after it took control of the region’s largest city Goma.

Clashes between the rebel coalition Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC) and Congolese forces have left more than 3,000 people dead in less than two weeks, according to DRC’s government.

The AFC, of which the M23 armed group – which claims to defend the interest of minority Rwandophone communities – is a key member, took over resource-rich Nyabibwe last week after Goma, the provincial capital of North Kivu, fell on January 27.

It comes less than a year after the rebels seized Rubaya, a mining hub also in the country’s east, which harbors one of the world’s largest deposits of coltan, a valuable mineral used in the production of smartphones.

Here’s what you need to know.

Is my phone fueling the conflict?

For decades, DRC, a Central African nation of more than 100 million people, has grappled with bloody militia violence, including ethnic and resource-driven armed rebellion by M23 and dozens of other armed groups.

Roughly the size of Western Europe, the war-riven country is endowed with vast mineral wealth, including the world’s largest reserves of cobalt and coltan – both critical to the production of electronics. Cobalt is used to produce batteries that power cell phones and electric vehicles, while coltan is refined into tantalum, which has a variety of applications in phones and other devices.

However, according to the World Bank “most people in DRC have not benefited from this wealth,” and the country ranks among the five poorest nations in the world.

Much of DRC’s mineral wealth is split between its government and armed groups who control swathes of the resource-rich east.

“It’s not a coincidence that the zones occupied by the rebels are mining areas,” Okenda said, adding that global demand for cobalt and coltan has fueled the crisis.

“It takes money to wage war. Access to mining sites finances the war,” he added.

Why do the rebels want the minerals?

But a top United Nations official has an idea.

Bintou Keita, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative to the DRC, told the Security Council in a September briefing that coltan trade from Rubaya’s mines is estimated to supply over 15 percent of global tantalum production and generates an estimated $300,000 in revenue a month for M23.

M23 denied these claims, insisting its presence in Rubaya was “solely humanitarian.”

Much of the international community, including the Congolese government, has accused neighboring Rwanda of backing M23 and aiding the plunder of DRC minerals.

UN experts believe that an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 Rwandan soldiers are supervising and supporting M23 fighters in eastern DRC, outnumbering the rebel group’s forces in the country. A December report by the UN Group of Experts on the DRC revealed that “at least 150 tons of coltan were fraudulently exported to Rwanda and mixed with Rwandan production.”

Rwanda is one of the world’s top suppliers of coltan and has surpassed DRC’s export of the mineral in recent years.

Where do DRC’s plundered minerals go?

In a public address that drew outrage last year, Kagame admitted that Rwanda was a transit point for minerals smuggled from DRC, but insisted his country was not stealing from its neighbor.

“Some people come from Congo; whether they smuggle or go through the right channels, they bring minerals. Most of it goes through here (Rwanda) but does not stay here. It goes to Dubai, Brussels, Tel Aviv, (and) Russia. It goes everywhere,” Kagame said, without providing evidence or specifying what minerals were being smuggled.

In 2022, the United States Treasury Department said that over 90% of DRC’s gold was being “smuggled to regional states, including Uganda and Rwanda” where they are “refined and exported to international markets, particularly the UAE,” and sanctioned a Belgian businessman for facilitating the trade.

For DRC’s other valuable minerals including coltan and cobalt, the scale of the plunder remains unclear.

In December, DRC sued subsidiaries of Apple in Belgium and France, accusing the company of sourcing conflict minerals. Apple denied the accusation.

Every year, tech giants such as Apple and Microsoft publish reports saying that they demand responsible sourcing of minerals from their suppliers.

In an earlier filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2023, Apple said that while it continued to source 3TG (tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold) and other minerals such as cobalt and lithium from DRC and other countries, it was “committed to meeting and exceeding internationally accepted due diligence standards for primary minerals and recycled materials in our supply chain.” It added that its due diligence efforts had “found no reasonable basis for concluding that any of the smelters or refiners of 3TG determined to be in our supply chain as of December 31, 2023 directly or indirectly financed or benefited armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country.”

Is there a solution to the conflict?

DRC’s mineral wealth has presented itself as a “curse,” according to analyst Okenda, who explained:

Last week, a humanitarian ceasefire announced by M23 fell apart almost immediately after it was declared, as the rebels swiftly advanced into Nyabibwe.

While regional and global leaders ponder solutions to ending the crisis, Okenda believes that DRC’s government needs to reinvent itself if it hopes for lasting peace.

DRC “has a governance model that if it does not change, the Congolese population will gain absolutely nothing, whether there is war or not,” he said.

“If the Kinshasa government improves its governance, invests in the army, ensures a fair sharing of resources between citizens in the country, and conducts elections that are of better quality, I still think that peace can return (to DRC),” he said.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

President Donald Trump is on the cusp of seeing his 14th Cabinet member confirmed in former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. 

Gabbard is slated for a final Senate confirmation vote to be Trump’s director of national intelligence (DNI) after midnight in the early morning hours of Wednesday. 

This is when the 30 hours of post-cloture debate expires on her nomination. Frequently, the debate between the cloture motion and the final vote is minimized in what’s referred to as a ‘time agreement’ between Republicans and Democrats. But with the controversial nature of Gabbard’s nomination and ongoing frustrations with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its government audit, no such agreement is expected. 

Gabbard is expected to be confirmed and has already amassed support from hesitant Republicans who voted against Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, requiring Vice President JD Vance to break the tie in the upper chamber. 

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who are often considered the conference’s moderate members, have both already come out in support of Gabbard. Both lawmakers voted against confirming Hegseth. 

Collins is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and voted in favor of the nomination, helping advance it to the full Senate floor. 

Gabbard also snagged the backing of key Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Todd Young, R-Ind., despite the latter being uncertain before the committee vote. 

Young is also on the Intel Committee and ultimately voted to advance her to the floor, but only after some prodding and discussions with Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Vance, who operated rigorous operations to ensure the nomination got through. 

Some concerns that followed Gabbard through her confirmation hearing were her past meeting with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, her previous FISA Section 702 stance and her past support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden

But these worries were apparently quelled by her answers and the persuasive support of both Cotton and Vance.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore web pages and datasets that were taken down in accordance with President Donald Trump’s executive order.

Under U.S. District Judge John Bates’ order, HHS, the CDC and the FDA are required to restore data sets and pages that were ‘removed or substantially modified’ last month ‘without adequate notice or reasoned explanation.’

Earlier this month, Doctors for America, represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personal Management (OPM), the CDC, the FDA and HHS for removing information that it says was used by doctors and researchers.

‘Removing critical clinical information and datasets from the websites of CDC, FDA, and HHS not only puts the health of our patients at risk, but also endangers research that improves the health and health care of the American public,’ Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, a member of the board of directors for Doctors for America, said in a statement on the organization’s website.  ‘Federal public health agencies must reinstate these resources in full to protect our patients.’

‘These federal agencies exist to serve the American people by protecting public health,’ Zach Shelley, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel on the case, said in the same statement. ‘Removing this vital information flouts that mandate. Our lawsuit seeks to hold them to their responsibilities to the people of this country.’

Doctors for America alleged in its complaint that the removal of the web pages and data sets created a ‘dangerous gap in the scientific data available to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks.’

According to the complaint, the pages and data sets that were either taken down or modified included a report on an HIV medication, pages on ‘environmental justice,’ pages on HIV monitoring and testing and a CDC guide on contraceptives, among others. Doctors for America claim that these pages and reports were either removed or modified to ‘combat what the president described as ‘gender ideology.’’

The web pages in question were taken down in accordance with President Trump’s order on ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.’ In the order, President Trump outlines precise definitions of ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ ‘female,’ ‘male’ and other gendered words, establishing the recognition of two genders as official U.S. policy.

‘The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself,’ the order reads.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The House and Senate are headed for a collision course on federal budget talks as each chamber hopes to advance its own respective proposals by the end of Thursday.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Tuesday that the House Budget Committee would take up a resolution for a massive bill to advance President Donald Trump’s agenda later this week. The panel then scheduled its meeting on the matter for 10 a.m. ET on Thursday. 

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, resolved to push forward with their own legislation after the House GOP missed its self-imposed deadline to kick-start the process last week. 

And while the two chambers agree broadly on what they want to pass via reconciliation, they differ significantly on how to get those goals over the finish line. 

‘What’s the alternative, the Senate version?’ Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said when asked if House Republicans could come to an agreement. ‘When has the Senate ever given us anything conservative?’

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, caught some members of the Republican conference by surprise at their closed-door meeting on Tuesday morning when he announced to the room that his panel would be advancing a reconciliation resolution, two lawmakers told Fox News Digital.

House and Senate Republicans are aiming to use their congressional majorities to pass a massive conservative policy overhaul via the budget reconciliation process.

By reducing the Senate’s threshold for passage from two-thirds to a simple majority, where the House already operates, Republicans will be able to enact Trump’s plans while entirely skirting Democratic opposition, provided the items included relate to budgetary and other fiscal matters.

GOP lawmakers want to include a wide swath of Trump’s priorities, from more funding for border security to eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages.

House Republicans’ plans to advance the bill through committee last week were scuttled after fiscal hawks balked at initial proposals for baseline reductions in government spending – frustrating rank-and-file lawmakers.

‘This is a mechanism that needs to happen that some people are getting hung up on,’ one exasperated House GOP lawmaker said. ‘Some people are acting as if this – you know, I appreciate they’re taking this seriously, but this is just getting the clock started.’

More recent proposals traded by the House GOP would put that minimum total anywhere between roughly $1 trillion and $2.5 trillion.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s proposal is projected to be deficit-neutral, according to a press release. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hopes to advance it by the end of Thursday.

Johnson told reporters Tuesday that bill would be dead on arrival in the House.

‘I’m afraid it’s a nonstarter over here. And, you know, I’ve expressed that to him. And there is no animus or daylight between us. We all are trying to get to the same achievable objectives. And there’s just, you know, different ideas on how to get there,’ the speaker said.

Tensions are growing, however, with Johnson’s critics beginning to blame his leadership for the lack of a definitive roadmap.

‘We’re totally getting jammed by the Senate. Leaders lead, and they don’t wait to get jammed,’ Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital. ‘If I had somebody who was arguing with me about a top-line number, and if I was speaker, they wouldn’t be in that position anymore.’

‘And I would figure out a way to be resourceful working with the conference and working lines of communication, as opposed to hiding everything and then being three weeks late on the top-line number.’

Johnson told reporters that details of a plan could be public as soon as Tuesday night.

The Senate’s plan differs from the House’s goal in that it would separate Trump’s priorities into two separate bills – including funding for border security and national defense in one bill, while leaving Trump’s desired tax cut extensions for a second portion.

House GOP leaders are concerned that leaving tax cuts for a second bill could leave Republicans with precious little time to reckon with them before the existing provisions expire at the end of this year.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump has nominated a Virginia state official to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in his new administration.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump wrote that he nominated Terry Cole to become the next administrator of the DEA. Cole is currently the secretary of public safety and homeland security for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

According to the Virginia government’s website, Cole was previously the chief of staff and executive officer at the DEA’s Department of Justice Special Operations Division, and also served as the DEA’s representative to the National Security Council. The website also notes that Cole worked for the DEA for 22 years, though Trump wrote that he was employed by the DEA for 21 years.

In a social media post, Trump said that he was ‘pleased’ to announce Cole, who will need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as his nominee.

‘Terry is a DEA Veteran of 21 years, with tours in Colombia, Afghanistan, and Mexico City, who currently serves as Virginia’s Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, leading 11 State Public Safety Agencies, with more than 19,000 employees,’ Trump’s post read.

Trump also added that Cole holds a degree from the Rochester Institute of Technology, as well as certificates from the University of Virginia and the University of Notre Dame.

‘Together, we will save lives, and MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN. Congratulations Terry!’ the president’s post concluded.

Trump originally named Florida sheriff Chad Chronister as his first pick to lead the DEA, but Chronister, who serves as the sheriff of Hillsborough County, later withdrew his name from consideration in December.

‘To have been nominated by President-Elect @realDonaldTrump to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is the honor of a lifetime,’ Chronister wrote in a post on X at the time.

‘Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration. There is more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and a lot of initiatives I am committed to fulfilling.’

The DEA is expected to work with the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises of restoring safety at the Southern border. At the end of January, federal agents conducted nationwide roundups of more than 1,200 illegal immigrants accused of committing crimes in the U.S.

Fox News Digital’s Stepheny Price contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump is on the cusp of seeing his 14th Cabinet member confirmed in former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. 

Gabbard is slated for a final Senate confirmation vote to be Trump’s director of national intelligence (DNI) on Wednesday morning, after the planned midnight vote was scrapped due to a snowstorm in Washington, D.C.

The 30 hours of post-cloture debate officially expires on her nomination just after midnight. 

Frequently, the debate between the cloture motion and the final vote is minimized in what’s referred to as a ‘time agreement’ between Republicans and Democrats. But with the controversial nature of Gabbard’s nomination and ongoing frustrations with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its government audit, no such agreement is expected. 

Gabbard is expected to be confirmed and has already amassed support from hesitant Republicans who voted against Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, requiring Vice President JD Vance to break the tie in the upper chamber. 

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who are often considered the conference’s moderate members, have both already come out in support of Gabbard. Both lawmakers voted against confirming Hegseth. 

Collins is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and voted in favor of the nomination, helping advance it to the full Senate floor. 

Gabbard also snagged the backing of key Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Todd Young, R-Ind., despite the latter being uncertain before the committee vote. 

Young is also on the Intel Committee and ultimately voted to advance her to the floor, but only after some prodding and discussions with Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Vance, who operated rigorous operations to ensure the nomination got through. 

Some concerns that followed Gabbard through her confirmation hearing were her past meeting with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, her previous FISA Section 702 stance and her past support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden

But these worries were apparently quelled by her answers and the persuasive support of both Cotton and Vance.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Trump administration’s decision to slash overhead costs linked to federally funded research has sparked an immense backlash. But some doctors are praising the move, suggesting it will help ‘optimize’ how taxpayer dollars are used when it comes to scientific research.

A new rule from the Trump administration that went into effect Monday, capped facilities and administrative costs, also known as ‘indirect costs,’ at 15% for federally funded research grants provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When a grant is awarded to a scientist by the NIH, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these ‘indirect costs.’

According to an announcement about the new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as high as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.

‘If that money is cut to 15%, what that means is there’s actually going to be more grants given out to do science. You get more money back to the NIH to give out more science,’ said Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

‘It’s about time,’ said Dr. Erika Schwartz, the founder of Evolved Science, which is a concierge medical practice in New York City with more than 1,500 active patients. 

‘While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.’

Prasad posited that universities and research institutions have negotiated ‘sweetheart deals’ that allow them to rake in funds that sometimes aren’t even necessary to the research at hand. To demonstrate his point, he explained the numbers for a research institution that has negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs:

‘Let’s say I get $100,000 [for a research project] and I need a laboratory… I get $100,000, and then they still get the $57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and presumably the fact that I have a lab bench, and the lights, etc. But now let’s say I do the same $100,000 project, but my project is we’re going to analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So, I just have a laptop… but they still get the $57,000 even though there’s literally no space being given to this person. There’s no bench, there’s no desk, there’s nothing.’

Prasad added that another ‘fundamental problem’ with these negotiated rates is that the money is not formally budgeted, so ‘the American people don’t know where that money is going.’

‘A famous researcher once said to me, an NIH dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for whatever purpose they want. Although, nominally, they’re supposed to use it to keep the lights on and, you know, make the buildings run, but that’s not always the case,’ he said.

David Whelan, a former healthcare writer for Forbes who has spent time working in hospitals and now works in the healthcare consulting space, echoed this concern in a post on X that claimed universities have used indirect research grant payments ‘to pocket money.’ 

‘Indirects are just ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket money that their investigators won and then create slush for those who are incapable of getting funded on their own,’ Whelan wrote. ‘It’s a huge grift and great place for cuts.’

The Trump administration’s cap on indirect funding associated with NIH research grants was immediately challenged in court with lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general and a cohort of universities, which argued the move will ‘devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.’

‘Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,’ said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. ‘The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.’  

In response to the lawsuit from Democratic state attorneys general, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order prohibiting NIH agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule. 

The judge’s order also required Trump administration agencies that are impacted by the new rule to file reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, an in-person hearing date on the matter has been scheduled for Feb. 21.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday instructing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to coordinate with federal agencies and execute massive cuts in federal government staffing numbers.  

The order will instruct DOGE and federal agencies to work together to ‘significantly’ shrink the size of the federal government and limit hiring new employees, according to a White House fact sheet on the order. Specifically, agencies must not hire more than one employee for every four that leave their federal post. 

Agencies will also be instructed to ‘undertake plans for large-scale reductions in force’ and evaluate ways to eliminate or combine agency functions that aren’t legally required.

DOGE Chair Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office that the American people voted for ‘major’ government reform and that the Trump administration would deliver. 

Trump voiced similar sentiments about providing voters what they wanted – to tackle ‘all of this ‘horrible stuff going on’ – and told reporters that he hoped the court system would cooperate. 

‘I hope that the court system is going to allow us to do what we have to do,’ Trump said, who also said he would always abide by a court’s ruling but will be prepared to appeal.

The order builds on another directive Trump signed after his inauguration implementing a federal hiring freeze, as well as an initiative from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management offering more than 2 million federal civilian employees buyouts if they leave their jobs or return to work in person. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration’s plan from advancing amid challenges from union groups.

Trump’s executive order aligns with DOGE’s ‘workforce optimization initiative’ and would impose restrictions to hire only for ‘essential positions’ as agencies brace for significant cuts to their workforce, according to the White House fact sheet. 

The executive order will leave just a few areas of the federal government unscathed, including positions affiliated with law enforcement, national security and immigration enforcement. 

DOGE is focused on eliminating wasteful government spending and streamlining efficiency and operations, and it is expected to influence White House policy on budget matters. The group has been tasked with cutting $2 trillion from the federal government budget through efforts to slash spending, government programs and the federal workforce.

The White House said on Feb. 4 that it predicted a ‘spike’ in resignations close to the original Feb. 6 deadline for the buyout offer, which would allow employees to retain all pay and benefits and be exempt from in-person work until Sept. 30.

‘The number of deferred resignations is rapidly growing, and we’re expecting the largest spike 24 to 48 hours before the deadline,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital on Feb. 4.  

So far, approximately 65,000 federal employees have accepted the buyout offer, but a federal judge has issued a pause on the deadline for when employees must submit their resignations. 

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole indefinitely extended a temporary restraining order Monday, pausing the deadline as he evaluates a preliminary injunction request stemming from cases against the buyout program filed by union groups, including the American Federation of Government Employees.

When asked about the buyout, Trump said that there are empty office spaces and that his administration is attempting to reduce the size of government. 

‘We have too many people. We have office spaces occupied by 4% – nobody showing up to work because they were told not to,’ Trump said. 

DOGE has moved to slash other areas of the federal government as well. 

Other recent initiatives by DOGE have included launching an effort to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, a group that works to deliver aid to impoverished countries and development assistance. 

The group has come under scrutiny from DOGE amid concerns about wasteful government spending, poor leadership and questionable funding, including an Iraqi version of ‘Sesame Street’ and reportedly millions of dollars in funding to extremist groups tied to designated terrorist organizations and their allies. 

‘It’s been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out,’ Trump told reporters on Feb. 2.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman, Emma Colton and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed on Tuesday that some Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) employees who worked on ‘mis-, dis-, and malinformation’ were put on administrative leave.

In a statement to Scripps News, DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote CISA needs to ‘refocus on its mission,’ starting with election security.

‘The agency is undertaking an evaluation of how it has executed its election security mission with a particular focus on any work related to mis-, dis-, and malinformation,’ according to the statement.

As first reported by Fox News Digital, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified in April 2022 that the Department of Homeland Security was creating a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterm election.

During an appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, Mayorkas said a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ was created to address misinformation campaigns targeting minority communities.

While the agency conducts the assessment, personnel who worked on the alleged ‘mis-, dis-, and malinformation,’ as well as foreign influence operations and disinformation, will remain on administrative leave, according to the statement.

The board was allegedly led by Undersecretary for Policy Rob Silvers, co-chair with principal deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskill. 

Nina Jankowicz, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, reportedly served as executive director, Politico reported.

Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS