Happy New Year 2025

Tag: capping

  • Judge blocks Trump admin directive capping costs tied to federal research grants

    Judge blocks Trump admin directive capping costs tied to federal research grants

    A judge temporarily halted a directive by the Trump administration that imposed a cap on overhead costs that go to universities and other institutions that host federally funded research projects.

    The directive, which went into effect Monday, sparked an outcry of criticism from research institutions that argued the new rule would have devastating consequences. It was immediately challenged in court by 22 Democratic state attorneys general, as well as by several leading research universities and related groups in a second lawsuit. 

    U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelley subsequently ruled in favor of the 22 state attorneys general, granting their request for a temporary restraining order that prohibits agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule that imposed a cap on facilities and administrative costs that are part of federally funded research grants.

    ‘WHAT A RIPOFF!’: TRUMP SPARKS BACKLASH AFTER CUTTING BILLIONS IN OVERHEAD COSTS FROM NIH RESEARCH GRANTS

    The rule capped overhead costs associated with National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research grants at 15%. 

    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 even higher, such as at the University of Michigan where the negotiated rate for indirect costs is 56%.

    Medical research

    In fiscal year 2023, the NIH spent around $35 billion on roughly 50,000 grants that go to research institutions, such as universities and hospitals. Of that $35 billion, according to the Trump administration, $9 billion was allocated for “indirect costs” that cover expenses related to depreciation on buildings, equipment, capital improvements, interest on debt associated with certain buildings, and operations and maintenance expenses. (iStock)

    The lawsuit from the attorneys general argued the move violated federal law governing the procedures federal agencies must follow when implementing new regulations. They also argued that the move usurped the will of Congress, which, in 2018, passed legislation prohibiting the NIH or the Health and Human Services Department from unilaterally making changes to current negotiated rates, or implementing a modified approach to the reimbursement of indirect costs.

    UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR HAILS THAT SCIENCE ‘THRIVED’ UNDER HITLER IN ATTACK ON TRUMP’S NIH CUTS

    Kelley’s temporary restraining order requires the 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 her order. Meanwhile, Kelley set an in-person hearing date on the matter for Feb. 21.

    Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on the restraining order, but did not hear back at press time. However, after the directive went into effect on Monday, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Fox News Digital, “Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less.” 

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and President Donald Trump.

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a $9 billion spending cut in response to a new mandate from the Trump administration. (Alamy/Getty Images)

    Earlier on Monday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said the Trump administration had violated his order halting a federal aid funding freeze that sought to pause “all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,” to ensure federal disbursements aligned with the president’s executive actions.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    McConnell ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding,” noting that plaintiffs had provided adequate evidence to show the Trump administration “in some cases [has] continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” despite his “clear and unambiguous” order lifting the freeze.

  • Josh Hawley, Bernie Sanders propose capping credit card interest rates at 10%

    Josh Hawley, Bernie Sanders propose capping credit card interest rates at 10%

    A ‘Mornings with Maria’ panel provides their reactions to the December jobs report, detailing the impact it may have on the U.S. economy.

    A new bipartisan bill introduced by a pair of senators would cap credit card interest rates in an effort to help consumers and fulfill one of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises.

    Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced legislation that would cap credit interest rates at 10% immediately upon the bill’s enactment into law. The cap would then remain in effect for five years.

    “During the campaign, President Trump pledged to cap credit card interest rates at 10%,” Sanders said in a statement. “Today, I am proud to be introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hawley to do just that.” 

    “When large financial institutions charge over 25% interest on credit cards, they are not engaged in the business of making credit available. They are engaged in extortion and loan sharking,” Sanders added. “We cannot continue to allow big banks to make huge profits ripping off the American people.”

    US CREDIT CARD DEFAULTS SOAR TO HIGHEST LEVEL IN 14 YEARS

    Credit card interest rates would be capped at 10% for five years under the Sanders-Hawley bill. (iStock / iStock)

    Hawley said in a statement that capping credit card interest rates at 10% like Trump campaigned on “is a simple way to provide meaningful relief to working people.”

    “Working Americans are drowning in record credit card debt while the biggest credit card issuers get richer and richer by hiking their interest rates to the moon,” Hawley added. “It’s not just wrong, it’s exploitative. And it needs to end.”

    Missouri Senator Josh Hawley supports TikTok ban

    Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said that credit card issuers are being “exploitative” with interest rates. (Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images / Getty Images)

    In the last Congress, Hawley introduced a bill to cap credit card interest rates at 18%, though it died in committee without receiving a vote.

    The press release from Sanders and Hawley noted that in September the Trump campaign said: “President Trump has promised to cap interest rates at 10% to provide temporary and immediate relief for hardworking Americans who are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford hefty interest payments on top of the skyrocketing costs of mortgages, rent, groceries and gas.”

    HOW CREDIT CARD SWIPE FEES ARE AFFECTING SHOPPERS

    Senator Bernie Sanders

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., accused financial institutions with high credit card interest rates of “loan sharking.” (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images / Getty Images)

    Critics of proposals to cap credit card interest rates note that it would likely cause financial institutions to be more restrictive in extending credit and offering credit cards to borrowers with relatively poor credit scores, and potentially by reducing the credit card rewards they offer.

    “There’s no question that a credit card rate cap would have a massive impact on credit cardholders beyond just reducing interest payments,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree. “Banks have been vocal that a rate cap, even one much smaller than the 10% cap backed by President Trump, would lead to a dramatic reduction in credit card rewards and even to reduced access to credit for those with imperfect credit.”

    GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

    “However, it is also clear that most Americans are willing to accept both of those consequences if it means capping rates,” Schulz added, noting that a LendingTree survey from December found that two-thirds of cardholders would support a rate cap, even if it results in reduced rewards, while six in 10 support it even if it restricts access to credit for many.