By ADITHI RAMAKRISHNAN, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut.

In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF’s actions were counter to the agency’s mandate.

The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation’s new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what’s known as indirect research expenses “violate the law and jeopardize America’s longstanding global leadership in STEM.”

Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut.

In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more.

Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month’s hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.”

NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation’s funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science.

A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to “create opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and “not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”

The plaintiff states are trying to “substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency,” Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing.

The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields.

The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand “expedited removal” for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.

Immigrants’ advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge’s ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case’s conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.

A plaintiffs’ attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Donald Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Spagat reported from San Diego.

By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials have told more than a half-dozen of the nation’s top medical organizations that they will no longer help establish vaccination recommendations.

The government told the organizations on Thursday via email that their experts are being disinvited from the workgroups that have been the backbone of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

The organizations include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“I’m concerned and distressed,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups.

He said the move will likely propel a confusing fragmentation of vaccine guidance, as patients may hear the government say one thing and hear their doctors say another.

One email said the organizations are “special interest groups and therefore are expected to have a ‘bias’ based on their constituency and/or population that they represent.”

A federal health official on Friday confirmed the action, which was first reported by Bloomberg.

The decision was the latest development in what has become a saga involving the ACIP. The committee, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used.

CDC directors have traditionally almost always approved those recommendations, which are widely heeded by doctors and greenlight insurance coverage for shots.

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before becoming the U.S. government’s top health official, and in June abruptly fired the entire ACIP after accusing them of being too closely aligned with manufacturers. He handpicked replacements that include several vaccine skeptics.

The workgroups typically include not only committee members but also a number of experts from medical and scientific organizations. At workgroup meetings, members evaluate data from vaccine manufacturers and the CDC, and formulate vaccination recommendation proposals to be presented to the full committee.

The structure was created for several reasons, Schaffner said. The professional groups provide input about what might and might not be possible for doctors to implement. And it helped build respect and trust in ACIP recommendations, having the buy-in of respected medical organizations, he said.

Workgroup members are vetted for conflicts of interest, to make sure than no one who had, say, made money from working on a hepatitis vaccine was placed on the hepatitis committee, Schaffner noted.

Also disinvited from the groups were the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Medical Association and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

In a joint statement Friday, the AMA and several of the other organizations said: “To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation’s health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.”

They urged the administration to reconsider the move “so we can continue to feel confident in its vaccine recommendations for our patients.”

Some of the professional organizations have criticized Kennedy’s changes to the ACIP, and three of the disinvited groups last month joined a lawsuit against the government over Kennedy’s decision to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for most children and pregnant women.

In a social media post Friday, one of the Kennedy-appointed ACIP members — Retsef Levi — wrote that the working groups “will engage experts from even broader set of disciplines!”

Levi, a business management professor, also wrote that working group membership “will be based on merit & expertise — not membership in organizations proven to have (conflicts of interest) and radical & narrow view of public health!”

HHS officials have not said which people are going to be added to the ACIP workgroups.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Federal judge T.S. Ellis III, whose legal scholarship and commanding courtroom presence was evident in numerous high-profile trials, has died after a long illness. He was 85.

Ellis oversaw the trials of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former U.S. Rep. William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson as well as the plea deal of “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh across a judicial career that lasted more than 35 years.

His acerbic wit sometimes drew muted complaints at the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where Ellis was based, but his legal reasoning was unquestioned.

Ellis died Wednesday at his home in Keswick, according to the Cremation Society of Virginia.

Thomas Selby Ellis III was born in Colombia in 1940 and frequently found ways in court to utilize his Spanish-language skills. He often told Spanish-speaking defendants who relied on interpreters to speak up as they pleaded for leniency, saying he wanted to hear their words for himself.

He joined the Navy after receiving an undergraduate degree from Princeton, and completed graduate studies at Oxford. He received his law degree from Harvard, graduating magna cum laude.

He was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

In a courthouse known as the “Rocket Docket” for its speedy disposition of cases, Ellis’ courtroom reflected his iconoclastic nature. Rarely did his hearings start on time, though when he presided over jury trials his punctuality improved as he zealously guarded jurors’ time commitments.

He frequently chastised lawyers to cut short long-winded arguments, in what he called “a concession to the shortness of life.” But he was easily coaxed or diverted into telling stories from the bench recalling episodes from his long legal career.

He snapped at lawyers who annoyed him, but would often adopt a more conciliatory tone later in the same hearing, and apologize for his short temper.

His penchant for speaking freely drew raised eyebrows at what was arguably the highest-profile trial over which he presided: the prosecution of Manafort, on charges of tax and bank fraud related to his work advising pro-Russia Ukrainian politicians before managing Trump’s campaign.

Ellis ultimately delivered a 47-month sentence, and said as an aside that Manafort appeared to have lived “an otherwise blameless life,” a phrase he often used at criminal sentencings. Critics who found much to blame in Manafort’s long career working for clients including the tobacco industry and international despots were outraged by the comment.

In 2009, Ellis sentenced Jefferson, a former Louisiana congressman, to 13 years in prison for taking bribes, including $90,000 found hidden in his freezer. The case threw multiple curveballs at Ellis, including a sexual relationship between a key witness and an investigating FBI agent.

In 2017, Ellis reduced Jefferson’s sentence to time served after a Supreme Court case changed the rules for what constitutes bribery of public officials. He made clear, though, that he believed Jefferson’s actions were criminal, and called his conduct “venal.”

“Public corruption is a cancer,” he said at the time of Jefferson’s resentencing. “It needs to be prosecuted and punished.”

Ellis’ sentencing hearings often followed a familiar script in which he invited defendants to explain themselves “by way of extenuation, mitigation, or indeed anything at all” that they wanted to say on their behalf. He invariably told defendants before passing judgment that “you write the pages to your own life story.”

Ellis took senior status as a judge in 2007 but regularly worked an extensive docket. In recent years, with his failing health, his cases were reassigned.

The post MichMash: Former State House Speaker Tom Leonard talks gubernatorial run; state budget updates appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — A stalemate over the pace of confirmations has delayed the Senate’s yearly August recess, for now, as President Donald Trump declares that his nominees “should NOT BE FORCED TO WAIT” and as Democrats slow the process by forcing procedural votes on almost all of Trump’s picks.

Caught in the middle, Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he will keep the Senate in session over the weekend, at least, to hold confirmation votes while also negotiating with Democrats to speed up consideration of dozens of nominees. The two sides haven’t come to agreement yet, and it’s still unclear if Trump, who has been publicly calling on Republicans to cancel their break, would be onboard with any bipartisan deal.

Thune said Friday he was leaving some of the negotiations to Trump and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

“That’s how this is going to get resolved,” Thune said. “We’ll see where that leads.”

Senators in both parties are eager to leave Washington for their annual break, when many of them tour their states to talk to constituents. Republicans in particular are eager to return home and sell the massive tax and spending cuts package they passed in July as Democrats vow to use it against them in the 2026 midterm elections. The House, which has no role in the confirmation process, fled Washington a week ago.

But Trump has other plans.

“The Senate must stay in Session, taking no recess, until the entire Executive Calendar is CLEAR!!!” Trump posted on social media Thursday night, after a meeting with Thune at the White House. “We have to save our Country from the Lunatic Left. Republicans, for the health and safety of the USA, DO YOUR JOB, and confirm All Nominees.”

Thune said this week that Republicans are considering changing the Senate’s rules when they get back in September to make it easier to quickly approve a president’s nominations — and to try and avoid a similar stalemate in the future. Democrats have blocked more nominees than usual this year, denying any quick unanimous consent votes and forcing roll calls on each one, a lengthy process that takes several days per nominee and allows for debate time.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said Friday that Senate GOP leadership was “going back, drafting a specific rule for us to react to” as they try to plot a path forward.

It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try and confirm as many of Trump’s nominees as possible.

Democrats have little desire to give in, even though they too are eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation. Schumer has said Democrats have blocked quick votes because, “historically bad nominees deserved historic levels of scrutiny.”

There are more than 150 nominations on the Senate calendar, and confirming them all would take more than a month even if the Senate does stay in session, if Democrats draw out the process.

The standoff is just the latest chapter in an ever-escalating Senate fight over nominations in the last two decades. Both parties have increasingly used stalling tactics to delay confirmations that were once quick, bipartisan and routine. In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s judicial nominations. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Still, Thune says, the Democrats’ current delays are a “historic level of obstruction.”

In his first year as leader, Thune has worked with Trump to quickly confirm his Cabinet and navigated complicated internal party dynamics to pass the tax and spending cuts package, which Trump sees as his signature policy achievement.

Yet the president is applying increasing pressure on Thune and his conference, trying to control the Senate’s schedule and calling out three Republican senators in social media posts this week — including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior-most Senate Republican who worked closely with Trump to confirm his picks for Supreme Court in his first term.

Trump criticized Grassley for keeping with Senate tradition and working with home state Democrats on some judicial confirmations, saying that he got Grassley re-elected “when he was down, by a lot.”

Opening a committee hearing on Thursday, Grassley defended the practice and added that he was “offended by what the president said, and I’m disappointed that it would result in personal insults.”

Trump also criticized Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley for working with Democrats on a stock trading ban for lawmakers. And in a post late Thursday, he counseled Republicans to “vote the exact opposite” of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, a moderate who has worked with Democrats on spending bills this year and frequently opposes Trump.

Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro contributedto this report.

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the firing of the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures after a report showed hiring slowed in July and was much weaker in May and June than previously reported.

Trump in a post on his social media platform alleged that the figures were manipulated for political reasons and said that Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, should be fired.

“I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump said on Truth Social. “She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.”

Friday’s jobs report showed that just 73,000 jobs were added last month and that 258,000 fewer jobs were created in May and June than previously estimated.

McEntarfer was nominated by Biden in 2023 and became the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2024. Commissioners typically serve four-year terms but since they are political appointees can be fired. The commissioner is the only political appointee of the agency, which has hundreds of career civil servants.

Trump focused much of his ire on the revisions the agency made to previous hiring data. Job gains in May were revised down to just 19,000 from 125,000, and in June they were cut to 14,000 from 147,000. In July, only 73,000 positions were added. The unemployment rate ticked up to a still-low 4.2% from 4.1%.

“No one can be that wrong? We need accurate Jobs Numbers,” Trump wrote. “She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.”

The monthly employment report is one of the most closely-watched pieces of government economic data and can cause sharp swings in financial markets. The disappointing figure sent U.S. market indexes about 1.5% lower Friday.

While the jobs numbers are often the subject of political spin, economists and Wall Street investors — with millions of dollars at stake — have always accepted U.S. government economic data as free from political manipulation.

By STEVE PEOPLES, AP National Politics Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — Democrats are launching a nationwide summer blitz designed to force vulnerable Republicans to defend President Donald Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill — especially Medicaid cuts that will leave millions of Americans without health care coverage.

Republican leaders in Washington, meanwhile, have encouraged their members to promote more popular aspects of the bill during smaller controlled appearances where GOP officials are less likely to face difficult questions or protests.

The Democratic National Committee’s “Organizing Summer” will feature events in all 50 states, beginning with Alaska, Texas, Colorado and California over the coming week. The party’s message will be reinforced by online advertising and billboard trucks at state and county fairs in the coming days targeting vulnerable House Republicans in Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey, among other states.

“As Democrats, our job is to ensure that every American across the country understands the devastating impacts of this bill,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said. “Democrats will be holding events, highlighting Republican hypocrisy, and ensuring Americans across the country know exactly who is responsible for taking away health care, food, construction jobs, and nursing homes in order to give massive handouts to billionaires.”

The massive Republican-backed tax and spending package that Trump called “big, beautiful” and signed into law on July 4 may ultimately become the defining issue of next year’s midterm elections, which will decide control of Congress for Trump’s final two years in office.

Republicans are touting the bill as a tax cut for all Americans, but polling suggests that U.S. adults have been slow to embrace the GOP’s message. The new law will add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits through 2034, leave more than another 10 million people without health insurance and leave millions of others without food stamps, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

For much of the year, Republican officials have avoided town hall meetings with constituents or public appearances where they might face protesters or unscripted questions from voters. GOP members of Congress may be slightly more visible this summer, however, according to a memo distributed this week by the House Republican campaign arm.

The memo encourages Republicans to be proactive in selling Trump’s bill during the August recess, although the National Republican Campaign Committee suggests its members focus on tax cuts in smaller settings they can control.

Among the NRCC’s suggestions outlined in the memo: “Visit a local hospital and discuss how you voted for no tax on overtime,” “stop by a restaurant to highlight your vote on no tax on tips” and “work the counter at a local store and chat about your work to lower costs.”

The monthlong August break “is a critical opportunity to continue to define how this legislation will help every voter and push back on Democrat fearmongering,” the Republican memo says.

Democrats are planning a decidedly more public campaign this month than their Republican rivals, although they’ll also offer “multi-day intensive bootcamps” as part of a training program for political operatives and community leaders.

Events are being planned for all 50 states with special focus on 35 of the most competitive congressional districts in the country. Current and former Democratic officials will be featured, including former Rep. Gabby Giffords, who emerged as a leader against gun violence since her 2011 assassination attempt.

As part of the new effort, the Democratic National Committee is also launching a new digital advertising campaign initially targeting vulnerable Republicans in Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia. That’s in addition to the DNC sending mobile billboard trucks to county fairs in the districts of Republicans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

“Trump’s big ugly bill: $4 trillion giveaway to billionaires. The rest of us pay the price,” read the billboards, which will feature the name and face of each Republican congressman.

And as Republicans search for an effective message to sell Trump’s bill, Democrats are increasingly confident.

“The big, ugly law is a political disaster,” said Viet Shelton, spokesman for the House Democrats campaign arm. “Everyone hates it and vulnerable House Republicans know it, which is why they’re scared to face their constituents in person during the August recess.”

By Kate Ruder, KFF Health News

More states are passing laws to protect information generated by a person’s brain and nervous system as technology improves the ability to unlock the sensitive details of a person’s health, mental states, emotions and cognitive functioning.

Colorado, California, and Montana are among the states that have recently required safeguarding brain data collected by devices outside of medical settings. That includes headphones, earbuds and other wearable consumer products that aim to improve sleep, focus and aging by measuring electrical activity and sending the data to an app on users’ phones.

A report by the Neurorights Foundation, an advocacy group that aims to protect people from the misuse of neurotechnology, found that 29 of 30 companies with neurotechnology products that can be purchased online have access to brain data and “provide no meaningful limitations to this access.” Almost all of them can share data with third parties.

In June, the American Medical Association called for greater regulation of neural data. In April, several Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether companies are exploiting consumers’ brain data. Juliana Gruenwald Henderson, a deputy director of the FTC’s Office of Public Affairs, said the agency had received the letter but had no additional comment.

Although current devices gather relatively basic information like sleep states, advocates for brain data protection caution that future technologies, including artificial intelligence, could extract more personal and sensitive information about people’s medical conditions or innermost thoughts.

“If you collect the data today, what can you read from it five years from now because the technology is advancing so quickly?” said Democratic state Sen. Cathy Kipp, who sponsored Colorado’s 2024 neural data protection bill when she was in the state House of Representatives.

As both excitement and trepidation about AI build, at least 28 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted some type of AI regulation separate from the privacy bills protecting neural data. President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” included a 10-year halt on states passing laws to regulate AI, but the Senate stripped that provision out of the budget reconciliation bill before voting to approve it on July 1.

The spirit of laws in Colorado, California, and Montana is to protect the neural data itself, not to regulate any algorithm or AI that might use it, said Sean Pauzauskie, medical director for the Neurorights Foundation.

But neurotechnology and AI go hand in hand, Pauzauskie said. “A lot of what these devices promise is based on pattern recognition. AI is really driving the usability and significance of the patterns in the brain data.”

Cristin Welle, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, said that AI’s ability to identify patterns is a game changer in her field. “But contribution of a person’s neural data on an AI training set should be voluntary. It should be an opt-in, not a given.”

Chile in 2021 became the first country to adopt a constitutional amendment for neurorights, which prioritize human rights in the development of neurotechnology and collection of neural data, and UNESCO has said that neurotechnology and artificial intelligence could together pose a threat to human identity and autonomy.

Neurotechnology can sound like science fiction. Researchers used a cap with 128 electrodes and an AI model to decode the brain’s electric signals from thoughts into speech. And two years ago, a study described how neuroscientists reconstructed the Pink Floyd song “Another Brick in the Wall” by analyzing the brain signals of 29 epilepsy patients who listened to the song with electrodes implanted in their brains.

The aim is to use neurotechnology to help those with paralysis or speech disabilities, as well as treat or diagnose traumatic brain injuries and brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. Elon Musk’s Neuralink and Synchron, funded by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, are among the companies with clinical trials underway for devices implanted in the brain.

Pauzauskie, a hospital neurologist, started worrying four years ago about the blurring of the line between clinical and consumer use of neural data. He noted that the devices used by his epilepsy patients were also available for purchase online, but without protections afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in medical settings.

Pauzauskie approached Kipp two years ago at a constituent meetup in his hometown of Fort Collins to propose a law to protect brain data in Colorado. “The first words out of her mouth that I’ll never forget were, ‘Who would be against people owning their own brain data?’” he said.

Brain data protection is one of the rare issues that unite lawmakers across the political aisle. The bills in California, Montana, and Colorado passed unanimously or nearly unanimously. Montana’s law will go into effect in October.

Neural data protection laws in Colorado and California amend each state’s general consumer privacy act, while Montana’s law adds to its existing genetic information privacy act. Colorado and Montana require initial express consent to collect or use neural data and separate consent or the ability to opt out before disclosing that data to a third party. A business must provide a way for consumers to delete their data when operating in all three states.

“I want a very hard line in the sand that says, you own this completely,” said Montana state Republican Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, who sponsored his state’s neural data bill and other privacy laws. “You have to give consent. You have the right to have it deleted. You have complete rights over this information.”

For Zolnikov, Montana’s bill is a blueprint for a national neural data protection law, and Pauzauskie said support of regulatory efforts by groups like the AMA pave the way for further federal and state efforts.

Welle agreed that federal regulations are needed in addition to these new state laws. “I absolutely hope that we can come up with something on a national level that can enshrine people’s neural rights into law, because I think this is going to be more important than we can even imagine at this time.”

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By LORNE COOK and JOHN LEICESTER

BRUSSELS (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration says it is weighing what to do with family planning supplies stockpiled in Europe that campaigners and two U.S. senators are fighting to save from destruction.

Concerns that the Trump administration plans to incinerate the stockpile have angered family planning advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. Campaigners say the supplies stored in a U.S.-funded warehouse in Geel, Belgium, include contraceptive pills, contraceptive implants and IUDs that could spare women in war zones and elsewhere the hardship of unwanted pregnancies.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tommy Pigott said Thursday in response to a question about the contraceptives that “we’re still in the process here in terms of determining the way forward.”

“When we have an update, we’ll provide it,” he said.

Belgium says it has been talking with U.S. diplomats about trying to spare the supplies from destruction, including possibly moving them out of the warehouse. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Florinda Baleci told The Associated Press that she couldn’t comment further “to avoid influencing the outcome of the discussions.”

The Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which managed foreign aid programs, left the supplies’ fate uncertain.

Pigott didn’t detail the types of contraceptives that make up the stockpile. He said some of the supplies, bought by the previous administration, could “potentially be” drugs designed to induce abortions. Pigott didn’t detail how that might impact Trump administration thinking about how to deal with the drugs or the entire stockpile.

Costing more than $9 million and funded by U.S taxpayers, the family planning supplies were intended for women in war zones, refugee camps and elsewhere, according to a bipartisan letter of protest to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio from U.S. senators Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski.

They said destroying the stockpile “would be a waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars as well as an abdication of U.S. global leadership in preventing unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions and maternal deaths — key goals of U.S. foreign assistance.”

They urged Rubio to allow another country or partner to distribute the contraceptives.

Concerns voiced by European campaigners and lawmakers that the supplies could be transported to France for incineration have led to mounting pressure on government officials to intervene and save them.

The executive branch of the European Union, through spokesman Guillaume Mercier, said Friday that “we continue to monitor the situation closely to explore the most effective solutions.”

The U.S. branch of family planning aid group MSI Reproductive Choices said it offered to purchase, repackage and distribute the stock at its own expense but “these efforts were repeatedly rejected.” The group said the supplies included long-acting IUDs, contraceptive implants and pills, and that they have long shelf-lives, extending as far as 2031.

Aid group Doctors Without Borders said incineration would be “an intentionally reckless and harmful act against women and girls everywhere.”

Charles Dallara, the grandson of a French former lawmaker who was a contraception pioneer in France, urged President Emmanuel Macron to not let France “become an accomplice to this scandal.”

“Do not allow France to take part in the destruction of essential health tools for millions of women,” Dallara wrote in an appeal to the French leader. “We have a moral and historical responsibility.”

Leicester reported from Paris. Matthew Lee contributed from Washington, D.C.

By ALEXANDRA OLSON, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — The Senate confirmed Andrea Lucas to another term as commissioner of the country’s workplace civil rights agency, demonstrating firm Republican support for her efforts to root out diversity programs, roll back protections for transgender workers and prioritize religious rights in the workplace.

Democratic lawmakers and prominent civil rights groups fiercely opposed Lucas’ confirmation, saying she has subjected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the whims of the president, who elevated her to acting chair in January and, in an unprecedented act, fired two of the agency’s Democratic commissioners before their terms expired.

Lucas, who was first appointed to the EEOC in 2020, secured another five-year term with a 52-45 party-line Senate vote on Thursday night, but it will be up to President Donald Trump if she continues as chair.

Lucas has firmly aligned the EEOC with Trump’s civil rights agenda, declaring during her confirmation hearing last month that she doesn’t consider the agency to be independent, a position she acknowledged was a shift from her previously stated views.

In compliance with Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes, the EEOC dropped lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers and stalled progress on others. Lucas has also leveraged the EEOC’s enforcement powers to help the Trump administration target private institutions over their DEI programs or allegations of antisemitism. Her confirmation came a week after the EEOC secured a $21 million settlement with Columbia University over allegations of harassment against Jewish employees, part of a broader agreement with the Trump administration to restore federal research money.

“I look forward to continuing the historic progress this agency has made since the start of the second Trump Administration under my leadership — from securing multiple settlements with some of the world’s largest law firms to disavow DEI and embrace merit-based hiring and other employment practices, to obtaining the largest EEOC settlement to date for victims of antisemitism on behalf of Jewish employees at Columbia University,” Lucas said in a statement following her confirmation.

Democrats have assailed Lucas’ leadership as part of the Trump administration’s wider attempts to increase his authority by politicizing agencies long considered to be independent.

“In just a few short months as Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas has warped the mission of the EEOC beyond recognition and weaponized the agency to green light discrimination, roll back protections for people who are sexually assaulted at work, and intimidate anyone who challenges President Trump,” Sen. Patty Murray said in a statement.

Last week, legal and civil rights groups filed a lawsuit against the EEOC claiming that is has unlawfully refused to enforce federal protections for transgender workers.

But Republican senators and some business groups and religious institutions have praised Lucas’ leadership, especially her commitment to rolling back Biden-era guidance and regulations strengthening protections for transgender workers and women seeking abortions, birth control and fertility treatments.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported Lucas’ confirmation, saying in a statement that she “believes in finding balance in EEOC policies and decisions.”

The EEOC, which investigates employment discrimination in the private sector, was created by Congress under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The dismissals of the commissioners left the EEOC without the quorum needed to make some major decisions. That will change if the Senate confirms a second Trump nominee, Britanny Panuccio.

By MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Health Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration’s polarizing vaccine chief is leaving the agency after a brief tenure that drew the ire of biotech executives, patient groups and conservative allies of President Donald Trump.

Dr. Vinay Prasad “did not want to be a distraction” and was stepping down from his role as the FDA’s top vaccine regulator “to spend more time with his family,” a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement late Tuesday.

Two people familiar with the situation told The Associated Press that Prasad was ousted following several recent controversies. The people spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters. Prasad did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday morning.

Prasad joined the FDA in May after years as an academic researcher at the University of California San Francisco, where he frequently criticized the FDA’s approach to drug approvals and COVID-19 vaccines.

His contrarian approach appeared to match FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who repeatedly praised Prasad’s work and intellect.

But in recent weeks Prasad became a target of right-wing activists, including Laura Loomer, who flagged Prasad’s past statements criticizing Trump and praising liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders.

“How did this Trump-hating Bernie Bro get into the Trump admin???” Loomer posted on X last week.

Trump previously fired several national security officials a day after Loomer raised concerns about their loyalty.

Prasad also attracted scrutiny for his handling of a recent safety issue surrounding the only approved gene therapy for Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy.

Under his direction, shipments of the therapy were briefly halted after a series of patient deaths, then resumed late Monday following vocal pushback from families of boys with the fatal muscle-wasting disorder.

Prasad has long been skeptical of the therapy and other muscular dystrophy drugs sold by the drugmaker, Sarepta Therapeutics. As an academic, Prasad gained prominence by attacking the FDA for being too lenient in its standards for approving cancer drugs and other new therapies.

That approach is at odds with Trump’s Republican supporters, who generally favor speedier approvals and unfettered access to experimental treatments. During Trump’s first term he signed the “ Right to Try ” law, a largely symbolic piece of legislation that won popular support from conservatives seeking to give dying patients expanded access to unproven drugs.

Prasad’s decision to pause Sarepta’s therapy was criticized last week by a columnist and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.

Separately, Prasad’s division issued rejection letters this month to three small biotech firms seeking approval for new gene therapies.

Those therapies have been vigorously embraced many of the anti-abortion groups in Trump’s base for their potential to address intractable diseases that sometimes lead parents to terminate pregnancies.

Prasad’s predecessor in the role, Dr. Peter Marks, oversaw a dramatic rise in approvals for new gene therapies, which aim to treat or prevent disease by replacing or modifying a portion of patients’ genetic code.

Prasad has been an outspoken critic of Marks’ leadership at FDA, which included overseeing the approval of the first COVID vaccines and therapies.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House has acknowledged that President Donald Trump now meets with candidates for promotion to the rank of four-star general, in a break with past practice.

A White House spokesperson said the Republican president has the meetings because he wants to make sure the U.S. military retains its superiority and its leaders focus on fighting wars.

“President Trump wants to ensure our military is the greatest and most lethal fighting force in history, which is why he meets with four-star-general nominees directly to ensure they are war fighters first — not bureaucrats,” assistant press secretary Anna Kelly said.

The meetings, however, are a departure from past practice, and knowledge of them has raised concerns about politicization of the military’s top ranks. Trump has not always respected the long-standing tradition of walling off the military from partisan politics.

In June, Trump took the rare step of mobilizing the National Guard and then the Marines, sending hundreds of them into Los Angeles over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat with whom the president has feuded politically.

Trump followed up with a campaign-style rally at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where uniformed soldiers cheered as he criticized former President Joe Biden, Newsom and other Democrats — raising concerns that Trump was using the military as a political prop.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., an Army veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the meetings “very welcome reform.”

“I’ve long advocated for presidents to meet with 4-star nominees. President Trump’s most important responsibility is commander-in-chief,” Cotton wrote in a post on X. “The military-service chiefs and combatant commanders are hugely consequential jobs” and “I commend President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for treating these jobs with the seriousness they deserve.”

The New York Times, which first reported on the practice, said it had been initiated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

By COLLIN BINKLEY, AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is pressing for a deal with Harvard University that would require the Ivy League school to pay far more than the $200 million fine agreed to by Columbia University to resolve multiple federal investigations, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Harvard would be expected to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of any settlement to end investigations into antisemitism at its campus, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard leaders have been negotiating with the White House even as they battle in court to regain access to billions in federal research funding terminated by the Trump administration.

The White House’s desire to get Harvard to pay far more than Columbia was first reported by The New York Times, which said the school has signaled a willingness to pay as much as $500 million.

Harvard did not immediately comment.

The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as a staple for future agreements. Last week, Columbia leaders agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws and restore more than $400 million in research grants.

Columbia had been in talks for months after the Trump administration accused the university of allowing the harassment of Jewish students and employees amid a wave of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Harvard faces similar accusations but, unlike Columbia, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school challenged the administration’s funding cuts and subsequent sanctions in court.

Last week, President Donald Trump said Harvard “wants to settle” but he said Columbia “handled it better.”

The Trump administration’s emphasis on financial penalties adds a new dimension for colleges facing federal scrutiny. In the past, civil rights investigations by the Education Department almost always ended with voluntary agreements and rarely included fines.

Even when the government has levied fines, they’ve been a small fraction of the scale Trump is seeking. Last year, the Education Department fined Liberty University $14 million after finding the Christian school failed to disclose crimes on its campus. It was the most the government had ever fined a university under the Clery Act, following a $4.5 million fine dealt to Michigan State University in 2019 for its handling of sexual assault complaints against disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.

The University of Pennsylvania agreed this month to modify school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, but that school’s deal with the Trump administration included no fine.

The Trump administration has opened investigations at dozens of universities over allegations of antisemitism or racial discrimination in the form of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Several face funding freezes akin to those at Harvard, including more than $1 billion at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University.

Last week, Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the Columbia deal a “roadmap” for other colleges, saying it would “ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, is open to answering questions from Congress — but only if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony, her lawyers said Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for the committee that wants to interview her responded with a terse statement saying it would not consider offering her immunity.

Maxwell’s lawyers also asked that they be provided with any questions in advance and that any interview with her be scheduled after her petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case has been resolved.

The conditions were laid out in a letter sent by Maxwell’s attorneys to Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee who last week issued a subpoena for her deposition at the Florida prison where she is serving a 20-year-prison sentence on a conviction of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls.

The request to interview her is part of a frenzied, renewed interest in the Epstein saga following the Justice Department’s July statement that it would not be releasing any additional records from the investigation, an abrupt announcement that stunned online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of President Donald Trump’s base who had been hoping to find proof of a government coverup.

Since then, the Trump administration has sought to present itself as promoting transparency, with the department urging courts to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex-trafficking investigation and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewing Maxwell over the course of two days at a Florida courthouse last week.

In a letter Tuesday, Maxwell’s attorneys said that though their initial instinct was for Maxwell to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they are open to having her cooperate provided that lawmakers satisfy their request for immunity and other conditions.

But the Oversight Committee seemed to reject that offer outright.

“The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell’s attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,” a spokesperson said.

Separately, Maxwell’s attorneys have urged the Supreme Court to review her conviction, saying she dd not receive a fair trial. They also say that one way she would testify “openly and honestly, in public,” is in the event of a pardon by Trump, who has told reporters that such a move is within his rights but that he has not been not asked to make it.

“She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning,” he said.

By EDDIE PELLS, AP National Writer

In its push to remove transgender athletes from Olympic sports, the Trump administration provided the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee a detailed legal brief on how such a move would not conflict with the Ted Stevens Act, the landmark 1978 federal statute governing the Olympic movement.

That gave the USOPC the cover it needed to quietly change its policy, though the protection offers no guarantee the new policy won’t be challenged in court.

Olympic legal expert Jill Pilgrim called the Trump guidance “a well thought-out, well-reasoned set of arguments for people who want to look at it from that perspective.”

“But I’d be pretty shocked if this doesn’t get challenged if there is, somewhere along the line, a trans athlete who’s in contention for an Olympic team or world championship and gets excluded,” said Pilgrim, who has experience litigating eligibility rules for the Olympics and is a former general counsel for USA Track and Field.

The USOPC’s update of its athlete safety policy orders its 54 national governing bodies to rewrite their participation rules to ensure they are in sync with the executive order Trump signed in February called “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

When the USOPC released the guidance, fewer than five had rules that would adhere to the new policy.

Among the first adopters was USA Fencing, which was pulled into a congressional hearing earlier this year about transgender women in sports when a woman refused to compete against a transgender opponent at a meet in Maryland.

One of the main concerns over the USOPC’s change is that rewriting the rules could conflict with a clause in the Ted Stevens Act stating that an NGB cannot have eligibility criteria “that are more restrictive than those of the appropriate international sports federation” that oversees its sport.

While some American federations such as USATF and USA Swimming follow rules set by their international counterparts, many others don’t. International federations have wrestled with eligibility criteria surrounding transgender sports, and not all have guidelines as strict as what Trump’s order calls for.

World Rowing, for example, has guidelines that call for specific medical conditions to be met for transgender athletes competing in the female category. Other federations, such as the one for skiing, are more vague.

White House lawyers provided the USOPC a seven-paragraph analysis that concluded that requiring “men’s participation in women’s sports cannot be squared with the rest of the” Ted Stevens Act.

“And in any event, permitting male athletes to compete against only other fellow males is not a ‘restriction’ on participation or eligibility, it is instead, a neutral channeling rule,” according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

Once the sports federations come into compliance, the question then becomes whether the new policy will be challenged, either by individual athletes or by states whose laws don’t conform with what the NGBs adopt. The guidance impacts everyone from Olympic-level athletes to grassroots players whose clubs are affiliated with the NGBs.

Shannon Minter, the legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said it will not be hard to find a transgender athlete who is being harmed by the USOPC change, and that the White House guidance “will be challenged and is highly unlikely to succeed.”

“There are transgender women. There are some international sporting organizations that have policies that permit transgender women to compete if they meet certain medical conditions,” Minter said. “Under the Ted Stevens Act, they can’t override that. So, their response is just to, by brute force, pretend there’s no such thing as a transgender woman. They can’t just dictate that by sheer force of will.”

Traditionally, athletes on the Olympic pathway who have issues with eligibility rules must first try to resolve those through what’s called a Section IX arbitration case before heading to the U.S. court system. Pilgrim spelled out one scenario in which an athlete wins an arbitration “and then the USOPC has a problem.”

“Then, it’s in the USOPC’s court to deny that person the opportunity to compete, and then they’ll be in court, no doubt about that,” she said.

All this comes against the backdrop of a 2020 law that passed that, in the wake of sex scandals in Olympic sports, gave Congress the power to dissolve the USOPC board.

That, combined with the upcoming Summer Games in Los Angeles and the president’s consistent effort to place his stamp on issues surrounding sports, is widely viewed as driving the USOPC’s traditionally cautious board toward making a decision that was being roundly criticized in some circles. The committee’s new policy replaces one that called for reliance on “real data and science-based evidence rather than ideology” to make decisions about transgender athletes in sports.

“As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations,” CEO Sarah Hirshland and board chair Gene Sykes wrote to Olympic stakeholders last week. “The guidance we’ve received aligns with the Ted Stevens Act, reinforcing our mandated responsibility to promote athlete safety and competitive fairness.”

The USOPC didn’t set a timeline on NGBs coming into compliance, though it’s believed most will get there by the end of the year.

CHICAGO — Twenty-year-old Eric Mun didn’t want to believe it: Only one kid in the family could make it to medical school — and it wasn’t going to be him.

Mun had done everything right. He graduated high school with honors, earned a scholarship at Northwestern University and breezed through his biology courses.

He immigrated to Alabama from Korea as a toddler. From the quiet stretches of the South, he dreamed of helping patients in a pressed white coat.

But dreams don’t pay tuition. And with new borrowing limits, Mun’s family can only support one child through school.

“My parents already implied that my older brother is probably going to be the one that gets to go,” Mun said.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping “big, beautiful” tax and spending bill, signed into law earlier this month, imposes strict new caps on federal student loans, capping borrowing for professional schools at $50,000 per year. The measure particularly affects medical students, whose tuition often exceeds $300,000 over four years.

Aspiring physicians like Mun have been thrown into financial uncertainty. Many members of the medical community say the measures will send shock waves through a system already laden with economic barriers, discouraging low-income students from pursuing a medical degree.

“It might mean there are people who want to be doctors that can’t be doctors because they can’t afford it,” said Dr. Richard Anderson, president of the Illinois State Medical Society.

Before the passage of Trump’s budget bill, the Grad PLUS loan program allowed graduate students to borrow their institution’s total cost of attendance, including living expenses. The program was slashed as part of a broader overhaul to the federal student loan system.

Now, beginning July 1, 2026, most graduate students will be capped at $20,500 in federal loans per year, with a total limit of $100,000. Students in professional schools, like medical, dental or law school, will face the $50,000 annual cap and a total limit of $200,000.

Mun’s parents work at an automobile assembly plant. Throughout high school, he knew he would have to rely on scholarships and federal loans to pay his way through college.

Mun’s voice faltered. “I’m just trying to remain hopeful,” Mun said.

Also folded into the bill: the elimination of several Biden-era repayment plans, cuts to Pell Grants and limits to the Parent PLUS loans program, which allows parents of dependent undergraduates to borrow.

Proponents of the Republican-backed bill said the curbed borrowing will incentivize medical schools and other graduate programs to lower tuition. The tuition of most Chicago-area medical schools is nearly $300,000 for four years, not including cost-of-living expenses.

Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine has a $465,000 price tag after accounting for those indirect costs, according to the school’s website. Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science trails closely behind at nearly $464,000.

“One of the main concerns about the Grad PLUS program is money that is going to subsidize institutions rather than extending access to students,” said Lesley Turner, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

Still, many medical professionals expressed doubt that schools will adjust their costs in response to the bill. Tuition for both private and public schools has been steadily climbing for decades, up 81% from 2001 after adjusting for inflation, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

There’s some evidence that Grad PLUS may have contributed to those tuition hikes. A study co-authored by Turner in 2023 found that prices increased 65 cents per dollar after the program’s introduction in 2006. There was also little indication that Grad PLUS had fulfilled its intended goal of expanding access to underrepresented students.

But Turner cautioned against the abrupt reversal of the program. After accounting for inflation, the lifetime borrowing limits now placed on graduate students are lower than they were in 2005, she said. Many students may turn to private loans to cover the gap, often at higher interest rates.

More than half of medical students relied on Grad PLUS loans, according to AAMC. The median education debt for indebted medical students is around $200,000, with most repayment plans lasting 10 to 20 years. The median stipend for doctors’ first year post-MD was just $65,100 in 2024.

“I think for many reasons, it would have been reasonable to put some sort of limit on Grad PLUS loans, but I think this is a very blunt way of doing it,” Turner said.

In a high-rise on Northwestern’s downtown campus last week, 20 undergraduate students and alums from local colleges gathered for the Chicago Cancer Health Equity Collaborative Fellows program. The eight-week summer intensive offers aspiring medical professionals a deep dive into cancer health disparities information and research. Participants like Mun have been left reeling after the flurry of federal cuts.

Alexis Chappel, a 28-year-old graduate of Northeastern Illinois University, watched a family member struggle with addiction growing up. She was deeply moved by the doctors who supported his recovery, and it inspired her to pursue medicine. But she has no idea how she’ll cover tuition.

“I feel like it’s in God’s hands at this point,” Chappel said. “I just felt like it’s a direct attack on Black and brown students who plan on going to medical school.”

Just 10% of medical students are Black and 12% are Latino, according to AAMC enrollment data. Socioeconomic diversity is also limited: A 2018 analysis found that 24% of students came from the wealthiest 5% of U.S. households.

Dr. Tricia Pendergrast, who graduated from Feinberg in 2023, relied entirely on Grad PLUS loans to fund her medical education. Juggling classes and clinicals, she had little money saved and no steady stream of income. Pendergrast was so strapped for cash that she enrolled in SNAP benefits — a program also cut under Trump’s budget bill.

Now an anesthesiologist at University of Michigan Health, she’s documented her concerns on TikTok for her 48,000 followers.

“It’s not going to improve representation, and it’s not going to improve access,” Pendergrast said. “It’s going to act as a deterrent for people who otherwise would be excellent physicians.”

For low-income students, the application process is already fraught with economic obstacles, Pendergrast said. Metrics like GPA and the Medical College Admissions Test, or MCAT, are heavily weighted in admissions, and may disadvantage students from underresourced schools. Many students also lack mentorships or networks to guide them through the process, she noted.

“I think the average medical student is going to be richer and whiter, and not from rural areas and not from underserved communities,” Pendergrast said.

The elimination of Grad PLUS loans comes amid a mounting nationwide physician shortage. A recent AAMC report predicted a shortfall of 86,000 physicians by 2036. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the workforce is poised to enter retirement: The U.S. population aged 65 and older is expected to grow 34.1% over the next decade.

The shortage is particularly concentrated in primary care. In practice, that means longer waiting times for patients, and an increased caseload on physicians, who may already suffer from burnout.

“If the goal is truly to make America healthy again, then we need to have a strong physician workforce …  We should be coming up with ideas to make it more accessible for people who want to be doctors as opposed to hindering that,” Anderson said.

Sophia Tully, co-president of the Minority Association of Pre-Med Students at Northwestern, said she and her peers have struggled to reconcile with a system that often feels stacked against them. The 21-year-old plans on taking an extra gap year before medical school in an effort to save money.

Tully summed up the environment on campus: “For lack of a better word, people are panicking.”

The post Mayoral candidate Joel Haashiim says manufacturing can create more affordable housing in Detroit appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

By MELINA WALLING and MATTHEW DALY

When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth.

And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment through a process that requires agencies to consider a project’s possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities.

The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it’s commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump’s plan would give “categorical exclusions” to data centers for “maximum efficiency” in permitting.

A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is “focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership.”

Trump’s administration has been weakening the law for months.

“It’s par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,” said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch.

Here’s what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump’s effort to weaken it:

What is NEPA and why does it matter?

NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, “essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,” said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide.

Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency.

In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project’s possible contributions to climate change.

“That’s a really important function because otherwise we’re just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way,” Park said.

But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often take five years or more to complete.

“Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,” said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber’s Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA “a blunt and haphazard tool” that too often is used to block investment and economic development.

The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects — including some for clean energy — take too long to be approved.

What’s happened to NEPA recently?

NEPA’s strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it’s interpreted by different administrations.

Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews.

In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law.

An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews.

Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn’t designed “for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.”

“It’s been a rough eight months for NEPA,” said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said.

Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role

A botanist by training, Mary O’Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O’Brien said.

The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides’ impact on humans and red alders wasn’t a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement.

“It’s a fundamental concept: ‘Don’t just roar ahead.’ Think about your options,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2012 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA’s requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan.

“I think it’s one of the laws that’s the most often used by the public without the public being aware,” said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. “NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.”

Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects’ full impacts.

“Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,” he said.

Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law’s requirements may invite even more litigation.

“And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes,” he said.

This story has been updated to correct the date to 2012, not 2018, for a U.S. Forest Service proposal for aspen restoration in Utah.

Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @melinawalling.bsky.social.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.