“ALL HELL IS GOING TO BREAK OUT!” What Trump’s New Gaza Threat Means & Elon Musk Sam Altman Problem
PDS Published 02/11/2025
-
All hell is gonna break out if Hamas doesn’t free every single hostage by Saturday at noon.
That’s according to Donald Trump.
And it’s just one of the comments he’s made this week that has the whole situation feeling like even more of a powder keg than usual.
And with all that, of course, the Israel-Hamas ceasefire? It’s hanging on by a fucking thread.
Right, there are reportedly 73 hostages remaining in Gaza, of whom Israel has declared 34 to be dead. []
And notably, an exchange slated for Saturday was set to see three more hostages released.
But then, yesterday, Hamas said it would be indefinitely postponing the next hostage-prisoner swap.
With the group accusing Israel of not living up to its end of the deal –
Claiming the military was continuing to shoot at Palestinians, keeping them from moving back to the northern part of Gaza, and delaying the entry of medical supplies and shelters.
Though, notably, Hamas also claimed that it affirmed its commitment to the terms of the agreement, saying:
Issuing this statement five full days ahead of the scheduled prisoner handover gives time for Israel to comply and “leaves the door open for the exchange to proceed as planned.”[]
But despite that, you had Trump coming out swinging:
“If all of the hostages aren't returned by Saturday at 12 o'clock, I think it's an appropriate time, I would say cancel it and all bets are off, and let hell break out.”
“Saturday at 12 o'clock, and after that, I would say all hell is going to break out.” (BITE: 0:01-0:14, 0:28-0:36).
Ok, and I know what you’re thinking, what exactly does “all hell” breaking out mean?
Well, of course, someone asked, and Trump said this:
“When you say all hell is going to break loose are you speaking about retaliation?”
“You’ll find out. And they’ll find out. Hamas will find out what I mean.” (BITE: 1:27-1:36)
And with that, far-right Israeli politicians think they have a pretty clear idea of what Trump means. .
The former national security, for example, who resigned last month to protest the ceasefire, writing on X:
“Trump is right!”
And adding that it was time to go back to Gaza and “destroy.” []
This, after he responded to Hamas postponing the hostage release by calling for a full-scale assault on Gaza, writing:
“Hamas's announcement should have one real-life response: a massive assault on Gaza, from the air and land, alongside a complete halt to humanitarian aid to the Strip…
“…including electricity, fuel, and water, and including the bombing of aid packages that have already been brought in and are in the hands of Hamas. We must return to war and destroy!” []
And with that, the Israeli defense minister has reportedly instructed the IDF “to prepare at the highest level of alert for any possible scenario in Gaza” –
Also calling Hamas’ statement “a complete violation of the ceasefire agreement.”[]
And now, we’re actually reportedly seeing Israeli troops moving to the border with Gaza to, quote, “enhance the readiness for various scenarios in the region.”
Though, with all this, it’s important to note that many hostage families are desperate for the ceasefire to stay in place.
One mother, for example, saying:
“President Trump, I am asking you with all my heart: Do everything in your power to ensure that this deal continues!” []
Of course, even before this, the fate of the ceasefire was questionable.
Right, talks on the details of phase 2 were meant to be underway last week, but Israel reportedly dispatched officials without a mandate to negotiate that part of the deal. []
Plus, Netanyahu has also suggested that he won’t even pursue the second phase if it means the war will end.[]
With all of this also affected by Trump’s repeated statements that he wants to permanently remove Palestinians from Gaza so that the the US can take it over and develop it.
Right, as we talked about, Trump’s plan may be considered a call for ethnic cleansing.
And experts widely agree that it would violate international law.
And specifically, it’d be a war crime and crime against humanity,
And this, of course, as the US has staunchly supported Israel while it has already been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the course of its war that has directly killed nearly 50,000 people in Gaza, possibly many more.
And then many times more dying from indirect causes.
But despite all that, Trump has only stepped up the rhetoric.
In a newly released interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, saying unambiguously that Palestinians wouldn’t have the right to return to the land.
Right, here’s the full clip:
Now, it's essentially a demolition site. There's practically no building that's livable in the whole thing, in the whole Gaza Strip. I say, we go in, we knock them all down, we just create no more Hamas. There's no Hamas there. There's nobody there. We move them into beautiful areas of the Middle East. I'd like to go to Egypt. They have a lot of land. I'd like to go to Jordan. I'd like to go to others. And we'll build beautiful communities for the 1.9 million people. We'll build beautiful communities, safe communities. Could be five, six, could be two. But we'll build safe communities a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is. In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land.”
“Would the Palestinians have the right to return?”
“No, they wouldn't, because they're going to have much better housing, much better... In other words, I'm talking about building a permanent place for them. Because if they have to return now, it would be years before you could ever... It's not habitable.” (18:15-19:18)
And with that, Trump has now also suggested that he could cut aid to Jordan and Egypt if they refused his demand to take in most Palestinians from Gaza.
And in fact, Trump actually met with Jordan’s king today at the White House, where he likely brought that up.
But of course, Jordan, as well as Egypt, have repeatedly rejected the idea, with some saying the proposal puts them in an impossible position.
Right, in Jordan’s case, notably, more than half of the population is estimated to be Palestinian, and this is already a major source of tension. []
With the executive director of the Arab Center Washington D.C. telling the New York Times:
“What Mr. Trump has done is put the future of the Kingdom of Jordan on the line.”
“The strongest political movement in Jordan does not accept the idea that Jordan is Palestine.” []
And then, even Trump’s former Syria envoy saying:
“Obviously the king cannot take those people.”
“This is an existential issue for him.”
“This would be a regime killer.”[]
But with that, that’s where we are right now, and we’ll have to wait and see whether or not Trump keeps on insisting on sticking with this plan, and if he does, what the consequences will be.
-
Because a woman just filed a lawsuit in Florida accusing both Andrew and his brother, Tristan, of luring her to Romania for sex work.
According to the New York Times, this is the first suit filed against them here in the U.S., but it comes as they already have cases ongoing in Romania and the U.K.
The woman in this case is only identified as Jane Doe, and in her suit, she claims she first met Tristan Tate online at the age of 20 in 2021, and she met up with him in Miami.
And then, they allegedly became romantically involved and he asked her to join him in Romania.
But she claims that after arriving in the country, things felt off, she was told she could not have friends outside of ones Tristan introduced her to, she was living with several other women, including ones who were working long OnlyFans Hours, and she:
“became concerned she was lured to Romania on false pretenses.”
The suit also pointing to another woman identified as Mary Doe, claiming she moved to Romania because she believed she was in a relationship with Andrew, but he restricted her movements, coerced her into group sex, and referred to her as a slave.
And on top of Jane Doe accusing the brothers of coercing her into sex, she also claims they defamed her after she gave testimony to Romanian authorities.
Right, because as the Times explained, her suit appears to include details about the allegations that led to both Andrew and Tristan being arrested.
And they actually sued Jane Doe for defamation back in 2023, claiming she and another woman conspired to falsely imprison them with fabricated evidence.
At the time, the brothers called Jane Doe a “professional con artist” and accused her of pursuing a relationship with Tristan in order to move to Romania and defraud both brothers. []
With the Tates saying that she was free to come and go from their estate, and that they had security video to prove it, with the suit adding:
“She was not restrained in her movement, never confined, never controlled by any person nor was she threatened in any manner and always had free will.”
But now, Jane Doe says that the defamation lawsuit the brothers filed against her was part of an effort to bully her into recanting her testimony in Romania. []
With the suit further claiming that the Tates have sought to overwhelm her with harassment, court cases, invasions of privacy, defamation and by including her family in court cases without merit. []
And alleging they brought this effort public by attacking her on social media and suggesting she could go to prison.
With Doe telling the New York Times:
“I look forward to my day in court, where evidence and facts — not narratives — will decide the outcome.”
But a lawyer representing the Tates shot back, telling the outlet that:
“The fact that these people are now doubling and tripling down on what is nothing more than an abject lie is absolutely hilarious. There is no chance in hell that they’re going to win.”
So far, Andrew has not addressed this situation on social media directly, but both he and his brother have denied all the allegations against them.
And so we will have to see where this one goes, right, it comes not too long after the Tates got their biggest win so far in this whole case frenzy.
Right, the first criminal case against them in Romania failed in December when a court sent it back to prosecutors. []
And there is still another investigation into them there, as well as the UK case and now this US lawsuit.
But in the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts on this suit here.
-
First Twitter, then the federal government, and now OpenAI - Elon Musk certainly sets his sights on big fish.
Right, a group of investors led by Elon Musk just made a bid for control of OpenAI - for the price of $97.4 billion. []
They reportedly made this completely unsolicited offer to OpenAI’s board of directors through Musk’s attorney yesterday - with a statement from Musk reading,
“It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was. We will make sure that happens.” []
Now, the bid was very promptly shot down by OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman, who reportedly didn’t even look at it before saying on X,
“no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” []
To which Musk responded by calling Altman a swindler.
It is worth noting that this is just the latest move in a long-running battle between Musk and Altman.
With Altman saying to Bloomberg Television,
“I mean, look, OpenAI is not for sale. The OpenAI mission is not for sale. Elon tries all sorts of things for a long time um - this is the late- ya know, this week’s episode.” (0:09-0:18)
And there has also been speculation that Elon’s bid here is somehow tied to the fact that he owns a direct competitor to OpenAI called XAI.
Hell, Bloomberg Television even directly asked Altman what he thought about Elon’s motives here and their connection to XAI,
Interviewer: “Do you think Musk’s approach, then, is from a position of insecurity about XAI?”
Altman: “Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy.
Interviewer: “You feel for him?”
Altman: “I do, actually. I don’t think he’s, like, a happy person. I feel for him.” (2:40-2:52)
But even with that outright rejection and roast, many outlets are saying that Musk’s bid makes things a lot more complicated for Altman and OpenAI’s plans to transition into a fully for-profit corporation.
Right, because when Musk and Altman, along with several other entrepreneurs, first started OpenAI, it was a nonprofit.
Then Elon jumped ship in 2019 - reportedly after he couldn’t get control. []
Then Sam Altman attached OpenAI to a for-profit company so he could raise the absurd amounts of money needed to further AI technology.
But that nonprofit board maintained control over OpenAI.
Which brings us to late 2023 when, over the course of 5 days, Sam Altman was ousted and then brought back into the fold. []
And when he came back, he and his allies reportedly started looking for ways to sever the control of the nonprofit board and make OpenAI a fully for-profit shindig. []
Reportedly promising to complete the transition by late 2026. []
But in order to make that happen, Altman reportedly has to compensate the nonprofit board - whether that means a one-time payment or giving them a minority stake in the company. []
What Elon has done with his bid, though, is place a dollar amount on the value of the nonprofit assets - which reportedly hadn’t been done before. []
Which means that Altman may have to fork over a lot more cash to the non-profit arm than he planned to in order to get OpenAI’s independence.
With Ellen Aprill, a senior scholar studying nonprofit law at UCLA who has written extensively about OpenAI, saying that Musk setting the bar this high creates, quote, “an enormous complication for the current plan.” []
Because if the nonprofit takes a lower offer from OpenAI’s for-profit arm, they’ll likely have to explain to state charity regulators why they turned down the higher bid. []
Put simply, in order to get approval, any offer from Altman now reportedly has to either be as good or better than Musk’s offer. []
With Musk’s attorney saying in a statement to the New York Times,
“If Sam Altman and the present OpenAI Inc. board of directors are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time.” []
However, there are still some options for Altman here - notably, they can argue that Musk’s bid isn’t legitimate.
They could call into question whether Musk has the funds considering that most of his wealth is tied up in Tesla stock. []
The New York Times also points to Musk previously trying to walk away from his offer to buy Twitter - seemingly implying that Altman could use that in their argument. []
Now, Musk’s bid isn’t the only hurdle that OpenAI and Altman have seen in their for-profit plans.
In December, Meta sent a letter to the California AG, urging him to block the conversion.
Not to mention the fact that OpenAI is reportedly currently locked in negotiations with Microsoft and other stakeholders over how much equity they’d get in the new company.
So we’re just going to have to see how exactly OpenAI and Altman handle this whole situation in the coming months.
But in the meantime, I’d love to know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
Go to Raycon today and get up to 20% off sitewide!
-
Last night, the House of Representatives had one of its most unusual speeches ever after Representative Nancy Mace accused her ex-fiance and three other men of assault and added that South Carolina’s Attorney General dropped the ball.
Right, the House floor generally isn’t used to air out allegations… which is why some outlets have suggested that Mace might have practical and political motivations for doing it there.[][]
She started the nearly hour-long speech with:
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call out the cowards who think they can prey on women and get away with it. Today, I am going scorched earth. So let the bridges I burn this evening light our way forward.” @0:08-0:25
She went on to say that on the night of October 30th, 2023 she got a text message that claimed her then-fiance Patrick Bryant was active on a dating app. @8:40
And she initially thought it was a political move until he decided to lock his phone in a safe.
Eventually though, he finally gave her access and:
“The night I was given legal access to his phone I opened it for the first time and what I discovered shocked me to my core. One of the first videos I saw was of a woman and she was incapacitated and she was being raped.” @10:18-10:41
She went on to claim that she also found photos of what appeared to be young teenage girls in underwear.
There were also allegedly secret nude recordings of Mace herself, and in an emotional statement said:
“This monster stole my body. It felt like I had been raped.” @12:13
This incident apparently occurred at a property owned by one of the men pictured and was done with a “hidden camera.”
With her then holding up a security camera on the floor. [broll] @12:45
In total, she says she found thousands of photos and videos of not only herself, but of other women as well who had no idea they were being recorded while nude or undressing… and that’s on top of a lot of creepy photos of underage girls.
Mace was also clear that:
“None of this is conjecture, these are not allegations. These are facts. It is documented. Sometimes with metadata. I knew how to get that too. This is what I found. What I saw. What I accidentally discovered. @16:33-17:02
She claims to have personally identified over a dozen victims and then went on to say that on the night of November 12, Bryant assaulted her.
That led her to flee her home and go into hiding; where she moved four times over a year.
By the end of her speech, Mace had given examples of alleged assaults and rapes that each of the four men allegedly did.
Mace also highlighted that during all of this she found out how hard it was for victims to get justice and was also a victim of the “weaponization of government.”
“During the last year I turned everything over to law enforcement and then some. I was told I as a victim would be investigated. Investigated for what?! I am a victim here. I am turning in all of this evidence to you and now you say victim? You’re a victim of rape, you’re a victim of peeping Toms, you’re a victim of voyeurism but we’re going to investigate you. That’s what the state told me” @25:11-25:44
According to Mace, her attempts to report all of this to South Carolina authorities led to threats of arrest, something she claims other victims of sexual assaults and similar crimes face as well.
And Mace claims that the face of this problem is South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson.
She accused him of threatening victims with arrest as well as delaying investigations into Mace’s allegations.[]
From here, Mace wrapped up her speech by highlighting her record supporting legislation that -- at least according to her -- would protect women. [broll @38:27]
Although some of those bills are controversial -- such as the bills meant to remove trans people from women’s bathrooms.
There were a lot of responses to this from the accused.
Bryant denies the allegations while the other men made it seem like they were considering legal actions against Mace.[]
Although that’s probably dead in the water, even if it was all untrue.
We’re not saying that’s the case, but it’s important to note because normally Mace could be liable if she knowingly spread lies with the intention to hurt their reputations.
But because she did it on the House Floor, she’s protected by the Constitution's “speech and debate clause,” which states that the speech from Congresspeople made during sessions is immune from prosecution.[]
A press release from Mace also touched on this last night and added that “Her statements tonight are not conjecture, they are not allegations, they are facts based on information she uncovered and documents she accidentally discovered.”[]
Attorney General Wilson was also critical of Mace and said:
“Ms. Mace either does not understand or is purposefully mischaracterizing the role of the Attorney General.”
“At this time, our office has not received any reports or requests for assistance from any law enforcement or prosecution agencies regarding these matters. Additionally, the Attorney General and members of his office have had no role and no knowledge of these allegations until her public statements.”
His office added that both Wilson and Mace have attended multiple events with each other over the last six months in addition to Mace having his cellphone numbers and “not once has she approached or reached out to him regarding any of her concerns.”[]
However, at least some elements of South Carolina’s law enforcement knew about the allegations, because the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division confirmed that there was an investigation into Bryant stemming from December 2023 and adding:
“Since that date SLED has conducted multiple interviews, served multiple search warrants, and has a well-documented case file that will be available for release upon the conclusion of the case.”
Either way, multiple outlets have pointed out that calling out Wilson might have a political benefit for Mace as both are considering running for Governor in 2026.
It also helps bolster Mace’s image as an advocate against rape and assault while hurting Wilson’s reputation at the same time as a “DO NOTHING ATTORNEY GENERAL.”@35:00
Online Mace got a lot of praise for coming out with these allegations and many called her “brave.”
But at the same time there were a lot of critics.
Some suggested they were skeptical because she did this in a place where she couldn’t be sued for defamation while others doubted her sincerity to protecting sexual assault victims, saying:
Rep. Nancy Mace:
"The government should not do business with rapists, sex traffickers, or Peeping Toms."
Oh, she just wants to elect them and appoint them in the government.” []
The entire thing also stood oout in the Hosue chamber because it’s normally used to -- you know -- discuss legislation.
The few times it’s not used for that it’s to honor constituents or comment on current events.
So it’s not surprising to see at least some people say that the House was an inappropriate space for the speech.
But what do you think?
-
While Elon Musk tears up the U.S. government at home, Donald Trump is figuring out how to carve up another country abroad: Ukraine.
Right, because in the months before inauguration, he signaled that his primary concern would be to bring the War against Russia’s invasion to an immediate end.
With him even promising in July that he could end the war in 24 hours, something which, three weeks into his term now, obviously didn’t happen. [Headline]
So Ukraine’s supporters feared that he would prioritize ending the war quickly over ending the war justly, with the country’s sovereignty intact and Russian troops expelled from Ukrainian soil.
And on Monday, Fox aired an interview with Trump in which he seemed to suggest that a peace deal could go either way, but what he’s concerned about is American access to rare earth minerals.
[Clip, 22:17 - 22:46] Caption: “I want to have our money secured, because were spending hundreds of billions of dollars. And you know, they may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But we’re gonna have all this money, and I say I want it back. And I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion worth of rare earth, and they have essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don't feel stupid. Otherwise we’re stupid.”
So you had some people reading that as him expressing indifference to Ukraine’s fate and demanding minerals in exchange for aid.
Though not even necessarily future aid; right, he seemed to say the minerals would be compensation for past aid.
Which, by the way, I have to correct him; we have not sent hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine.
We’ve allocated some 66 billion dollars, and most of that’s not even financial aid; it’s loans or old equipment and munitions stockpiles.
But President Zelensky, in his usual conciliatory fashion, suggested to Reuters that Ukraine might be open to some kind of partnership for the U.S. to get rare Earth minerals.
With him adding, however, that some of those mineral reserves are in Russian-occupied territory, and Putin could use them to provide resources to North Korea or Iran. [Quote, find “Iran”]
Which, if that did happen, would be significant since many rare earth minerals are crucial for batteries and military technologies.
But we’re likely to get more news on the Ukraine front soon, because JD Vance is supposed to meet with President Zelensky at a security summit in Germany on Friday.
And Trump said that his special envoy for Russia and Ukraine will be sent to Ukraine in the near future.
Links:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ukraine-russia-war-rare-earth-minerals-zelenskyy-vance-meeting/
Go to HelloFresh to get up to 10 free meals and a free high protein item for life.
-
Is getting on Donald Trump’s good side a get out of jail free card?
It’s a question some have already been asking with his pardoning roughly 1,500 criminal defendants charged in the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
And now they’re asking it again because the Trump DOJ has officially directed prosecutors to drop their corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams –
Right, a Democrat who has sharply shifted in Trump’s direction over the past couple of years, especially on the issue of immigration, and especially since his indictment last September.
Which is notable because you have the DOJ now specifically highlighting the immigration issue as a reason for dismissing the charges.
Now, with that, going back, Adams?
He’s accused of taking more than $100,000 worth of free plane tickets and luxury hotel stays from wealthy Turkish citizens and at least one government official in a nearly decade-long corruption scheme.
In exchange, allegedly handing out favors such as speeding up the approval process for a new 36-story Turkish consulate despite safety concerns.
Not to mention on top of all that, he allegedly accepted campaign contributions from wealthy foreign businesspeople who weren't legally allowed to give to his campaign.
With this helping him fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in public matching funds. []
Adams has pleaded not guilty and claimed without providing evidence that he was being prosecuted because he had criticized Biden’s immigration policies.
And over the past few months, according to some, he’s been doing his best to curry favor with Trump for months.
Trump, for his part, has actually defended Adams, claiming both were being "persecuted."
And by the time Trump won, you had people speculating that his victory might bring an end to Adam’s legal troubles.
And in fact, in December, Trump actually said he would consider pardoning Adams.
With this seeming like even more of a possibility last month when Adams met Trump in Florida and then attended the inauguration a few days later.
And since then, Adams has declined to criticize Trump–
This week, also urging NYC officials to refrain from publicly criticizing the president over concerns that it could jeopardize the city’s federal funding.
And now, Adams? Critics say he’s getting his payoff.
But obviously it’s not a pardon.
Right, with the acting deputy attorney general – who worked as Trump's defence lawyer – issuing a memo for the “dismissal without prejudice” of the prosecution.
With him rehashing the idea that Adams was being persecuted, writing:
"...it cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before the charges were filed…” []
Then, also claiming that the Biden DOJ "reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based".[]
And finally, justifying the decision by asserting that the indictment had "restricted" Adams’s ability to address "illegal immigration and violent crime" in the city.[]
Now with all that, Adams isn’t totally out of the woods.
Right, according to the memo, his case will be reviewed again after the November 2025 mayoral election.
And so you have people like one NYU legal historian, who’s also a former state prosecutor, arguing the directive leaves the impression that Adams will have to help Trump carry out his immigration policies to fully earn his freedom, adding: []
“Essentially what he’s doing is extorting New York City. … They’re holding over his head the possibility that he’ll be reindicted.” []
And with that, I will say, Trump officials have of course denied that there’s any sort of quid pro pro happening here.
Right, there’s even a footnote in the memo clarifying that “the government is not offering to exchange dismissal of a criminal case for Adams’s assistance on immigration enforcement.” []
But either way, this is pretty unprecedented.
Right, with the The Associated Press, for example, explaining:
“The intervention and reasoning — that a powerful defendant could be too occupied with official duties to face accountability for alleged crimes — marked an extraordinary deviation from long-standing Justice Department norms.”[]
Now, all that said, as of recording, prosecutors haven’t yet said whether they intend to drop the case as requested.
And any decision to do so will need to be formally submitted to the court and approved by a judge.[]
So while there’s still a chance the charges could stick, it’s worth noting that we’ve seen what happens to prosecutors Trump doesn’t like.
Right, for instance, he reportedly personally ordered firings of special counsel prosecutors who worked on the cases against him –
And so, we’ll have to wait and see how this plays out.
Though, on the topic of corruption, I’ll add you have outlets like the BBC tying all this to the news today that Trump has also ordered the DOJ to stop enforcing a law that bars US companies from bribing foreign governments to get business.[]
But with that, I’ll pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts with all this?
-
Trump, Musk and the DOGE team have reeled from USAID to the Treasury to the CFPB with their giant chainsaw, and now they’re coming for the NIH. [Play chainsaw revving sound effect]
With the U.S. National Institutes of Health announcing on Friday that it was immediately cutting some four billion dollars a year in funding for biomedical research. [Image and Tweet]
Which came as an absolute shock to the scientific community.
Right, because the federal government is the largest funder of basic R&D that may not seem useful at first, but can lead to some of the most groundbreaking discoveries in scientific research. [Quote, find “200”]
So immediately, scientists rang the alarm bell, warning that life-saving medical research would be jeopardized.
But the Trump administration responded that the cut would not affect funding for medical research itself, but rather the funding for indirect costs supposedly related to that research.
So expenses for things like libraries, electricity, heating, personnel, administration, maintenance, buildings, equipment, data processing and regulatory compliance. [Image]
With the NIH stating that of roughly 35 billion dollars spent on research in 2023, nine billion went to these indirect costs. [Tweet]
So going forward, it declared that the standard indirect cost rate for universities and research institutions receiving NIH grants would be 15%. [Same tweet]
Which, to put that in perspective, is very low for the NIH.
Right, according to its own figures, the average rate is about 27 to 28%, though some organizations charge as much as 50 or 60%. [Quote, find “27”]
So the White House claims that the new 15% rate brings the NIH in line with private foundations.
Though critics say that’s an apples-to-oranges comparison because they classify indirect costs differently.
But you have Elon Musk exclaiming on X:
“Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead’? What a ripoff!” [Tweet]
Except the thing is, he completely misunderstood what that number means.
Right, to be clear, the indirect cost rate doesn’t measure indirect costs as a percentage of the total grant.
So a 50% rate doesn’t mean that half the grant goes toward indirect costs.
Instead, it measures indrect costs as a percentage of direct costs.
Meaning a 50% rate would limit the institution’s spending on indirect costs to half the value of the direct costs.
So if you got a 150 million dollar grant, for example, 100 million would go toward direct costs and 50 million, or half of that, to indirect costs.
And if you’re still as confused as Elon, the point is that the share of grant money going toward these costs they’re trying to cut is already way lower than it might seem on the surface.
But regardless, the argument still stands that big universities don’t need federal funds because they’re so rich.
And Trump claimed as much in a press conference. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:17 - 00:28] Caption: “You could also say, why are we giving money to Harvard when it’s got a 50 billion dollar endowement? Fifty billion! And yet they don’t use that endowement to help their students.”
But the picture is actually a bit more complicated than he’s suggesting.
Right, first of all, those endowements have limitations that make it difficult for schools to radically draw them down, and portions can be restricted to uses that donors stipulate. [Quote, find “radically”]
And secondly, large, wealthy universities are not the only ones who receive NIH funds.
Right, there are a bunch of smaller private or public universities and colleges, as well as stand-alone research institutes that don’t have have diverse funding streams or income from teaching students or endowments. [Image]
And as an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management explained to The Washington Post, those smaller entities are most likely to be hit the hardest by the cut. [Quote, find “Pierre”]
But regardless, there’s still the argument that a 15% rate will actually help those institutions, not hurt them.
With a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services telling the outlet:
“Our Administration wants to help America have the best research in the world, and we believe that by ensuring that more cents on every dollar go directly to science and not to administrative overhead, we can take another step in that direction.” [Quote]
And to be sure, even people who are opposed to the NIH decision admit that the current system is fraught with inefficiency and waste.
With researchers chief among them; right, you often hear complaints that it seems like so much grant money gets eaten up by overhead. [Image]
With Nature quoting Joel Norris, a climatologist at UC San Diego, back in 2014 as saying:
“Sometimes faculty feel like they’re at the end of the Colorado River. And all the water’s been diverted before it gets to them.” [Quote]
But that same paper in Nature analyzed NIH grant data and concluded that overall, the actual recovery of indirect costs often falls well below the initial negotiated rates. [Quote same link, find “well below”]
With the average negotiated rate at the time reaching 53%, and the average reimbursed rate clocking in at 34%. [Same quote]
Also, many experts today warn that even if the system needs reform, dramatically cutting off funds overnight is not the way to do it.
Especially because those indirect costs are not irrelevant to the research; in fact they’re absolutely crucial.
With David Skorton, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents all the medical degree–granting schools in the U.S., explaining to Scientific American:
“Fundamental research will often require a complicated and expensive laboratory, one that has the right kind of water, utilities and capabilities. And in that laboratory, there can be five research groups, and they’re all studying different questions. So those individual research groups, doing their individual projects, will apply for [NIH] funding. For the overall laboratory itself, for the cost of running it, for the utilities, all those things, can sometimes not be attributed exactly to any one project, because it really applies to all the projects. And so, the physical lab operation, utility cost, the libraries that back it up, are considered a so-called facility and administrative cost and sometimes referred to as indirect costs.” [Quote, plug into 12ft]
“These are all costs that are vital to running labs at universities. They’re just not things like an individual pipette. They are functions, say libraries or data centers, things you need to run the lab.” [Quote same link]
“In fact, if the facility administrative costs are cut very, very severely as was announced by the NIH, laboratories would literally go dark. The research would stop.” [Quote same link]
With countless other researchers speaking out on social media and telling reporters essentially the same thing.
Like one UNC scientist telling The Washington Post:
“The aging building in which I work will literally fall apart around me if the maintenance is removed. No new faculty will be hired. I guess I’ll have to manage my $375,000/year budget with a calculator?” [Quote]
As well as the former head of the National Cancer Institute adding:
“Many people will lose jobs, clinical trials will halt, and this will slow down progress toward cures for cancer and effective prevention of illness.” [Quote]
And a Johns Hopkins professor telling CNN:
“Frankly, this means that the lives of my children and grandchildren—and maybe yours—will be shorter and sicker.” [Quote]
But public health isn’t the only casualty, with others arguing that cutting off funds would threaten the premiere position on the cutting edge of biomedicine that the United States has built for itself over the past 80 years of government funded-research.
So you’ve got Harvard president Alan Garber writing in a letter to the university:
“At a time of rapid strides in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, brain science, biological imaging, and regenerative biology, and when other nations are expanding their investment in science, America should not drop knowingly and willingly from her lead position on the endless frontier.” [Quote]
But as all this panic and uproar was unleashed over the weekend, a White House spokesperson responded:
“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.” [Quote]
But as with the DOGE team’s assaults on other parts of the government, this one is being fiercely challenged in the courts.
With 22 Democratic attorneys general suing the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the NIH on Monday. [Quote, find “Twenty-two”]
And later that day, a judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding cut, though only in those 22 states. [Quote, find “restraining”]
Then, that same day, a long list of universities from across the country filed their own lawsuit. [Same quote]
And late last night,the judge there also ordered the White House to temporarily halt the funding cut, except this time it’s nationwide. [Headline]
But we’ll have to see (1) how those cases play out, and (2) whether Trump even listens to the judge.
Right, because officials like Musk and Vance have suggested they don’t have to obey the judicial branch, and there’s evidence that the White House still hasn’t unfrozen many funds despite court orders to do so.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/10/lawsuit-halts-nih-research-overhead-funding-cut/
