DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — Facing the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Duke University is preparing for the worst.

Like research universities around the United States, the private school in North Carolina’s Research Triangle would see a massive loss from Trump administration cuts to grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Duke would be among the hardest hit. In its previous fiscal year, Duke took in $580 million in NIH grants and contracts, 11th most among the country’s research institutions. The cuts are delayed temporarily by a court challenge, but universities nationwide have implemented hiring freezes, scaled back research and drawn up contingency plans in case the loss in funding takes effect.

Historically, the federal government has negotiated with colleges and universities on its contribution toward their operating costs. If a scientist wins a federal grant to fund their research, the government pays the school an additional amount as a percentage of the grant money.

At Duke, the current rate for these “indirect costs” — expenses such as utilities and laboratory maintenance — is about 61%. Last month, President Donald Trump’s administration set the rate cap at 15%, significantly less than most universities receive.

The cut in indirect costs is far from the only concern. Funding for new grants also slowed to a trickle after the NIH halted grant application review meetings in January. At Duke, NIH grant and contract award notices plummeted, dropping from 166 in January and February of 2024 to 64 so far in 2025, according to the university.

Already, the uncertainty is causing reverberations at Duke’s School of Medicine, which receives over three-quarters of the university’s NIH funding. Expansion projects are being shelved. Fewer Ph.D. students are being admitted. And researchers are assessing whether their projects can continue.

Payments maintain freezers and machines to grow cancer cells

The Trump administration has described indirect costs as “administrative bloat” and said the cuts would save more than $4 billion annually. The change would also free up more money for scientific research, officials said.

“The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud, and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Through NIH funding, universities for decades have partnered with the federal government to support scientists’ academic pursuits.

Duke pharmacology and cancer biology professor Donald McDonnell estimates his laboratory has received up to $40 million in NIH funding over 30 years. His lab developed a drug approved in 2023 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Upkeep for lab equipment, including machines to grow cancer cells and massive freezers for enzymes and chemicals, would be difficult to afford if indirect cost rates dropped to 15%, McDonnell said. His laboratory also likely will be in the red due to the uncertainty around NIH grants, which would lead to staff layoffs.

“The bottom line is, I can’t live, I can’t think in this chaos,” McDonnell said.

Duke’s total research budget last fiscal year was $1.33 billion, with $863 million coming from the federal government. Without NIH funding, many scientists would have to turn to private organizations and philanthropies, which typically offer substantially less money, researchers said.

“We have long-standing relationships with private funders and industry partners, and value the contributions they make, but federal funds by far provide the largest single source of research dollars,” said Geeta Swamy, executive vice dean of the School of Medicine.

The cap on indirect costs also would hinder research for incoming neurosurgery and biomedical engineering professor Nanthia Suthana, who is relocating from the University of California, Los Angeles.

To study brain activity and treat conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and Parkinson’s disease, Suthana requires a lab large enough for patients to walk around while headsets and monitors capture heart rate, eye tracking, perspiration and brainwaves. Along the walls, 40 to 50 cameras — each costing about $5,000 — record their movements.

Her new lab is under construction, but Suthana said she is worried she will have to downsize within a year if funding uncertainties persist.

Ph.D. students are in limbo

Duke’s medical school has scaled back the number of Ph.D. students it will admit for the upcoming fall semester. Last year, the school brought in about 130 students, said Beth Sullivan, who oversees the school’s 17 biomedical Ph.D. programs. Now, the target is 100 students or less.

That means smaller class sizes over time and, in turn, a shrinking pipeline into medical research careers, she said.

“Our next generation of researchers are now poised on the edge of this cliff, not knowing if there’s going to be a bridge that’s going to get them to the other side, or if this is it,” Sullivan said.

Of the more than 630 Ph.D. students in the medical school, nearly all the students in their second year and beyond receive federal support from either NIH or the National Science Foundation.

Third-year doctoral student Caleb McIver was applying for an NIH diversity supplement — a funding opportunity to encourage professors to train minority students — when information about the initiative was removed from the agency’s website. McIver, who is Black, is now looking into other NIH grants without ties to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which the Trump administration has been wiping out of the federal government.

“I’m pretty stressed,” McIver said. “I mean, I need funding, so we need to find it.”

Duke reconsiders plans for new research building

The university had been planning to build a new research building on the site of an old, recently vacated building. Now those plans are on hold, School of Medicine Vice Dean Colin Duckett said.

Even smaller projects like renovating a building floor can’t start because of the budget uncertainty. Hundreds of people working in shuttered labs will consolidate in other buildings. If the indirect costs rate drops to 15%, there also would be widespread layoffs, Duckett said.

Duckett’s job previously focused on recruiting the brightest scientists and providing them with resources at Duke, he said. Now, he has taken on a much different role.

“It’s damage control,” he said. “It’s how to survive as an institution.”

___

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.

Makiya Seminera, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are looking to do what, for them, is almost unheard of —- approving government funding on their terms with little help from Democrats.

Speaker Mike Johnson is teeing up a bill that would generally fund federal agencies at current levels for the remainder of the budget year ending Sept. 30. That would mean defense and non-defense programs would be funded at 2024 levels. Congress must act by midnight March 14.

It’s a risky approach. Normally, when it comes to keeping the government fully open for business, Republicans have had to work with Democrats to craft a bipartisan measure that both sides can support. That’s because Republicans almost always lack the votes to pass spending bills on their own.

This time, Republicans have hopes of going it alone. They plan to muscle the funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, though the House, and then dare Senate Democrats to oppose it and risk being blamed for a government shutdown.

Crucially, the strategy has the backing of President Donald Trump, who has shown an ability so far in his term to hold Republicans in line.

“Let’s get this Bill done!” Trump said on social media.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., says he has never voted for a continuing resolution, what lawmakers often call a CR, but he is on board with Johnson’s effort. He says he has confidence in Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, to make a difference on the nation’s debt.

“I don’t like CRs,” Norman said. “But what’s the alternative? Negotiate with Democrats? No.”

“I freeze spending for six month to go identify more cuts? Somebody tell me how that’s not a win in Washington,” added Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, another lawmaker who has often frequently voted against spending bills but supports the six-month continuing resolution.

Republicans are also hoping that resolving this year’s spending will allow them to devote their full attention to extending the individual tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term and raising the nation’s debt ceiling to avoid a catastrophic federal default.

But Democratic leaders are warning that the decision to move ahead without consulting them increases the prospects for a shutdown. One of their biggest concerns is the flexibility the legislation would give the Trump administration on spending.

“We cannot stand by and accept a yearlong power grab CR that would help Elon take a chainsaw to programs that families rely on and agencies that keep our communities safe,” said Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Democratic leadership in both chambers has stressed that Republicans have the majority and are responsible for funding the government. But they also have been wary of saying how Democrats would vote on a continuing resolution.

“We have to wait to see what their plan is,” Schumer said. “We’ve always believed the only solution is a bipartisan solution, no matter what.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said earlier this week that the Democratic caucus would meet and discuss the legislation at the “appropriate moment.” But he struck a more forceful tone Friday.

Jeffries said Democrats are ready to negotiate a “meaningful, bipartisan spending agreement that puts working people first.” But he said the “partisan continuing resolution” threatens to cut funding for key programs, such as veterans benefits and nutritional assistance for low-income families.

“That is not acceptable,” Jeffries said.

While continuing resolutions generally keep spending flat, many lawmakers say that failing to keep pace with inflation actually leads to a cut in services.

Trump has been meeting with House Republicans in an effort to win their votes on the legislation. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, along with more than a dozen other lawmakers, met with Trump on Wednesday.

“I’m open to it,” Burchett said. “But I want to see what’s in it.”

Republicans have a 218-214 majority in the House, so if all lawmakers vote, they can afford only one defection if Democrats unite in opposition. The math gets even harder in the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would have to vote for the legislation to overcome a filibuster — and that’s assuming all 53 Republicans vote for it.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., has said that passage of the measure covering the remainder of the fiscal year doesn’t preclude further negotiations to pass the regular appropriations bills for the budget year.

A Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed that such talks have reopened as the two sides try to reach agreement on topline spending levels. The talks could amount to a Plan B should the continuing resolution falter.

Kevin Freking, The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah would do away with its universal mail-in voting system under a bill sent to its Republican governor as the state’s 2025 legislative session wrapped up on Friday.

The Republican-controlled Legislature approved a proposal requiring voters to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail, meaning they would no longer get them automatically. Voters who want to return their ballots by mail or to a drop box would need to write the last four digits of their driver’s license, state ID or Social Security number on the ballot return envelope. And starting in 2029, residents who vote in person would need to show a valid ID.

If Gov. Spencer Cox signs the bill into law, it would drastically change the voting system in one of just eight states — and the only led by Republicans — that allows all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in.

Cox has repeatedly expressed confidence in the state’s election security but has said he may be open to changing the mail-in voting system so that votes can be tallied faster. Currently, ballots that are postmarked by the day before Election Day can be counted within the following two weeks. The proposal awaiting Cox’s signature would move up the deadline, requiring all ballots to be in the county clerk’s possession by 8 p.m. on Election Day. His office did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Friday.

Lawmakers pointed to the same legislative audits to make cases for and against the bill. The recent audits found no evidence of widespread fraud in Utah’s elections but identified some delays in removing deceased residents from voter rolls. Democrats said the changes were unnecessary and would make voting more difficult, while many Republicans said the voter roll issues indicated a need for new security measures.

“We have good elections in Utah,” said Sen. Mike McKell, one of the top Republicans in the chamber. “We have high confidence in our election process. We have high confidence in vote by mail. But we also have concerns with security, and what we’re trying to balance in this bill is how do we enhance security and at the same time making voting easy?”

Five Republicans joined all Democrats in opposing the bill, which passed with veto-proof margins in the House and fell one vote short of a veto-proof majority in the Senate. If Cox rejects the bill, Republican supporters would need to pull in one more senator to override his veto.

Sen. Nate Blouin, a Salt Lake City Democrat, said that by passing the bill, Republican lawmakers were feeding into “conspiracy thinking” around election security.

Republicans have sent their base mixed signals about mail-in voting since President Donald Trump falsely claimed the system was plagued with fraud to explain away his 2020 election loss. Trump continued to sow distrust even as his campaign team and the Republican National Committee began encouraging Republicans to vote by mail in the 2024 race to avoid giving Democrats an edge.

The vast majority of Utah residents mail in their ballots or deposit them in drop boxes.

Earlier versions of the bill received strong pushback from Utah’s county clerks, who have since withdrawn their opposition. But some say they have lingering concerns that the changes will make elections less secure.

The measure instructs clerks to prioritize checking ID numbers over the current practice of matching signatures to those on file. Weber County Clerk Ricky Hatch warned that could lead to a rise in voter fraud because it’s easier to get ahold of someone’s state ID number than it is to forge their signature.

“It is absolutely not a perfect bill, and that’s why the clerks didn’t support it. We simply removed our opposition,” Hatch told The Associated Press. “A big reason why we did that is because we received assurances from sponsors that they would continue to work with us to fix the remaining issues we have to help make sure voters aren’t hurt and that the process is strengthened.”

Tribal IDs would also be an acceptable form of voter identification under the version of the bill that cleared the Legislature, alleviating concerns that it would disenfranchise Native American voters in the last state that gave them access to the ballot box.

Hannah Schoenbaum, The Associated Press

MIAMI (AP) — A company owned by President Donald Trump sued Capital One on Friday, claiming the bank unjustifiably terminated over 300 of the Trump Organization’s accounts without cause in 2021, shortly after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The suit was filed by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and Eric Trump in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.

The Trump Organization claims the decision by Capital One to close the accounts was an attack on free speech and free enterprise. The suit also claims the decision was a response to Trump’s political views.

“Capital One has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons,” the company said in a statement.

The Trump Organization claims it suffered considerable financial harm and losses when Capital One notified them in March 2021 that accounts holding millions of dollars would be closed in three months. The lawsuit claims Capital One violated the law and the Trump Organization is seeking damages.

The account closures were announced about two months after Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of several thousand Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from certifying the 2020 election results, which named President Joe Biden as the winner.

Other banks also stopped doing business with the Trump Organization around the same time, while the business and Trump family members were facing civil and criminal investigations.

The Associated Press