Author: Redactor

Did you know that “the federal debt is expected to grow from 124 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025 to 135 percent in 2035”?  Yes or no, from this fact you probably can guess what the consequence of this sad fact of rising government debt is: “the federal government will absorb an increasingly larger share of the economy and capital markets.”

The quotations are from an article in Reason magazine by Mariana Trujillo, “The National Debt Is Becoming Your Local Problem.” It is well worth reading, for this discussion of an ever-growing problem is distinct from most others, in that it focuses on the effects of said problem on the governments closest to you. 

The $29 trillion federal debt held by the public is becoming an increasingly local problem. Washington’s fiscal challenges have led to increased borrowing costs as well as reduced federal aid to states, cities, and other local governments — who may soon have to reconsider their budgets as they face a difficult choice: cut services, raise taxes, dip into reserves, or incur further debt.

Curiously for a “libertarian” magazine, the general tenor of the challenge local governments now face — increasingly — is not depicted as an opportunity. Less government, libertarians are wont to say, is better. Being forced to economize should be a welcomed thing. Look on the bright side.

Well, OK — Ms. Trujillo does conclude with a hint of that perspective:

As federal support dries up from many ends, and its return becomes not only politically but economically less feasible, state and local governments should resist the temptation to push costs to an indefinite future and drive down precious savings to fund permanent programs — precisely the approach that has led to the status quo — and opt instead for a serious, responsible reorganization of their finances.

It just doesn’t seem very upbeat. None of that old-fashioned, Robert Poole-style “Cutting Back City Hall” enthusiasm.

Still, the article is well worth reading. Though not long, it contains some interesting facts.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) changed priorities with the new Trump administration. It terminated some previously awarded research programs to develop “diversity-related projects,” since they do not align with the goal of creating “opportunities for all Americans everwhere.”

While the reader may be wondering why the National Science Foundation concerns anything but the advancement of science, the more immediate questions are Is the NSF allowed to just stop funding some projects on the basis of altered executive branch priorities? and What is required of the NSF by statute?

Sixteen states sued, asking for a court injunction to stop the halt of spending on DEI by the NSF. On August 1, a federal judge declined the request. “In a 78-page opinion, U.S. District Judge John Cronan declined to issue the injunction,” explains an Epoch Times article, “noting that the case involves monetary claims and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Cronan determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that NSF’s directive runs counter to its mandatory statutory obligations, according to the court ruling.

The judge also stated that NSF’s directive, by its terms, does not require the agency to stop supporting projects aimed at increasing participation of women, minorities, and people with disabilities in STEM fields, citing evidence presented by the plaintiffs.

For example, the University of Northern Colorado stated that NSF funding supported nine of its programs that specifically aim to promote minority participation in STEM fields. Of those, only one had its funding terminated following the change in the agency’s policies, according to the court order.

“To the contrary, the record makes clear that, under the Priority Directive, NSF continues to fund many projects that advance the congressional objectives reflected in the NSF Act,” Cronan stated.

Aldgra Fredly, “Judge Declines to Block National Science Foundation From Ending DEI-Related Grants,” The Epoch Times (August 2, 2025).

Paul Jacob has been following the DEI issue for years, most recently in January with “DEI, Dying?” He remembers when its “diversity/equity/inclusion” policies were called “reverse discrimination.”