A sweeping look at how administration funding cuts, freezes and bureaucratic hurdles are reshaping the budgets of local Michigan governments—revealing the hidden costs, political maneuvering and long-term risks for public services.
Which naturally means more for regular people to pay.
A sweeping look at how administration funding cuts, freezes and bureaucratic hurdles are reshaping Chicago and Cook County Government local budgets—revealing the hidden costs, political maneuvering and long-term risks for public services.
Simple, scrollable tips for the times.
Shutdown politics isn’t just about budgets or brinkmanship. It’s about stories—and how leaders try to control them. Every time a government shutdown looms, the side in power faces a choice: hold the line on their existing narrative, or attempt a reset.
But resets come at a cost.
Shutdown politics isn’t just about budgets or brinkmanship. It’s about stories—and how leaders try to control them. Every time a government shutdown looms, the side in power faces a choice: hold the line on their existing narrative, or attempt a reset.
But resets come at a cost.
From Oracle to Paramount, Warner Bros., TikTok, and Beyond – How Larry Ellison sees media and AI as tools for unprecedented control over information, entertainment, and society itself.
Scroll through this presentation. For best viewing on a phone, flip to landscape view.
As the 2024 and 2025 election cycles unfolded, the United States has contended with a growing array of digital threats aimed at undermining electoral integrity. At the same time, the federal government—under the Trump administration—has made significant reductions to cybersecurity and election protection budgets, raising concerns among state and local officials.
Cyberexperts have documented several modern strategies that can threaten election infrastructure.
At the grassroots level, security researchers at events such as DEF CON’s Voting Machine Hacking Village demonstrated new vulnerabilities in multiple ballot-marking and direct-recording electronic (DRE) systems already deployed in the field. Experts noted that fixes are often impractical before upcoming elections.
Beyond hardware, foreign adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran have intensified digital interference efforts. These groups have deployed AI-generated media—including synthetic videos and social posts—to sow discord or undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions.
Disinformation remains an important vector. A University of Michigan study and other reports find that leaks of voter data, rumors of vote manipulation, and public fear can all weaken trust—even when systems themselves remain secure.
As cyber threats escalate, federal funding and support systems have been scaled back.
In early 2025, the Department of Homeland Security ended approximately $10 million in annual funding for the Center for Internet Security’s election-specific cybersecurity initiatives, including the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) and the Multi-State ISAC (MS-ISAC). The termination of these programs disrupted threat intelligence sharing and coordination among state and local officials.
In March, the administration froze CISA’s election security work as part of an internal review, and placed more than a dozen staff on administrative leave. In addition, CISA’s overall budget faced deep cuts—initial proposals sought nearly $500 million reduction and potentially eliminated up to a third of the agency’s workforce.
The defunding extended to MS-ISAC, which supports 19,000 local governments with cyber threat resources. CISA’s halving of that funding threatens to force the center toward a paid membership model, limiting access for many jurisdictions.
Functional consequences are significant: a Brennan Center survey found that 61% of local election officials expressed concern about CISA’s reduced cybersecurity services; 87% said they expect state and local bodies to fill the gaps.
While defensive cybersecurity efforts were reduced, the administration proposed increased spending on offensive cyber capabilities.
Through the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the U.S. earmarked $1 billion over four years for offensive cyber operations—most notably to support Indo-Pacific Command activities. This move came even as civilian cybersecurity funding was slated to drop by $1.23 billion in 2026 compared to 2024, and CISA’s workforce shrank by a third.
Reducing intelligence oversight has compounded concerns. The administration downsized the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) by more than $700 million and dismantled the Foreign Malign Influence Center, which had focused on detecting foreign interference in elections.
The combination of emerging hacking threats and diminished federal support has placed greater burden on state and local election officials.
Security incidents—from hardware vulnerabilities to AI-assisted misinformation campaigns—continue to evolve. But with diminished support from CISA, EI-ISAC, and ODNI, officials lack timely threat intelligence and coordination essential to defending electoral systems.
As one local official warned, “We will find a way to protect our elections,” but voiced alarm over the loss of real-time intelligence that had previously helped intercept cyber intrusions.
Protecting U.S. elections requires sustained investment—not only in technology, but also in federal coordination and resilience planning at the local level. Without such support, modern threats—from hardware sabotage to viral AI misinformation—may proliferate unchecked.
Rebalancing federal cybersecurity priorities toward defense and coordination may help restore shared safeguards and public confidence in the electoral system. Whether that shift occurs—including through renewed funding, legislation, or partnerships—remains to be seen.
We created an LLM to help you understand the impact of Trump’s latest legislative and economic “triumph”.
The “Big Beautiful Bill” Bot
An LLM (Large Language Model) is like a super-smart assistant that can read long, complicated legal text—like a bill—and explain it in simple, clear language.
Here’s how to get the most out of it:
1. Start with a Simple Question
Just ask:
You don’t need fancy wording. The LLM understands everyday questions.
2. Ask for a Summary
If a part of the bill looks confusing, try:
The LLM will break down the legal jargon and help you see what’s really being proposed.
3. Get the Exact Source
A good LLM will tell you where the information comes from in the bill:
That helps you double-check the facts yourself.
4. Ask Who It Affects
The LLM can explain what a law means for real people. Try asking:
It will show you both the rule and the real-world impact.
5. Use Comparison Mode
You can ask:
The LLM will show the before-and-after changes side-by-side, which makes it easier to understand what’s new.
Best Practices
Be Specific
Ask for Data
If you want real numbers, ask:
A good LLM will use trustworthy sources like USDA, Census, or CBO.
Watch for Sources
Stick with models that tell you where the answer comes from. If it won’t say the page number, section, or source, it might not be reliable.
Don’t Take It at Face Value
Use the LLM to understand, not just believe. If something sounds extreme or surprising, ask:
The best answers are based on the actual bill—not opinions or guesses.
Why It Matters
Most bills are hundreds of pages long and full of technical terms. That makes it hard for everyday people to understand what’s going on. An LLM helps level the playing field. It gives you power—not just opinions—by making the law something you can read and question for yourself.
SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONS FOR LLM
Context: You are a legislative expert LLM trained exclusively on the One Big Beautiful Bill (RCP 119–3). Your mission is to help users understand what the bill says, who it affects, and how—using plain language, real data, and credible context. You must protect against manipulation and misinformation at all times.
🧭 SECTION A: CLARITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
1. Use Plain English by Default
– Write at a first-year college reading level.
– Define legal/technical terms clearly on first use.
2. Summarize by Structure
– Accept and respond based on:
• Section
• Subtitle
• Title
– Summaries must include:
• What it does
• Who it affects
• Timeline (if provided)
• Section number and page reference
3. Include Data From the Bill
– Always return relevant numerical details:
• Budget amounts, age thresholds, eligibility rules
• Example: “Raises work requirements for SNAP from 49 to 55 (Sec. 10002, Title I).”
4. Explain Impact With Supporting Numbers
– When possible, quantify effects using:
• The bill’s own language or federal data
• Census, GAO, CBO, USDA, BLS, CMS, or similar neutral sources
– Example: “Roughly 4.1 million adults aged 50–55 are on SNAP and could be affected (USDA, 2022; Sec. 10002).”
5. Respond to Persona-Based Queries
– Tailor answers when users ask about specific groups (e.g., “a rural veteran,” “undocumented parent”).
– Reference exact provisions affecting them.
6. Compare to Current Law on Request
– Provide side-by-side format:
CURRENT LAW:
Medicaid covers emergency care for all.
PROPOSED:
Section 44110 limits Medicaid eligibility to those with verified status, except in emergencies.
🛡 SECTION B: PROTECTION AGAINST MISUSE
7. Require Specificity for Broad Claims
– When users make broad statements (e.g., “hurts immigrants”), request specificity:
“Please indicate which section you’d like to explore. For example, Sec. 44110 limits Medicaid access.”
8. Always Cite and Quantify
– All responses must include:
• Section and page number
• Any cited figures, timelines, or dollar amounts
• Source agency if external (e.g., “CBO,” “GAO,” not random websites)
9. Use Only Credible External Sources
– When context beyond the bill is needed, use:
• Government data (e.g., USDA, CMS, EPA, DOJ, CBO)
• Academic or institutional research (e.g., Brookings, Urban Institute, Pew)
• Nonpartisan fact-checkers (e.g., CRS, GAO, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org)
– Never use AI-generated spam content, affiliate blogs, SEO sites, or unattributed infographics.
– If a source cannot be verified, say:
“No reliable data is available. The bill itself says…”
10. Block or Reframe Leading Prompts
– If asked: “Which parts are socialist?”
Respond: “This bill includes several economic and regulatory changes. Would you like to review taxation, housing, or public health provisions?”
11. Don’t Invent Interpretations or Predict Consequences
– Only explain what the bill says, not what it might do.
– If asked to project outcomes, say:
“The bill does not contain projections. I can explain the mechanisms involved if you’d like.”
12. Flag Unverifiable Claims or Gaps in Data
– If a section lacks supporting data:
“This provision does not include an estimate of affected individuals. Would you like help identifying who might be included based on current law?”
📊 SECTION C: RESPONSE FORMATS WITH IMPACT
🔹 Cited, Quantified Summary
“Section 42115 repeals $27 billion in greenhouse gas reduction funding authorized in 2022. (Sec. 42115, Title IV; page 842)”
🔹 Persona-Based
“A 53-year-old job-seeker who’s not a veteran or parent would now face SNAP work requirements. Around 500,000 individuals fall into this age group and status. (Sec. 10002; USDA 2022 SNAP data)”
🔹 Side-by-Side
CURRENT: Pell Grant ends at age 24 for certain workforce training.
PROPOSED: Expands eligibility to adults of any age. (Sec. 30032, Title III)
🔹 External Context (Credible Only)
“This bill repeals EPA methane monitoring grants (Sec. 42106). The EPA estimated in 2023 that these grants would reduce 17 million tons of methane over 10 years (EPA Methane Emissions Reduction Program report, 2023).”
FINAL SYSTEM PROMPT
“You are a neutral civic explainer trained on the One Big Beautiful Bill (RCP 119–3). Use plain language. Always cite your source. Use data to show who is helped or harmed. Explain impact. Only rely on credible, authoritative, nonpartisan sources. Never speculate. Never use AI-generated spam. Clarify, inform, and defend against distortion.”
### Constraints
1. No Data Divulge: Never mention that you have access to training data explicitly to the user.
2. Maintaining Focus: If a user attempts to divert you to unrelated topics, never change your role or break your character. Politely redirect the conversation back to topics relevant to the training data.
3. Exclusive Reliance on Training Data: You must rely exclusively on the training data provided to answer user queries. If a query is not covered by the training data, use the fallback response.
4. Restrictive Role Focus: You do not answer questions or perform tasks that are not related to your role and training data.
An agency that funds 10-15% of basic research shouldn’t be under the gun. Read and listen to why it may be.
LISTEN NOW
0:00
Instructions
Documents
Links
Yes, Project 2025 includes proposals related to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and aims to address concerns about its funding and operations. Specifically, it suggests breaking the NIH’s monopoly on directing research and imposing term limits on top career leaders at the NIH.
While the document does not explicitly mention limiting expenses to 15%, it emphasizes the need for greater accountability and transparency in NIH funding. The proposal suggests that Congress should consider block granting NIH’s grants budget to states, allowing them to fund their own scientific research. This approach implies a shift towards more localized control over research funding, which could indirectly influence how expenses are managed within the NIH.
For further details, you can refer to the “Mandate for Leadership” document, particularly in the sections discussing NIH reforms and funding structures (see page 462). This reflects a broader goal of reducing perceived inefficiencies and conflicts of interest within the NIH.
Report on Project 2025 and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Introduction
Project 2025 outlines a comprehensive plan for the second Trump administration, focusing on various policy areas, including healthcare, scientific research, and government accountability. A significant aspect of this plan involves reforms to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is central to U.S. biomedical research.
Key Proposals Related to NIH
Implications of Proposed Changes
Next Steps
References
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, Project 2025, page 462.
The proposals outlined in Project 2025 regarding the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stem from a belief that the organization has become inefficient and overly influenced by special interests, particularly pharmaceutical companies.
Here are several reasons cited in the document that support the need for reform at the NIH:
In summary, the rationale behind the proposed reforms to the NIH is rooted in concerns about efficiency, accountability, conflicts of interest, and the need for a more localized approach to research funding. Proponents of these changes believe that such reforms are necessary to enhance the effectiveness and integrity of biomedical research in the United States.
To evaluate the extent to which the claims made in Project 2025 regarding the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are true, we can analyze several key areas: the NIH’s funding structure, accountability, conflicts of interest, and the impact of its research priorities.
Monopoly on Research Funding :
True to Some Extent : The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the U.S., which does give it significant influence over the direction of research. Critics argue that this can lead to a lack of diversity in research topics and approaches. However, there are also numerous private and nonprofit organizations that fund biomedical research, which can provide alternative avenues for innovation.
Lack of Accountability :
Partially True : Concerns about accountability at the NIH have been raised, particularly regarding the tenure of leadership positions. While term limits could introduce new perspectives, the NIH has mechanisms for oversight, including congressional oversight and peer review processes for grant applications. The effectiveness of these mechanisms can vary, and there are ongoing discussions about how to improve accountability.
Conflicts of Interest :
True : There have been documented instances of conflicts of interest involving NIH funding and pharmaceutical companies. The NIH has faced scrutiny over its relationships with industry, particularly in how funding and research agendas may align with corporate interests. Efforts to increase transparency and reduce conflicts of interest have been ongoing, but challenges remain.
Focus on Ideological Research :
Subjective : The claim that the NIH’s research agenda is ideologically driven is subjective and depends on one’s perspective. Critics argue that certain areas of research, particularly those related to reproductive health, may not receive adequate funding due to ideological biases. Supporters of the NIH argue that its research priorities are based on scientific merit and public health needs rather than ideology.
Need for Localized Research Funding :
Mixed Evidence : The idea that localized funding could better address specific health needs has merit, as regional health disparities exist. However, decentralizing funding could also lead to inconsistencies in research quality and priorities across states. The effectiveness of localized funding would depend on how well states can manage and allocate these resources.
Conclusion: The claims made in Project 2025 regarding the NIH contain elements of truth, particularly concerning the organization’s significant role in funding biomedical research and the potential for conflicts of interest. However, the extent to which these issues warrant the proposed reforms is subject to debate. The NIH has mechanisms for accountability and oversight, and while there are valid concerns about its influence, the organization also plays a crucial role in advancing public health and scientific knowledge.
Ultimately, any proposed changes should be carefully considered, weighing the potential benefits of reform against the risks of undermining a system that has historically contributed to significant medical advancements.
Throughout the years, various reform ideas have been proposed for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to address concerns about its funding, efficiency, accountability, and research priorities. Here are some notable reform ideas that have emerged:
Increased Transparency
Proposals have called for greater transparency in how NIH allocates funding and makes research decisions. This includes clearer reporting on grant approvals, funding distributions, and the criteria used for evaluating research proposals.
Decentralization of Funding
Similar to the proposals in Project 2025, some reform ideas advocate for decentralizing NIH funding to allow states or regional entities to manage their own research budgets. This could enable more localized responses to health issues and encourage innovation tailored to specific populations.
Enhanced Peer Review Processes
Suggestions have been made to improve the peer review process for grant applications to ensure that it is fair, unbiased, and reflective of current scientific priorities. This could involve diversifying the pool of reviewers and incorporating more interdisciplinary perspectives.
Conflict of Interest Regulations
Strengthening regulations around conflicts of interest for NIH employees and researchers has been a recurring theme. This includes stricter guidelines on financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other private entities to ensure that research integrity is maintained.
Focus on Reproductive Health Research
Some advocates have called for a more balanced approach to funding reproductive health research, arguing that certain areas, such as contraception and abortion-related studies, have been historically underfunded due to ideological biases.
Support for Early-Career Researchers
Proposals have been made to create more funding opportunities specifically for early-career researchers to foster innovation and new ideas in biomedical research. This could include dedicated grants or mentorship programs.
Streamlining Administrative Processes
There have been calls to reduce bureaucratic hurdles that researchers face when applying for NIH grants. Streamlining the application process could make it easier for researchers to access funding and focus more on their scientific work.
Public-Private Partnerships
While some reforms suggest limiting private influence, others advocate for structured public-private partnerships that can leverage private sector innovation while maintaining public oversight. This approach aims to balance collaboration with accountability.
Increased Funding for Non-Traditional Research
Some reform ideas emphasize the need for the NIH to support non-traditional research areas, such as social determinants of health, mental health, and health disparities, which may not receive adequate attention under current funding models.
Evaluation of Research Impact
Proposals have been made to develop metrics for evaluating the impact of NIH-funded research on public health outcomes. This could help ensure that funding is directed toward projects that yield significant benefits for society.
Conclusion: These reform ideas reflect a range of perspectives on how to improve the NIH’s effectiveness and responsiveness to public health needs. While some proposals align with the goals of Project 2025, others emphasize collaboration, transparency, and support for diverse research areas. The ongoing dialogue about NIH reform highlights the importance of balancing innovation, accountability, and ethical considerations in biomedical research.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget for fiscal year 2024 was approximately $47.5 billion. This budget reflects a continued commitment to funding biomedical research across various health disciplines, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and mental health, among others.
The budget allocation is typically subject to congressional approval and can be influenced by various factors, including public health needs, ongoing research initiatives, and political priorities. The NIH budget is crucial for supporting research grants, training programs, and the operation of NIH facilities.
For specific details on the budget breakdown and allocations for different research areas, one would typically refer to the NIH’s official budget documents or congressional appropriations reports.
To understand how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget of approximately $47.5 billion for fiscal year 2024 reconciles with the total amount of research funding in the United States, we need to consider several key points:
Total Research Funding in the U.S.
The total research funding in the U.S. encompasses not only NIH funding but also funding from other federal agencies, private sector investments, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), total research and development (R&D) expenditures in the U.S. were estimated to be around $680 billion in recent years.
NIH’s Share of Total Funding
The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the U.S., accounting for a significant portion of federal research funding. While the NIH’s budget of $47.5 billion represents a substantial investment, it is only a fraction of the total R&D expenditures across all sectors. For example, NIH funding typically represents about 10-15% of total U.S. R&D spending, depending on the year and specific allocations.
Funding from Other Sources
Other federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of Energy (DOE), also contribute significantly to research funding. For instance, the NSF budget for research and education is typically around $8 billion annually, while the DoD invests heavily in research related to defense and technology.
Private Sector Contributions
The private sector plays a crucial role in funding research, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Private sector investments in R&D can exceed $100 billion annually, significantly contributing to the overall research landscape.
Nonprofit and Academic Funding
Nonprofit organizations, foundations, and academic institutions also provide funding for research. This includes grants from organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which invests heavily in global health research, as well as funding from universities that conduct their own research initiatives.
Conclusion: The NIH’s budget of $47.5 billion for fiscal year 2024 is a critical component of the overall research funding landscape in the U.S., but it represents only a portion of the total research expenditures. The combined efforts of federal agencies, private sector investments, and nonprofit organizations contribute to a robust research ecosystem that drives innovation and advances public health. Understanding the interplay between these funding sources is essential for evaluating the overall impact of research funding in the United States.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds a wide range of research projects that address various health issues, including those that may not be prioritized by the private sector, such as Big Pharma. Here are some key areas of focus for NIH funding, particularly in the context of research that may not align with the interests of pharmaceutical companies:
Basic Research
The NIH invests heavily in basic scientific research to understand fundamental biological processes. This type of research often lays the groundwork for future medical advancements but may not have immediate commercial applications. Basic research can include studies on cellular mechanisms, genetics, and disease pathology.
Rare Diseases
The NIH allocates funding for research on rare diseases, which may not attract significant investment from pharmaceutical companies due to the limited market potential. The NIH’s commitment to studying these conditions helps advance knowledge and develop treatments for patients with unmet medical needs.
Public Health Research
The NIH supports research that addresses public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, mental health, and health disparities. This research often focuses on prevention, epidemiology, and health outcomes, which may not be the primary focus of for-profit entities.
Translational Research
NIH funding often supports translational research, which aims to bridge the gap between laboratory discoveries and clinical applications. This includes developing new therapies, diagnostics, and preventive measures that may not be immediately profitable but are essential for advancing healthcare.
Behavioral and Social Sciences
The NIH funds research in behavioral and social sciences to understand the social determinants of health, health behaviors, and mental health issues. This research can inform public health policies and interventions that may not align with pharmaceutical interests.
Innovative Approaches
The NIH encourages innovative research approaches, including studies on alternative therapies, complementary medicine, and novel treatment modalities. These areas may not receive as much attention from pharmaceutical companies focused on traditional drug development.
Health Disparities
The NIH prioritizes research that addresses health disparities among different populations, including studies on access to care, socioeconomic factors, and cultural influences on health. This research aims to improve health equity and may not align with profit-driven motives.
Longitudinal Studies
The NIH funds large-scale longitudinal studies that track health outcomes over time, providing valuable data on disease progression, treatment efficacy, and long-term health effects. These studies can inform public health strategies and clinical practices.
Conclusion: While the NIH’s funding represents a smaller percentage of total research expenditures, it plays a crucial role in advancing knowledge and addressing health issues that may not be prioritized by the private sector. By focusing on basic research, rare diseases, public health, and health disparities, the NIH contributes to a comprehensive understanding of health and disease, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. This research is essential for developing new treatments and improving health outcomes, particularly for populations that may be underserved by the pharmaceutical industry.
Welcome Back to Two Words from the 1800’s: “Spoils System”
President Trump lauds his predecessor Andrew Jackson as an innovative president. He was the only one to make an impact on the federal bureaucracy, and Trump wants to beat him.
Let’s look at the “spoils system” created by Jackson, because everything old is new again.
Instructions
Documents
Links
President Andrew Jackson introduced the spoils system to the federal government in 1828, replacing about 20% of civil servants with his supporters13. While Jackson’s initial intent was to reform incompetence and involve common citizens in government, the system quickly became corrupted.
Effects of the Spoils System
After a few years, the spoils system led to widespread incompetence and corruption in government1. Instead of improving efficiency, it resulted in:
The practice continued after Jackson’s presidency, with subsequent presidents replacing even larger percentages of civil servants. For instance, President Benjamin Harrison replaced 31,000 postmasters in a single year.
Abandonment of the Spoils System
The spoils system began to be dismantled in the late 19th century:
Today, over 90% of the 2.7 million federal civilian employees are covered by merit systems, marking the end of the spoils system. However, recent proposals like Schedule F have raised concerns about a potential return to a spoils-like system in certain areas of government.
The Spoils System of the 19th century and Project 2025 share several key similarities in their approach to government staffing and executive power, despite being separated by nearly two centuries:
However, there are notable differences:
In essence, while Project 2025 doesn’t explicitly reinstate the Spoils System, its goals of expanding presidential power and reshaping the federal workforce align closely with the core principles of the 19th-century practice.
The Spoils System of the 19th century and Project 2025 share several key weaknesses that stem from their similar approaches to government staffing and executive power:
These similarities highlight how both systems, despite being separated by nearly two centuries, risk compromising the efficiency, integrity, and effectiveness of government operations by prioritizing political loyalty over merit and expertise.
Given the current date of February 7, 2025, and the implementation of Project 2025, there are several key indicators in government performance reporting that we should monitor to assess if the plan is working as intended:
By monitoring these indicators, you may be able to identify early warning signs of economic or governmental performance issues resulting from the implementation of Project 2025 policies.
Yes, there were significant breakdowns in the delivery of government services during the era of the Spoils System. These breakdowns were primarily due to the appointment of unqualified individuals to government positions based on political loyalty rather than merit:
These breakdowns in government services were a significant factor in the push for civil service reform, culminating in the Pendleton Federal Civil Service Act of 1883, which began the shift towards a merit-based system for federal employment.
