Minnesota higher education institutions report continued grant disruptions from the Trump administration – Detroit Lakes Tribune

Report on Federal Funding Disruptions to Minnesota Higher Education and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

Minnesota’s higher education institutions are experiencing significant disruptions in federal funding, directly impeding progress toward key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A hearing by the Minnesota Senate Federal Impacts Subcommittee on November 13 detailed the termination and suspension of federal research awards, which threatens advancements in quality education (SDG 4), health and well-being (SDG 3), and reduced inequalities (SDG 10). The financial instability undermines the state’s capacity for innovation (SDG 9) and jeopardizes partnerships essential for sustainable development (SDG 17).

2.0 Financial Impact and Institutional Scope

The state has encountered substantial financial setbacks, creating instability for institutions central to achieving educational and research objectives.

• Total canceled federal funds for Minnesota (as of Nov. 11): $157 million
• Total federal funds considered “at risk”: $491 million

2.1 University of Minnesota (UMN)

The University of Minnesota reported 101 federally funded research awards were terminated or suspended as of November 10, resulting in a loss of over $33 million in research funds. This directly impacts the university’s ability to contribute to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 4 (Quality Education).

The funding cuts originated from multiple federal agencies crucial for SDG-related research:

1. The National Institute of Health (Impacting SDG 3)
2. The Agency for International Development (Impacting SDG 17)
3. The Department of Agriculture (Impacting SDG 2)
4. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Impacting SDG 3)
5. The Department of Energy (Impacting SDG 7 and SDG 9)
6. The Environmental Protection Agency (Impacting SDG 6, 13, 14, 15)

The impact is distributed across several colleges, with significant losses in areas directly aligned with SDGs:

• School of Public Health: 25% (SDG 3)
• College of Education and Human Development: 21% (SDG 4)
• College of Science and Engineering: 17% (SDG 9)

3.0 Disproportionate Impact on Equity and Inclusion Goals

The funding cuts have been explicitly linked to a dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, representing a direct setback for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

3.1 St. Catherine University

St. Catherine University, an institution with a diverse student body, has had five federal grants totaling over $2.4 million rescinded. The university reports that 52% of its students identify as BIPOC, 43% are first-generation, and 44% are Pell-eligible. The loss of these funds undermines efforts to provide equitable opportunities.

The KARE (Katies for Aging Research and Equity) program, which supports under-resourced students in longevity research, has been severely affected. This not only hinders research relevant to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) but also removes a critical pathway for students from marginalized communities to advance in scientific fields, counteracting the principles of SDG 10.

Student testimony from Nesteho Abdi, a first-generation refugee student, highlighted that such grants are a “vessel of social service and justice as it serves to dismantle barriers specific to certain communities.” The termination notice language, which dismissed the research as providing “low returns on investments,” directly challenges the value placed on inclusive research and equitable educational access.

4.0 Broader Economic and Collaborative Consequences

4.1 Economic Growth and Decent Work (SDG 8)

While overall state enrollment figures appear strong, there are concerns about a potential decline in international student enrollment. These students contribute over $488 million annually to Minnesota’s economy. A reduction in their numbers could negatively affect the state’s economic vitality, a key component of SDG 8.

4.2 Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17)

The current situation highlights a breakdown in the partnership between federal and state entities. Senator Lindsey Port, chair of the Federal Impacts committee, expressed a desire for a “federal government who will be our partner” in prioritizing higher education. This lack of a cohesive strategy undermines SDG 17, which calls for strong partnerships to achieve sustainable development.

5.0 Conclusion

The termination of federal funding for Minnesota’s higher education institutions poses a multi-faceted threat to the state’s progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. The immediate financial losses cripple research and innovation (SDG 9), particularly in health and environmental science (SDG 3). More critically, the targeted nature of the cuts reverses gains in providing quality, inclusive education (SDG 4) and actively works against the goal of reducing inequalities (SDG 10). The resulting strain on state-federal partnerships (SDG 17) and potential economic repercussions (SDG 8) indicates a systemic challenge to achieving a sustainable and equitable future for the state.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article’s central theme is the disruption of funding for higher education institutions in Minnesota. This directly impacts the quality of and access to tertiary education, particularly for research-focused programs and students from under-resourced backgrounds.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article explicitly states that rescinded grants were part of an “agenda to dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” It highlights the disproportionate impact on BIPOC students, first-generation students, and Pell-eligible students, thereby exacerbating inequalities in educational opportunities.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The termination of 101 federally funded research awards at the University of Minnesota across agencies like the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency directly hinders scientific research and innovation, which is a key component of this goal.
4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Funding cuts from the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are mentioned. The article specifies that 25% of affected funds at the University of Minnesota were in the School of Public Health and details the impact on the KARE program, which focuses on aging research. A quote from a grant termination notice directly questions the research’s ability to “enhance health, lengthen life or reduce illness.”
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article describes a breakdown in the partnership between the federal government and state institutions. A state senator expresses a desire for a federal government that will “be our partner” again, highlighting the lack of policy coherence and financial support from a key partner in achieving educational and research goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.3: “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.” The article shows this target is being undermined, as funding cuts create barriers for students, especially those in the KARE program who are described as “under-resourced” and rely on these funds for “academic and professional advancement.”
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The article directly links the funding cuts to an agenda against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, affecting a student body where 52% identify as BIPOC and 43% are first-generation students. The termination of grants for these specific communities works directly against their inclusion and empowerment.
3. Under SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure):
   • Target 9.5: “Enhance scientific research… and substantially increasing… public and private research and development spending.” The article details a direct reduction in public R&D spending, with “$33 million in research funds that can no longer be spent” at the University of Minnesota alone, and delays in over 110 NIH proposal applications. This represents a clear setback for this target.
4. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.b: “Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines…” While broader than just vaccines, this target’s emphasis on supporting health-related R&D is relevant. The cuts to NIH and CDC funds, and specifically to the KARE program for aging research, directly reduce support for research intended to “enhance health, lengthen life or reduce illness.”
5. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.3: “Mobilize additional financial resources… from multiple sources.” The article illustrates a failure in this mobilization, showing a withdrawal of financial resources from a primary source (the federal government) for state-level educational institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 & 10 (Education and Inequality):
   • Mentioned: The article provides demographic data for St. Catherine University: “52% of students identifying as BIPOC, 43% first-generation college students and 44% are Pell eligible.” This data serves as a baseline to measure the impact of funding cuts on these specific groups.
   • Mentioned: The total value of federal grants “stripped” from St. Kate’s is over “$2.4 million,” which is a direct quantitative indicator of lost support for these students.
   • Mentioned: The article notes that “international student enrollment may have dipped slightly,” which can be used as an indicator for access to education for non-resident students.
2. For SDG 9 & 3 (Innovation and Health):
   • Mentioned: The number of terminated or suspended federally funded research awards at the University of Minnesota: “101.”
   • Mentioned: The total monetary value of the unexpended balance from these awards: “over $33 million.”
   • Mentioned: The number of delayed proposal applications to the NIH: “over 110.”
   • Implied: The percentage of affected funds by college, such as “25% of affected funds in the School of Public Health,” can be used as an indicator to measure the impact on specific research areas like health.
3. For SDG 17 (Partnerships):
   • Mentioned: The total amount of federal funds canceled across Minnesota: “$157 million.”
   • Mentioned: The total amount of federal funds considered “at risk” in Minnesota: “$491 million.” These figures are direct indicators of the scale of the financial disruption and the breakdown in the federal-state partnership.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: dl-online.com