I had a couple conversations today which turned on the role of private equity in today’s economy and the importance of business models that align with a company’s purpose. Both of them were relevant to our soon to be completed drive for the TPM Journalism Fund. In the new episode of the TPM Social Club podcast Joe Ragazzo and TPM head of product Derick Dirmaier talk about the impact of private equity on sports. This involves caricatures of course but I think of Venture Capital and Private Equity as sort of twin players, often with perverse and deleterious effects on the lives of companies, the first on the ascent of the rocket, the second on the descent. Both have had deeply negative impacts on the news and journalism industry. In both cases that’s because scale and market dominance don’t play the same role in the news business as they do for social media or the production of widgets and many other kinds of business. Most require being rooted in the lives of particular communities, often geographical communities, or having a more than transactional relationship with an audience.

Let us say that TPM Readers are almost unimaginably over-represented in the country’s colleges and universities, and perhaps even more so in the research arms, which are of course primarily in the sciences and medical research fields. So we’re getting quite a lot of you writing in with various details and context for this new NIH directive that went into effect overnight which drastically reduces federal support for university research arms and academic medical centers. I’m going to be publishing more of them but I wanted to start with this one from TPM Reader RM …

The Post has a good piece up about all the hidden ways the Trump White House is trying to break different parts of the government — through non-payment of grants (different from cancelations), arbitrary limits on purchase authority, etc. They note something very similar to the funds-ghosting I’ve reported on at the National Institutes of Health, only here with the EPA.

Here’s the key passage that TPM Reader SS flagged to my attention …

Major news out of NIH tonight, which I’m told will have a dramatic impact on all academic medical centers and research universities generally. Anyone familiar with the sciences knows that scientists bring in grant money for various research projects and the grant money is split between the grantee, who might be a researcher or a lab, etc., and the host institution. So the hospital or the university, etc. The new directive limits what goes to the institution for “indirect costs” to 15%. I don’t know this area well enough to get into the precise rationales for which rates make the most sense in the abstract. But that’s not really the point. From what I can tell this directive slashes the kind of government research funding available to these institution by as much as 60% or 70%. (I want to keep those percentages vague because this isn’t my area but I think that captures at least the general scale.) So these sound like huge budget shortfalls for academic research institutions, academic medical centers and so forth. And this is above and beyond the “freezes” that are still mostly in effect, albeit in many cases unofficially.

Like many others, I continue to be baffled and unnerved at how transactions that seem like definitional signs of a bubble (or possibly even fraud) are now so thoroughly baked into the very structure of the AI industry. This morning, Semafor’s Liz Hoffman starts a piece with this overview: “OpenAI and Anthropic need to borrow a lot of money but they don’t have profits or a track record of creditworthiness. Enter Jensen Huang.”

It goes on from there …