Author: Ben Gregson

“5 under-the-radar pieces of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” that may impact your life,” by Herb Scribner. The story covers IMPA’s report on Redistribution in Reverse: The Macroeconomics of the OBBB.

“The Big, Beautiful Bill is almost law. Will it deliver?” by Sam Sutton. The story covers IMPA’s report on Redistribution in Reverse: The Macroeconomics of the OBBB.

“Very often, the private sector ends up underinvesting in these fundamental basic research areas,” says Vasudeva Ramaswamy, an economist at American University.

“NIH grant terminations under Trump have totaled at least $1.8 billion, analysis finds,” by Anil Oza The piece includes IMPA’s report on the Macroeconomic Costs of Cutting Federal Funding for Scientific Research.

“Taxing the rich to pay for Trump priorities wouldn’t slow economic growth,” by Eric Galatas. The story covers IMPA’s report on Assessing the Effects of Keeping Top Individual Income Tax Rates Low.

“Trump’s College Research Cuts Could Trim GDP By At Least 3.8%, Study Finds,” by Michael T. Neitzel. The brief also garnered a mention in this separate article on the same day. Both pieces cover IMPA’s report on the Macroeconomic Costs of Cutting Federal Funding for Scientific Research.

“Trump’s Cuts to Science Funding Could Hurt U.S. Economy,” Study Shows, by Ben Casselman.

This mention of IMPA’s recent brief is behind a paywall. The piece covers IMPA’s report on the Macroeconomic Costs of Cutting Federal Funding for Scientific Research.

IMPA summarized its brief showing that raising the top marginal income tax rate could reduce inequality and raise revenue without slowing economic growth on INEQUALITY.org.

IMPA research finds that economic growth is not much affected by the top marginal income tax rate, as is often presumed, while the top rate is a significant driver of government revenue and inequality.