The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest funder of scientific research, supporting the majority of the biomedical research going on in the United States. In 2023 alone, the NIH spent more than $35 billion on almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 institutions. Unfortunately, this lifeline for innovation is now under a significant threat.
On February 7th, less than a month into his administration, Donald Trump passed a cut that would cap all “indirect funding” from the NIH at 15%. The dramatic reduction, part of what the administration calls a $4 billion dollar “savings plan,” has created significant controversy and backlash from the scientific and medical communities. The consequences have followed quickly. On February 16th, about 1,165 employees have been terminated by the Trump administration at the NIH. This accounts for 6% of the 20,000 people currently employed by the NIH. Despite Trump’s claims to create more jobs, his administration has instead sparked widespread fear, leaving thousands of researchers and staff at risk of losing their livelihoods.
What are Indirect Costs?
Of the NIH’s 2023 budget, $26 billion went to direct research and $9 billion went to indirect costs. Indirect costs refer to the expenses that aren’t directly attributable to a specific research project but are necessary for the general operation of the institution. This money may go to maintenance of research facilities (e.g., electricity and water) and salaries for administrative staff (e.g., HR services and grant administrators). Without these funds, institutions cannot sustain the infrastructure needed to conduct research. With the indirect rate being capped at 15%, institutions are forced to make severe administrative cuts. This will force researchers to do the administrative work themselves, preventing significant research from being conducted at the same time.
Direct Consequences to NIH Cuts
As Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy told reporters, “You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to understand that in order to conduct medical research institutions need laboratories in clinical trials, they need specialized staff and technology support just as any of our workplaces do.”
Harvard president Alan Garber warned, “The discovery of new treatments would slow, opportunities to train the next generation of scientific leaders would shrink, and our nation’s science and engineering prowess would be severely compromised.”
At the University of Colorado Anschutz’s Cancer Center, Cathy Bradley has dedicated her life to researching and fighting cancer. Federal funding research has supported her research, which oversees lifesaving treatment for an illness that killed 8,411 Coloradans in 2023. If the cut happens, Bradley said that her three-campus partnership would lose $8 million annually in funding for indirect costs. To pay for the $8 million, the Colorado School of Public Health would have to raise over $200 million in endowment funding. In 2024, the Anschutz Medical Campus brought in more than $300 million in NIH grants. If the lower NIH rates go through, the university will only receive $36 million. The campus also serves more than 2 million adult and pediatric patients yearly.
In one of the lawsuits filed to block the policy, they mention, “Effectively halting research to cure and treat human disease will directly impact the well-being of the Plaintiff states’ citizens, who are the beneficiaries of research creating treatments, such as modern gene editing, vaccines such as flu vaccines, and cures for diseases like cancer, infectious diseases, and addiction.” The cuts will impede the development of new drugs, some of which are on the market because of NIH funding, like GLP-1 inhibitors in Ozempic.
Rep. Rosa De Lauro of Connecticut wrote, “In the midst of a severe flu season, and as a potentially deadly avian flu outbreak threatens to raise the stakes for public health even further, firing thousands of highly skilled workers – including doctors – will make Americans sicker, weaker and more vulnerable to avoidable death.”
A Global Leadership Embarrassment
America is a biomedical superpower. Our global competition is laughing at us. The cap on indirect costs will not only damage public health but also threaten America’s leadership in biomedical research.
Former dean of Harvard Medical School Jeffrey Flier posted on X, “A sane government would never do this.” MIT stands to lose $30 to $35 million dollars under these changes. Northwestern has also expressed concerns about proposed increases to the endowment tax.
Elon Musk leads the U.S. DOGE Service, whose primary focus is on slashing government spending. The office said that NIH’s new policy would save billions and praised the NIH for such an amazing job. Musk wrote in his own post, “Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead”? However, experts argue that indirect costs aren’t “rip-offs,” rather they’re essential investments in supporting research.
To make matters worse, we see this trickle-down effect, especially with postdocs. With so much funding uncertainty, so many years of education feel like a waste.
Legislative Responses to the NIH Cuts
Fortunately, the federal court has blocked the policy. Judge Angel Kelley halted the policy in response to two lawsuits that claimed that the policy violated federal law. The first lawsuit was filed by a total of 22 states. Another was filed on February 10th by public health schools in Boston and New York hospitals.
The stakes of this decision cannot be overstated. We’re in an utterly fragile position. Without funding for indirect costs, our research infrastructure will crumble and progress in responding to public health crises will weaken.