NIH Cuts Funding for Research Overhead, Universities Left Scrambling
The Trump administration has delivered another setback to the American higher education system, which Republicans have long criticized for producing graduates with a liberal mindset.
TroibNews 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) made a significant decision late Friday to reduce grants supporting research institutions, a move that could have profound implications for American higher education as universities seek ways to bridge the financial shortfall.
The NIH, which reported distributing over $35 billion in grants to more than 2,500 institutions during fiscal year 2023, announced a cap on the rate for “indirect funding” at 15 percent. This marks a substantial decrease from an average of nearly 30 percent, with some institutions even charging rates exceeding 60 percent.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead,” the directive states.
Effective Monday, this change is expected to result in approximately $4 billion in savings annually, according to the NIH.
This action represents another challenge to the American higher education system under the Trump administration, which has faced accusations from Republicans of fostering a progressive culture that produces largely liberal graduates.
For instance, Harvard University had an indirect cost rate of 69 percent, as noted in an NIH post on X, and will need to find ways to cover a 54 percentage point deficit. Yale University’s previous rate was 67.5 percent, while John Hopkins' stood at 63.7 percent.
“President Trump is doing away with Liberal DEI Deans’ slush fund,” wrote Katie Miller, communications director at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and spouse of top White House aide Stephen Miller, on X.
However, the institutions mentioned by the NIH are among the wealthiest globally, boasting massive endowments and extensive fundraising efforts. Sen. Patty Murray, the leading Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, criticized the directive as “illegal,” arguing that it would impose “an indiscriminate funding cut for research institutions across the country that will be nothing short of catastrophic.”
“These resources go toward things like construction, utility costs, and lab operation — if NIH cuts off this support, the research will come to a halt,” Murray stated. “This funding helps produce breakthroughs that change patients’ lives, prepare us for pandemics and other health threats, and ensure the U.S. continues to be the global leader in biomedical research.”
In their response, leaders from the Association of American Medical Colleges called the decision "harmful and counterproductive," expressing concerns that it would "diminish the nation’s research capacity" and called on the Trump administration to reverse the decision.
"Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out," they warned. "Researchers and staff will lose their jobs."
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
The NIH, which reported distributing over $35 billion in grants to more than 2,500 institutions during fiscal year 2023, announced a cap on the rate for “indirect funding” at 15 percent. This marks a substantial decrease from an average of nearly 30 percent, with some institutions even charging rates exceeding 60 percent.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead,” the directive states.
Effective Monday, this change is expected to result in approximately $4 billion in savings annually, according to the NIH.
This action represents another challenge to the American higher education system under the Trump administration, which has faced accusations from Republicans of fostering a progressive culture that produces largely liberal graduates.
For instance, Harvard University had an indirect cost rate of 69 percent, as noted in an NIH post on X, and will need to find ways to cover a 54 percentage point deficit. Yale University’s previous rate was 67.5 percent, while John Hopkins' stood at 63.7 percent.
“President Trump is doing away with Liberal DEI Deans’ slush fund,” wrote Katie Miller, communications director at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and spouse of top White House aide Stephen Miller, on X.
However, the institutions mentioned by the NIH are among the wealthiest globally, boasting massive endowments and extensive fundraising efforts. Sen. Patty Murray, the leading Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, criticized the directive as “illegal,” arguing that it would impose “an indiscriminate funding cut for research institutions across the country that will be nothing short of catastrophic.”
“These resources go toward things like construction, utility costs, and lab operation — if NIH cuts off this support, the research will come to a halt,” Murray stated. “This funding helps produce breakthroughs that change patients’ lives, prepare us for pandemics and other health threats, and ensure the U.S. continues to be the global leader in biomedical research.”
In their response, leaders from the Association of American Medical Colleges called the decision "harmful and counterproductive," expressing concerns that it would "diminish the nation’s research capacity" and called on the Trump administration to reverse the decision.
"Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out," they warned. "Researchers and staff will lose their jobs."
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
