NIH

Judge: You can’t ban DEI grants without bothering to define DEI

dei, lawsuit, NIH, Policy, Science, science funding, Trump / Mike M. / July 4, 2025

Separately, Trump v. Casa blocked the use of a national injunction against illegal activity. So, while the government’s actions have been determined to be illegal, Young can only protect the people who were parties to this suit. Anyone who lost a grant but wasn’t a member of any of the parties involved, or based in any of the states that sued, remains on their own.

Those issues aside, the ruling largely focuses on whether the termination of grants violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how the executive branch handles decision- and rule-making. Specifically, it requires that any decisions of this sort cannot be “arbitrary and capricious.” And, Young concludes that the government hasn’t cleared that bar.

Arbitrary and capricious

The grant cancellations, Young concludes, “Arise from the NIH’s newly minted war against undefined concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion and gender identity, that has expanded to include vaccine hesitancy, COVID, influencing public opinion and climate change.” The “undefined” aspect plays a key part in his reasoning. Referring to DEI, he writes, “No one has ever defined it to this Court—and this Court has asked multiple times.” It’s not defined in Trump’s executive order that launched the “newly minted war,” and Young found that administrators within the NIH issued multiple documents that attempted to define it, not all of which were consistent with each other, and in some cases seemed to use circular reasoning.

He also noted that the officials who sent these memos had a tendency to resign shortly afterward, writing, “it is not lost on the Court that oftentimes people vote with their feet.”

As a result, the NIH staff had no solid guidance for determining whether a given grant violated the new anti-DEI policy, or how that might be weighed against the scientific merit of the grant. So, how were they to identify which grants needed to be terminated? The evidence revealed at trial indicates that they didn’t need to make those decisions; DOGE made them for the NIH. In one case, an NIH official approved a list of grants to terminate received from DOGE only two minutes after it showed up in his inbox.

Judge: You can’t ban DEI grants without bothering to define DEI Read More »

RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions

doe, health, NASA, Nature, NIH, USDA / Paul Patrick / July 2, 2025

The move comes after HHS Secretary and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on a May 27 podcast that prestigious medical journals are “corrupt.”

“We’re probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they’re all corrupt,” he said. He accused the journals collectively of being a “vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda.” He went on to say that “unless these journals change dramatically,” the federal government would “stop NIH scientists from publishing there” and create “in-house” journals instead.

Kennedy’s criticism largely stems from his belief that modern medicine and mainstream science are part of a global conspiracy to generate pharmaceutical profits. Kennedy is a germ-theory denier who believes people can maintain their health not by relying on evidence-based medicine, such as vaccines, but by clean living and eating—a loose concept called “terrain theory.”

Access to top scientific and medical journals is essential for federal scientists to keep up to date with their fields and publicize high-impact results. One NIH employee added to Nature news that it “suppresses our scientific freedom, to pursue information where it is present.”

RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions Read More »

“Culture of fear and suppression”: NIH staff speak out against Trump admin

Bethesda Declaration, Great Barrington Declaration, health, NIH, Policy / Kris Guyer / June 9, 2025

“A risk”

Backlash to the idea was quick, with the World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus immediately calling it “unethical.”

“Allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It’s not an option,” Tedros said in a news briefing at the time.

In the letter on Monday, NIH researchers speak directly to Bhattacharya, writing, “We hope you will welcome this dissent, which we modeled after your Great Barrington Declaration.” They titled the letter “The Bethesda Declaration,” named after the NIH’s location in Maryland.

“Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up,” Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH’s National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in a statement. “If we don’t speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe. If we don’t speak up, we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value.”

The organization leading the NIH dissent, Stand Up For Science, published a second letter on Monday in support of the Bethesda Declaration. The support letter is signed by over a dozen Nobel laureates and former NIH directors Jeremy Berg and Joshua Gordon.

Tomorrow, Bhattacharya will testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal for the NIH, which proposes a cut of about 40 percent to the agency’s $48 billion budget.

“Culture of fear and suppression”: NIH staff speak out against Trump admin Read More »

Trump’s 2026 budget proposal: Crippling cuts for science across the board

budget, budget proposal, doe, interior, NIH, NOAA, NSF, Science, science funding, trump administration / Rejus Almole / May 3, 2025

Budget document derides research and science-based policy as “woke,” “scams.”

On Friday, the US Office of Management and Budget sent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, an outline of what to expect from the Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal. As expected, the budget includes widespread cuts, affecting nearly every branch of the federal government.

In keeping with the administration’s attacks on research agencies and the places research gets done, research funding will be taking an enormous hit, with the National Institutes of Health taking a 40 percent cut and the National Science Foundation losing 55 percent of its 2025 budget. But the budget goes well beyond those highlighted items, with nearly every place science gets done or funded targeted for cuts.

Perhaps even more shocking is the language used to justify the cuts, which reads more like a partisan rant than a serious budget document.

Health cuts

Having a secretary of Health and Human Services who doesn’t believe in germ theory is not likely to do good things for US health programs, and the proposed budget will only make matters worse. Kennedy’s planned MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) program would be launched with half a billion in funds, but nearly everything else would take a cut.

The CDC would lose about $3.6 billion from its current budget of $9.6 billion, primarily due to the shuttering of a number of divisions within it: the National Center for Chronic Diseases Prevention and Health Promotion, the National Center for Environmental Health, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and the Global Health Center and its division of Public Health Preparedness and Response. The duties of those offices are, according to the budget document, “duplicative, DEI, or simply unnecessary.”

Another big hit to HHS comes from the termination of a $4 billion program that helps low-income families cover energy costs. The OMB suggests that these costs will get lower due to expanded energy production and, anyway, the states should be paying for it. Shifting financial burdens to states is a general theme of the document, an approach that will ultimately hit the poorest states hardest, even though these had very high percentages of Trump voters.

The document also says that “This Administration is committed to combatting the scourge of deadly drugs that have ravaged American communities,” while cutting a billion dollars from substance abuse programs within HHS.

But the headline cuts come from the National Institutes of Health, the single largest source of scientific funding in the world. NIH would see its current $48 billion budget chopped by $18 billion and its 27 individual institutes consolidated down to just five. This would result in vast cutbacks to US biomedical research, which is currently acknowledged to be world-leading. Combined with planned cuts to grant overheads, it will cause most research institutions to shrink, and some less well-funded universities may be forced to close facilities.

The justification for the cuts is little more than a partisan rant: “NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.” The text then implies that the broken trust is primarily the product of failing to promote the idea that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab, even though there’s no scientific evidence to indicate that it had.

Climate research hit

The National Science Foundation funds much of the US’s fundamental science research, like physics and astronomy. Earlier reporting that it would see a 56 percent cut to its budget was confirmed. “The Budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science.” Funding would be maintained for AI and quantum computing. All funding for encouraging minority participation in the sciences will also be terminated. The budget was released on the same day that the NSF announced it was joining other science agencies in standardizing on paying 15 percent of its grants’ value for maintaining facilities and providing services to researchers, a cut that would further the financial damage to research institutions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would see $1.3 billion of its $6.6 billion budget cut, with the primary target being its climate change work. In fact, the budget for NOAA’s weather satellites will be cut to prevent them from including instruments that would make “unnecessary climate measurements.” Apparently, the Administration doesn’t want anyone to be exposed to data that might challenge its narrative that climate change is a scam.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology would lose $350 million for similar reasons. “NIST has long funded awards for the development of curricula that advance a radical climate agenda,” the document suggests, before going on to say that the Institute’s Circular Economy Program, which promotes the efficient reuse of industrial materials, “pushes environmental alarmism.”

The Department of Energy is seeing a $1.1 billion hit to its science budget, “eliminating funding for Green New Scam interests and climate change-related activities.” The DOE will also take hits to policy programs focused on climate change, including $15 billion in cuts to renewable energy and carbon capture spending. Separately, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will also take a $2.6 billion hit. Over at the Department of the Interior, the US Geological Survey would see its renewable energy programs terminated, as well.

Some of the DOE’s other cuts, however, don’t even make sense given the administration’s priorities. The newly renamed Office of Fossil Energy—something that Trump favors—will still take a $270 million hit, and nuclear energy programs will see $400 million in cuts.

This sort of lack of self-awareness shows up several times in the document. In one striking case, an interior program funding water infrastructure improvements is taking a cut that “reduces funding for programs that have nothing to do with building and maintaining water infrastructure, such as habitat restoration.” Apparently, the OMB is unaware that functioning habitats can help provide ecosystem services that can reduce the need for water infrastructure.

Similarly, over at the EPA, they’re boosting programs for clean drinking water by $36 million, while at the same time cutting loans to states for clean water projects by $2.5 billion. “The States should be responsible for funding their own water infrastructure projects,” the OMB declares. Research at the EPA also takes a hit: “The Budget puts an end to unrestrained research grants, radical environmental justice work, woke climate research, and skewed, overly-precautionary modeling that influences regulations—none of which are authorized by law.”

An attack on scientific infrastructure

US science couldn’t flourish without an educational system that funnels talented individuals into graduate programs. So, naturally, funding for those is being targeted as well. This is partially a function of the administration’s intention to eliminate the Department of Education, but there also seems to be a specific focus on programs that target low-income individuals.

For example, the GEAR UP program describes itself as “designed to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.” The OMB document describes it as “a relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education to engage with low-income students and increase access.” It goes on to claim that this is “not the obstacle it was for students of limited means.”

Similarly, the SEOG program funding is “awarded to an undergraduate student who demonstrates exceptional financial need.” In the OMB’s view, colleges and universities “have used [it] to fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success.” Another cut is claimed to eliminate “Equity Assistance Centers that have indoctrinated children.” And “The Budget proposes to end Federal taxpayer dollars being weaponized to indoctrinate new teachers.”

In addition, the federal work-study program, which subsidizes on-campus jobs for needy students, is also getting a billion-dollar cut. Again, the document says that the states can pay for it.

(The education portion also specifically cuts the funding of Howard University, which is both distinct as a federally supported Black university and also notable as being where Kamala Harris got her first degree.)

The end of US leadership

This budget is a recipe for ending the US’s leadership in science. It would do generational damage by forcing labs to shut down, with a corresponding loss of highly trained individuals and one-of-a-kind research materials. At the same time, it will throttle the educational pipeline that could eventually replace those losses. Given that the US is one of the major sources of research funding in the world, if approved, the budget will have global consequences.

To the people within the OMB who prepared the document, these are not losses. The document makes it very clear that they view many instances of scientific thought and evidence-based policy as little more than forms of ideological indoctrination, presumably because the evidence sometimes contradicts what they’d prefer to believe.

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Trump’s 2026 budget proposal: Crippling cuts for science across the board Read More »

Trump admin accused of censoring NIH’s top expert on ultra-processed foods

addiction, censorship, food, health, kevin hall, NIH, research, Science, ultra processed foods / Kris Guyer / April 18, 2025

Hall claims that because of this, aides for Kennedy blocked him from being directly interviewed by New York Times reporters about the study. Instead, Hall was allowed to provide only written responses to the newspaper. However, Hall claims that Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for Kennedy, then downplayed the study’s results to the Times and edited Hall’s written responses and sent them to the reporter without Hall’s consent.

Further, Hall claims he was barred from presenting his research on ultra-processed foods at a conference and was forced to either edit a manuscript he had worked on with outside researchers or remove himself as a co-author.

An HHS spokesperson denied to CBS that Hall was censored or that his written responses to the Times were edited. “Any attempt to paint this as censorship is a deliberate distortion of the facts,” a statement from the HHS said.

In response, Hall wrote to CBS, “I wonder how they define censorship?”

Hall said he had reached out to NIH leadership about his concerns in hopes it all was an “aberration” but never received a response.

“Without any reassurance there wouldn’t be continued censorship or meddling in our research, I felt compelled to accept early retirement to preserve health insurance for my family,” he wrote in the LinkedIn post. “Due to very tight deadlines to make this decision, I don’t yet have plans for my future career.”

Trump admin accused of censoring NIH’s top expert on ultra-processed foods Read More »

RFK Jr.‘s bloodbath at HHS: Blowback grows as losses become clearer

CDC, CMS, fda, health, HHS, NIH, robert f kennedy jr, trump administration / Mike M. / April 3, 2025

Last week, Health Secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the Trump administration would hack off nearly a quarter of employees at the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees critical agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The downsizing includes pushing out about 10,000 full-time employees through early retirements, deferred resignations, and other efforts. Another 10,000 will be laid off in a brutal restructuring, bringing the total HHS workforce from 82,000 to 62,000.

“This will be a painful period,” Kennedy said in a video announcement last week. Early yesterday morning, the pain began.

It begins

At the FDA—which will lose 3,500 employees, about 19 percent of staff—some employees learned they were being laid off from security guards after their badges no longer worked when they showed up to their offices, according to Stat. At CMS—which will lose 300 employees, about 4 percent—laid-off employees were instructed to file any discrimination complaints they may have with Anita Pinder, identified as the director of CMS’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights. However, Pinder died last year, The Washington Post noted.

At the NIH—which is set to lose 1,200 employees, about 6 percent—new director Jay Bhattacharya sent and email to staff saying he would implement new policies “humanely,” while calling the layoffs a “significant reduction.” Five NIH institute directors and at least two other senior leaders have been ousted, in addition to hundreds of lower-level employees. Bhattacharya wrote that the remaining staff will have to find new ways to carry out “key NIH administrative functions, including communications, legislative affairs, procurement, and human resources.”

At CDC—which will lose 2,400 employees, about 18 percent—the cuts slashed employees working in chronic disease prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, tuberculosis, global health, environmental health, occupational safety and health, maternal and child health, birth defects, violence prevention, health equity, communications, and science policy.

Some leaders and workers at the CDC and NIH were reportedly reassigned or offered transfers to work at the Indian Health Services (IHS), an HHS division that provides medical and health services to Native American tribes. The transfers, which could require employees to move to a remote branch, are seen as another way to force workers out.

RFK Jr.‘s bloodbath at HHS: Blowback grows as losses become clearer Read More »

Report: US scientists lost $3 billion in NIH grants since Trump took office

cures, funding, grants, health, NIH, research, Science / Mike M. / March 29, 2025

Since Trump took office on January 20, research funding from the National Institutes of Health has plummeted by more than $3 billion compared with the pace of funding in 2024, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

By this time in March 2024, the NIH had awarded US researchers a total of $1.027 billion for new grants or competitive grant renewals. This year, the figure currently stands at about $400 million. Likewise, funding for renewals of existing grants without competition reached $4.5 billion by this time last year, but has only hit $2 billion this year. Together, this slowdown amounts to a 60 percent drop in grant support for a wide variety of research—from studies on cancer treatments, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, vaccines, mental health, transgender health, and more.

The NIH is the primary source of funding for biomedical research in the US. NIH grants support more than 300,000 scientists at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research organizations across all 50 states.

In the near term, the missing grant money means clinical trials have been abruptly halted, scientific projects are being shelved, supplies can’t be purchased, and experiments can’t be run. But, in the long run, it means a delay in scientific advancements and treatment, which could echo across future generations. With funding in question, academic researchers may be unable to retain staff or train younger scientists.

Report: US scientists lost $3 billion in NIH grants since Trump took office Read More »

“This will be a painful period”: RFK Jr. slashes 24% of US health dept.

CDC, fda, funding, health, HHS, NIH, reductions, research, robert f kennedy jr, Science, trump administration / Mike M. / March 28, 2025

Health Secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is slashing a total of 20,000 jobs across the Department of Health and Human Services—or about 24 percent of the workforce—in a sweeping overhaul said to improve efficiency and save money, Kennedy and the HHS announced Thursday.

Combining workforce losses from early retirement, the “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation deal, and 10,000 positions axed in the reductions and restructuring announced today, HHS will shrink from 82,000 full-time employees to 62,000 under Kennedy and the Trump administration. The HHS’s 28 divisions will be cut down to 15, while five of the department’s 10 regional offices will close.

“This will be a painful period,” Kennedy said in a video announcement posted on social media. Calling the HHS a “sprawling bureaucracy,” Kennedy claimed that the cuts would be aimed at “excess administrators.”

“I want to promise you now that we are going to do more with less,” he said in the video.

Kennedy and HHS said the cuts will save $1.8 billion each year. That’s about 0.027 percent of total federal spending, based on the $6.75 trillion the government spent in 2024, and about 0.06 percent of the $2.8 trillion HHS budget for that year.

The downsizing announced today includes significant cuts to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Cuts upon cuts

The FDA will lose 3,500 employees, which The Wall Street Journal reported was about 19 percent of its staff. HHS did not provide current staff levels at the agency level or percentage cuts. The CDC, which will absorb the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), will lose 2,400 employees (1,400 from CDC and 1,000 from ASPR). The Journal reported that to be about 18 percent of the total workforce. NIH will lose 1,200 employees, about 6 percent of its workers.

“This will be a painful period”: RFK Jr. slashes 24% of US health dept. Read More »

Report: mRNA vaccines are in RFK Jr’s crosshairs; funding in question

grant, health, HHS, mRNA, mRNA vaccines, NIH, rfk jr, robert f kennedy jr, vaccine / Rejus Almole / March 18, 2025

Ars Technica has reached out to the NIH and HHS for comment and will update this story with any new information provided. The agencies did not respond to comment requests from KFF.

Kennedy’s misinformation

Before becoming the top health official in America, Kennedy had long railed against vaccines, becoming one of the world’s most prominent anti-vaccine advocates and most prolific spreaders of misinformation and disinformation about vaccines. A 2019 study found Kennedy was the single leading source of anti-vaccine ads on Facebook. Kennedy subsequently faced bans from YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram for spreading misinformation.

Researchers directly blame Kennedy and the Trump administration for the attack on vaccine research.

“Kennedy’s war on vaccines has started,” the mRNA vaccine researcher in Philadelphia told KFF.

“There will not be any research funded by NIH on mRNA vaccines,” the scientist in New York similar told the outlet. “MAGA people are convinced that these vaccines have killed and maimed tens of thousands of people. It’s not true, but they believe that.”

Kennedy has made various statements against vaccines generally, as well as mRNA vaccines specifically. He falsely claimed the vaccine causes severe harms, including causing neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s. In 2021, during the height of the pandemic, Kennedy petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to revoke the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines and refrain from approving any future COVID-19 vaccines. A study in 2022, meanwhile, estimated that the vaccines had saved more than 3 million lives and prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations.

The NIH’s recent moves aren’t the first sign that Kennedy will use his powerful position to attack mRNA vaccines. Late last month, Bloomberg reported that HHS was considering canceling a $590 million grant to vaccine maker Moderna to develop mRNA vaccines against potential pandemic influenza viruses. That includes the H5N1 virus that is currently devastating US poultry and spreading wildly in dairy cows.

An HHS spokesperson told media at the time that “While it is crucial that the US Department and Health and Human Services support pandemic preparedness, four years of the Biden administration’s failed oversight have made it necessary to review agreements for vaccine production.”

It remains unclear what is happening with that grant review. Moderna declined to comment when Ars reached out for any potential updates Monday.

Report: mRNA vaccines are in RFK Jr’s crosshairs; funding in question Read More »

UMass disbands its entering biomed graduate class over Trump funding chaos

biomedical, funding, graduate programs, grants, health, NIH, research, Trump / Rejus Almole / March 14, 2025

Many schools are now bracing for steep declines in support. At Duke University, administrators have implemented hiring freezes, scaled back research plans, and will cut the number of admitted biomedical PhD students by 23 percent or more, according to reporting by the Associated Press. The school took in $580 million in grants and contracts from the National Institutes of Health last year.

At Vanderbilt University, faculty were sent an email on February 6 instructing them to reduce graduate admissions by half across the board, according to Stat. The outlet also reported that faculty at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health have reduced admissions.

Faculty at the University of Pennsylvania also reported having to rescind admission offers to applicants and were directed to significantly reduce admission rates, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, too, is shrinking its graduate programs, according to the WKOW.com.

Beth Sullivan, who oversees graduate programs at Duke, told the AP that the shrinking classes mean a shrinking pipeline into America’s medical research community, which dominates the world’s health research fields and is a significant force in the country’s economy. “Our next generation of researchers are now poised on the edge of this cliff, not knowing if there’s going to be a bridge that’s going to get them to the other side, or if this is it,” Sullivan said.

“This is a severe blow to science and the training of the next generation of scientists,” Siyuan Wang, a geneticist and cell biologist at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told Nature. “With fewer scientists, there will be less science and innovation that drive societal progress and the improvement of public health.”

This post was updated to correct Rachael Sirianni’s job title.

UMass disbands its entering biomed graduate class over Trump funding chaos Read More »

22 states sue to block new NIH funding policy—court puts it on hold

Grant funding, grants, HHS, indirect costs, lawsuit, NIH, Policy, Science / Kris Guyer / February 10, 2025

Regardless of what else they might be doing, the indirect costs pay for various critical campus services, including at research hospitals. Suddenly having that amount slashed would create a major budgetary shortfall that will be hard to cover without shutting programs down.

The resulting damage to research campuses in their states was one of the harms cited by the states that joined the suit as part of their effort to establish standing. The other was the harm caused by the general slowdown in biomedical research that the policy will trigger, which the states argue will delay the availability of treatments for their citizens.

The states taking part include most of those that were won by Kamala Harris in 2024, as well as states that voted for Trump but currently have Democratic governors and attorneys general: Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Notably, the suit only seeks relief from the altered NIH policy for institutions located in those states; they’re essentially leaving states controlled by Republicans to suffer the damages caused by the new policy.

Allegations and backup allegations

The states allege that the new NIH policy, by applying to all grants in progress, is equivalent to rewriting a contract. It cites an earlier legal decision that determined that “Once the [Notice of Award] is signed or money is drawn, the [Notice of Award] and the grant terms are binding on the grantee and the government.” Beyond that, the states argue the policy violates two separate pieces of legislation.

The first is the Administrative Procedures Act, which describes the processes that agencies need to follow when they formulate formal rules to translate legislation into implementations. Among other things, this prevents agencies from formulating rules that are “arbitrary and capricious.” It argues that, by including audits and negotiations in the process of setting them, the current individualized indirect rates are anything but.

By contrast, the states argue, there’s no significant foundation for the 15 percent indirect rate. “The Rate Change Notice is arbitrary and capricious in, among other ways, its failure to articulate the bases for the categorical rate cap of 15 percent,” the suit alleges, “its failure to consider the grant recipients’ reliance on their negotiated rates, and its disregard for the factual findings that formed the bases for the currently operative negotiated indirect cost rates.”

22 states sue to block new NIH funding policy—court puts it on hold Read More »

National Institutes of Health radically cuts support to universities

grants, NIH, research funding, Science / Mike M. / February 7, 2025

Grants paid by the federal government have two components. One covers the direct costs of performing the research, paying for salaries, equipment, and consumables like chemicals or enzymes. But the government also pays what are called indirect costs. These go to the universities and research institutes, covering the costs of providing and maintaining the lab space, heat and electricity, administrative and HR functions, and more.

These indirect costs are negotiated with each research institution and average close to 30 percent of the amount awarded for the research. Some institutions see indirect rates as high as half the value of the grant.

On Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that negotiated rates were ending. Every existing grant, and all those funded in the future, will see the indirect cost rate set to just 15 percent. With no warning and no time to adjust to the change in policy, this will prove catastrophic for the budget of nearly every biomedical research institution.

Cut in half or more

The new policy is described in a supplemental guidance document that modifies the 2024 grant policy statement. The document cites federal regulations that allow the NIH to use a different indirect cost rate from that negotiated with research institutions for “either a class of Federal awards or a single Federal award,” but it has to justify the decision. So, much of the document describes the indirect costs paid by charitable foundations, which tend to be much lower than the rate paid by the NIH.

The new rate of indirect cost reimbursement will be applied to any newly funded grants and retroactively to all existing grants starting with the issuance of this notice. The retroactive nature of this decision may end up being challenged due to the wording of the regulations cited earlier, which also state that “The Federal agency must include, in the notice of funding opportunity, the policies relating to indirect cost rate.” However, even going forward, this will likely severely curtail biomedical research in the US.

National Institutes of Health radically cuts support to universities Read More »