Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Here we go again
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* First, some background from NPR…
The National Institutes of Health is capping an important kind of funding for medical research at universities, medical schools, research hospitals and other scientific institutions.
In the latest step by the Trump administration affecting scientific research, the NIH says the agency is limiting funding for “indirect costs” to 15% of grants. That’s far below what many institutions have been getting to maintain buildings and equipment and pay support staff and other overhead expenses. For example, Harvard receives 68% and Yale gets 67%, according to the NIH.
The NIH says the new policy, which marks a major change in how the agency funds research, is more in line what private foundations pay.
“Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations,” the NIH says in a notification released Friday announcing the change. […]
The NIH says the change will apply to both current and future grants, and even suggests the new policy would apply retroactively. But in response to questions Saturday, the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees NIH, told NPR that while HHS does “have the authority to make these changes retrospective for current grants and require grantees to return the excess overhead they have previously received,” officials have “currently chosen not to do so to ease the implementation of the new rate.” But “we will continue to assess this policy choice and whether it is in the best interest of the American taxpayer.”
* A biomedicine program manager from Boston University explained how each state could be affected…
* Attorney General Kwame Raoul and others filled for injunctive relief this morning…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general today to stop the Trump administration from unlawfully cutting Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding that supports cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country.
The coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to unilaterally cut “indirect cost” reimbursements at every research institution throughout the country. These reimbursements cover necessary expenses to facilitate biomedical research, including lab, faculty, safety protocol, data processing and utility costs.
“The funds the Trump administration is proposing to cut support lifesaving medical research,” Raoul said. “The impact of these illegal cuts would be enormous in Illinois, harming the ability of our universities and research institutions to achieve breakthrough discoveries that make life better for us all. This recklessness will hurt public health and put America’s status as a world-leading innovator at serious risk.” […]
Raoul and the attorneys general assert that the move violates federal law, including a directive Congress passed during President Trump’s first term to fend off an earlier proposal he made to drastically cut research reimbursements. That statutory language specifically prohibits the NIH from requiring categorial and indiscriminate changes to indirect cost reimbursements. […]
The impact of the cuts would be extensive in Illinois, as nearly every state university receives NIH funding for clinical trials and research. It would cost the University of Illinois System alone approximately $67 million annually. It would also mean significant cuts to other public universities, including $4.5 million to the Southern Illinois University System.
* Judge John McConnell Jr. granted the injunction this afternoon…
These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO. In response to he Defendants’ arguments, they can request targeted relief from the TRO from this Court where they can show a specific instance where they are acting in compliance with this Order but otherwise withholding funds due to specific authority.
Therefore, consistent with the United States Constitution, United States statutes, United States Supreme Court precedent, and the TRO, the Defendants are hereby further ORDERED as follows:
1. The Defendants must immediately restore frozen funding during the pendency of the TRO until the Court hears and decides the Preliminary Injunction request.
2. The Defendants must immediately end any federal funding pause during the pendency of the TRO.
3. The Defendants must immediately take every step necessary to effectuate the TRO, including clearing any administrative, operational, or technical hurdles to implementation.
4. The Defendants must comply with the plain text of the TRO not to pause
any funds based on pronouncements pausing funding incorporated into the OMB Directive, like Section 7(a) of the Unleashing Executive Order, and the OMB Unleashing Guidance. The TRO requirements include any pause or freeze included in the Unleashing Guidance.5. The Defendants must immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act. The directives in OMB M-25-11 are included in the TRO.
6. The Defendants must resume the funding of institutes and other agencies of the Defendants (for example the National Institute for Health) that are included in the scope of the Court’s TRO.
* More…
* Forbes | NIH Cuts Back Its Payment Of Indirect Costs For University Research: Indirect costs involve a myriad of necessary overhead expenses that universities take on when they conduct research. They are typically divided into two categories – “facilities” and “administration” — and include items like maintenance of equipment, facility upgrades, the operation of labs, depreciation, employment of support staff, accounting, research compliance, legal expenses, and the salaries of key administrators in charge of an institution’s research enterprise.
* ARS Technica | National Institutes of Health radically cuts support to universities: 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.
* STAT | Here’s how big a hit some universities may take if NIH slashes support for indirect research costs: “If this goes into action on Monday, it actually, literally has the ability of stopping and grinding research to a halt — soon,” said Robert Winn, the director of the Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center at Virginia Commonwealth University. “How does an institution now climb out of a multimillion-dollar hole? Tens of millions. How does that just happen, overnight?”
posted by Isabel Miller
Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 1:35 pm
Previous Post: Here we go again
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
NIH “indirect costs” story. [Sarcam font partially on] University Administrators: “The Horror. The Horror.”
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:00 pm
The indirect cost issue is another example of “cost cutters” not understanding what they are cutting.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:03 pm
Now to see if these orders can be enforced. The authoritarian MAGA crew wants to go all out on ripping up the constitution.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:16 pm
===NIH “indirect costs” story. [Sarcam font partially on] University Administrators: “The Horror. The Horror.”
Indirect costs are designed so that there is one rate at an institution so you do not have to itemize and then negotiate them for every grant. They include some admin, but most go to things like energy, human subjects review, Title IX enforcement, civil rights enforcement, maintaining buildings and equipment (few if any grants allow for major construction unless it special construction like a nuke reactor), Etc.
One could argue that some of the universities (looking at Yale and Harvard) overdue it, but you cannot do the research without the infrastructure. Notice also, three of the above examples are Congressionally required activities for universities.There are also within the negotiated rates caps on four distinct kinds of spending including administration.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:18 pm
Soybean farmers love them some “tough love” from orange daddy.
First time, his tariffs caused prices to drop to the point it cost more to store beans than what they were selling, now cuts are cutting off major trade opportunities.
…and if they could, they’d vote for him again.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:20 pm
Like most things, changes to the IDC rate could be done in a thoughtful way, limiting what the fed will pay for, but that would require work, effort, and addressing the facts, as opposed to taking an axe to it arbitrarily, which the administration prefers to do.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:26 pm
Indirect cost rates are negotiated with OMB. They are built into the grant agreements, which are contracts protected by law.
As others have noted, indirect costs are vital. Universities have researchers, but they often lack the lab facilities required to perform the work the federal government hires them to do. The feds don’t want to construct new labs every time a university needs one, so indirect costs provide the ongoing payments to allow the universities to build new, modern facilities and maintain them and the equipment.
The tell that this was all BS was comparing indirect cost rates to endowments. Apples and bowling balls. If the federal government wants health research to continue, the current system is still the best way to do that. Otherwise we’re going to need lots of new federal research labs.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:37 pm
===which are contracts protected by law===
Exactly. Which is another reason why the courts are right to involve themselves.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:41 pm
Seeing the judge raise criminal contempt sanctions already is good but I’m not sure without looking at other documents whether it was intended to map onto the (unlawful attempt at) indirect cost reduction.
This new order is attached to the first suit on funding freezes. The document on indirect costs filed today is a new stand-alone suit and I don’t know what states’ motion to enforce the TRO looks like (if it cites to the indirect cost decree as evidence of violation).
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:44 pm
(I mean, it should! but I don’t know if it does and don’t want to pay PACER to find out)
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:45 pm
===The tell that this was all BS was comparing indirect cost rates to endowments.
Exactly, endowments also have requirements how they must be spent and may preclude some of the spending here as well. It’s not just a slush fund. It’s invested and you use proceeds then for ongoing costs.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:55 pm
“Indirect costs are designed … .” In theory, granted.
Reality? Different. State agency made grants to state universities. Department grant awarded to asked university administration for “actual costs” … was told “not possible” … . Yet when another state agency gave same department a federal grant =that did not pay indirects= … actual costs were produced.
Oh, school’s Dean? Know as “the king of indirects” which (s)he used to plug budget holes.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:58 pm
For years the feds have paid Human Service providers 10% indirect. it was raised to 15% just months ago.
(though you could go thru the process of getting and Indirect cost rate).
Comment by Proud Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 2:59 pm
Another day, another lawsuit. Saw VP Vance invoked Andrew Jackson over the weekend, basically saying “We hear the courts, but good luck to them actually enforcing their rulings.” Less than a month into this, and I’m already so tired.
Comment by TreeFiddy Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:06 pm
===good luck to them actually enforcing their rulings===
https://www.usmarshals.gov/
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:09 pm
==Less than a month into this, and I’m already so tired.==
Same. This presidency is worse than I could have ever imagined and I imagined some very bad things.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:10 pm
====Same. This presidency is worse than I could have ever imagined and I imagined some very bad things.
High expectations will get you every time. We haven’t even begun to get to where I thought/think we might get to.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:11 pm
Quick clarification. The Rhode Island judge’s ruling did not deal with the indirect rate lawsuit. It was in response to the Trump Administration still keeping federal grant funds “frozen,” when they had been ordered not to. Basically, it is saying unfreeze 100% or face criminal contempt charges. The indirect rate injunction has yet to be ruled on.
Comment by SITUOP Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:14 pm
Given that they have threatened to ignore court orders I’m not confident any of this matters. We’re about 30 seconds away from a full blown constitutional crisis in my opinion.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:17 pm
Another thing to note here is that Congress has considered acting on this before and choose not to act and specifically forbid in legislation changing the process in the last go around. The law forbids changing the rate process by the executive branch.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:23 pm
===State agency made grants to state universities.===
Stop. We’re discussing federal grants from the National Institutes for Health. Not all grants are the same.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:30 pm
==The law forbids changing the rate process by the executive branch.==
It also requires someone to enforce it. The CFPB and USAID were created through laws passed by Congress, and we’ve seen what has happened to them in the past month.
Comment by supplied_demand Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:35 pm
===Stop.===
They were pass-through federal grants. Remember “Single Points of Contact” ????
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:36 pm
===It also requires someone to enforce it. The CFPB and USAID were created through laws passed by Congress, and we’ve seen what has happened to them in the past month.
All true, but that doesn’t change the law. Part of fighting authoritarian actions is backing the rule of law even if it might fail. There will need to be additional strategies but acknowledgement of the law is essential.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:39 pm
===They were pass-through federal grants. Remember “Single Points of Contact” ????
That’s not NIH money though. The NIH are competitive to the specific project.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:46 pm
@Rich -
I wish I had your confidence that these court orders will be enforced.
The Marshal’s service has no confirmed head at the moment and I expect Trump’s people to put someone corrupt in charge of it.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 3:50 pm
I wish more people at universities understood that this is absolutely not the time to grind their axes about departments and administrators who make decisions they don’t like.
We all have those axes.
The people pillaging higher ed are counting on the indirect-cost-malcontents, of which each school has plenty, to do their work for them.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:04 pm
===We all have those axes.
Agreed as long as I can still complain about Harvard and Yale.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:10 pm
look, we all have our little treats that give meaning to life.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:16 pm
===The people pillaging higher ed are counting on the indirect-cost-malcontents, of which each school has plenty, to do their work for them.===
We have always had and always will have malcontents. However, this unlawful abrogation of contract terms is how this Administration negotiates. He stakes out a ridiculous position as his starting point (see Gaza redevelopment, tariffs, etc.) to then make the other side move way further to meet him half way.
My advice for higher ed is, don’t negotiate with terrorists. If the federal government wants clinical trials and cancer research to continue, let’s continue. If not, well, it was nice having a health system that was the envy of the world, but wealthy people need tax cuts and the voters have spoken.
But it’s worth noting that Republicans, even Trump supporters, get cancer too.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:20 pm
This is the kind of thing that might sound in abstract appealing to many Republicans but then you read how the University of Alabama at Birmingham is the single largest employer in the state and takes in over $1 billion in NIH funding every year, and suddenly at least Republican Senators get way less interested in doing this.
Comment by ZC Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:31 pm
Early in my career, I had the privilege of working for the late, great Congressman John Edward Porter (R-10th, IL). When he became Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education — which oversees funding for the NIH — Rep. Porter announced, and subsequently realized, an ambitious goal: to double NIH funding to expand grant-supported biomedical research and find treatments and cures for the deadly diseases that afflict humankind. As a staffer and as someone who greatly admired his thoughtful leadership, I am deeply saddened to see this mindless assault on our nation’s research community — but am glad that John isn’t around to see it.
Comment by Chitowndrummer Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:32 pm
===University of Alabama at Birmingham===
I don’t think Tommy Tuberville knows of any other university in Alabama that isn’t in Tuscaloosa.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:37 pm
Whoops, that should be Auburn, but since they don’t play UAB…same difference.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 4:41 pm
This will hurt the public health effort for at least a decade,
Comment by eot1 Monday, Feb 10, 25 @ 8:17 pm