The Heritage Foundation has reported on how the DEI staff was attacked by the National Institute of Health
The Trump administration’s NIH cut on the federal indirect cost burden: A response to Musk, Nixon, and the Heritage Foundation on a social-media platform
The steep cut attempted by the NIH comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has partnered with billionaire and entrepreneur Elon Musk, is taking aim at federal spending and attempting to dismantle agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, which funds disease research, prevention and care globally. The Trump team tried to freeze federal grants in recent months, but federal judges have so far blocked these efforts. Musk said on Friday that wealthy universities getting high rates for indirect costs is “a ripoff” on the social-media platform X, which he owns.
The NIH notice does not mention DEI, and the Heritage Foundation report does not recommend a 15 percent cap specifically. But the federal agency justifies its slashed rate in part by citing a “recent analysis” that found that 67 out of 72 universities were willing to accept research grants with no indirect cost coverage. The Heritage Foundation report appears to have originated from the notice.
A 1 percentage point increase in the federal indirect cost rate is associated with 2.1 additional DEI employees, and a $100 million increase in the total amount of indirect costs received by a university is associated with 15.5 additional DEI employees according to the report.
These rates have risen steadily since the 1960s, in part because of an increasing number of regulations governing laboratory research and how federal funds are spent. The regulations include measures to ensure data privacy, to protect animal welfare and human participants in research studies, and to govern collaborations with researchers in other countries.
‘Direct costs’ paid for by research grants help scientists to buy equipment for specific projects and cover the salaries of lab personnel running them. Research institutions need to pay for air conditioning, electricity, computing resources, hazardous waste disposal, administrative personnel, and many more things.
The NIH referred Nature to its parent agency, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for comments about the lawsuits. It also did not answer questions from Nature about whether it would give more money to researchers for their direct costs to make up for the cap. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said that the agency does not discuss ongoing litigation and declined to answer Nature’s queries about the lawsuits or about scientists’ concerns about the indirect-costs policy.
Researchers say the policy would end the research enterprise. Alondra Nelson wrote on the social-media platform Bluesky that it would lead to a “generational restructuring” of the US research and development environment.
Some research institutions took precautionary measures after the cut on Monday. In an e-mail seen by Nature, the University of Florida in Gainesville, which has an indirect-costs rate of 52.5%, told its staff members that new awards and the projects they fund at the 15% rate would be frozen, because its accounting department has not been authorized to charge the agency the lower rate.
U.S. Circuit Judge Kelley vs. the National Institute of Health: An Indirect Policy That Will Force NIH to Make a 15% Cap
Judge Angel Kelley had orders that temporarily stopped the NIH from making a policy nationwide, and she will hold a hearing on the petitions on February 21.
The attorneys general of the states that were sued are all Democrats and Trump won five of them. Their lawsuit said that the policy would have immediate and devastating effects. “This agency action will result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory programs.”
Matthew Memoli, the acting director, said in the memo that the 15% cap was necessary to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs.
A US judge has blocked a policy that would have, beginning today, slashed billions of dollars of funding annually for US research institutions, including universities and hospitals. The action is in response to lawsuits filed by 22 US states and a coalition of universities earlier today contending that the policy was illegal and would cause “cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease” to “grind to a halt”.
The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH) said it would reduce its indirect cost rate from 15% to 15%. It added that a recent analysis showed that 67 out of 72 universities were willing to accept research grants with no indirect cost coverage. However, the NIH did not answer questions about whether it would give more money to researchers.