Overview provided by 5calls.org:
On February 7, the Trump administration moved to cut billions of dollars in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) by placing an immediate cap on “indirect costs”. Indirect costs include infrastructure, facility maintenance, and staff salaries. These funds ensure that research can happen. This new policy will cause an immediate and massive funding shortfall at research institutions nationwide, forcing layoffs and jeopardizing critical scientific research. This change undermines years of financial planning at universities and research institutions, creating a devastating budget crisis overnight.
NIH and NSF funding doesn’t just support scientific progress, it also helps fuel the U.S. economy. Every dollar of NIH funding generates $2.46 of economic activity. NIH-funded research has led to breakthroughs in treatments for cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and more; NSF is a critical funder for every field of science, particularly computational and cybersecurity research. Cutting indirect costs will mean fewer jobs, fewer discoveries, and a weakened global standing in science and innovation. In 2023 alone, NIH funding supported over 400,000 jobs and generated nearly $93 billion in economic activity. This decision jeopardizes thousands of livelihoods and our nation’s economy.
There are serious questions about whether this decision is even within the administration’s authority. Current policy suggests changes like this must go through Congress.
To learn more about funding for Dravet syndrome research, check out this blog from DSF Scientific Director, Veronica Hood.
9/22/25 Update
From American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy:
The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee met after Labor Day and advanced its Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 funding bill, providing $48 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That proposal keeps NIH funding essentially flat compared to FY25, rejecting the 40% cut proposed in the President’s Budget Request this spring. The House appropriated $555 million to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, a 37% decrease. By comparison, in July the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $48.7 billion for NIH on a bipartisan basis, $700 million above the House’s proposal and $400 million above NIH’s FY25 budget. The Senate bill strongly supports CGT research and manufacturing and would also preserve the current facilities and administrative cost reimbursement structure.
The House Appropriations bill includes a new provision to cap facilities & administration (F&A or indirect) costs at 30% for a subset of private institutions with large endowments. Additionally, language from FY25 that protected the broader F&A system from administrative changes was not pulled through for FY26. In the FY26 report that accompanies the budget bill, House appropriators noted the role of indirect costs in advancing biomedical research but called for changes to the system. ASGCT has advocated against cuts to indirects, leading a sign-on letter with other stakeholders to lay out how that funding is critical to CGT research and development.
Federal funding bills commonly highlight specific programs that appropriators want to prioritize. If signed into law, the House bill would provide $8.2 million for a sickle cell disease (SCD) treatment demonstration program that helps patients access quality, coordinated, comprehensive care through coordinated care teams. The bill encourages NIH to advance clinical research on promising approaches to eradicate SCD, including developing screening technologies and innovative treatments both domestically and globally. ASGCT recently hosted a congressional briefing on SCD that outlined the many access challenges patients face.
On August 21, the Supreme Court ruled in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association to allow the Trump Administration to move forward with cancelling $783 million in NIH grants tied to DEI, gender identity, and COVID-19 research – which had been challenged in the district courts. The ruling stated that grant termination challenges should instead be filed in the Court of Federal Claims rather than federal district courts. In the mixed ruling, the high court left in place the lower court rulings against NIH’s related policy guidance. The decision does not resolve whether the cancellations were legal but means funding can be withheld for now.
Meanwhile, in a separate court ruling, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s freezing of $2 billion in research funding for Harvard was illegal. The administration is expected to appeal.
6/11/25 Update
From American Brain Coalition:
Last week, the Administration continued to release FY 2026 budget documents, including the Congressional Budget Justifications (CJs) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIH’s individual Institutes and Centers (ICs) released on Friday. These supplemental documents further illustrate the risks that deep proposed funding cuts and dangerous policy proposals pose to the future of biomedical research and our nation’s research workforce. A detailed memo on this budget can be found HERE.
The reorganization and consolidation of existing (ICs) at NIH has been proposed without a deliberative process to collect expert stakeholder feedback. Attempts to restructure or reorganize the NIH should be carried out with extensive vetting and opportunities for input from research experts or other affected parties. Instead, the Administration has proposed to consolidate the research portfolios of three tangentially related institutes (NINDS, NEI, and NIDCR) under the umbrella of neuroscience without obvious consideration. Similarly, the proposal to combine NIMH, NIAAA, and NIDA into a new National Institute of Behavioral Health overlooks the complex and distinct nature of brain and behavior research. These consolidations risk being impractical and fail to acknowledge the inextricable relationship between brain function and behavior.
The Administration’s insistence on capping F&A costs at 15% will also significantly disrupt the federal research enterprise. F&A costs are essential to research institutions, supporting critical functions like facilities, energy costs, laboratory security, animal care, and support staff.
Last, the proposal to fully fund 50% of multi-year grants in the first year will significantly decrease the number of new research projects that NIH awards in FY 2026. NIH is the world’s leading biomedical research institution and as such should endeavor to support as many meritorious research proposals as possible to more swiftly uncover cures and better treatments for diseases and conditions of the brain and body.
6/2/25 Update
From American Brain Coalition:
On Friday May 30, the White House released further details about the President’s FY 2026 budget request. The HHS Budget in Brief sheds light on the Administration’s priorities for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where the budget proposes a drastic overall funding cut to $27.915 billion (total program level) from the FY 2025 appropriated level of $46.801 billion*. This proposed cut of more than 40 percent would be devastating for the federal research enterprise and the country’s global competitiveness in science. The budget continues to seek to cap facilities and administrative (F&A) Costs at 15 percent. F&A costs are an essential component of scientific research grants and proposed cuts threaten our critical research infrastructure and could halt progress on discovering lifesaving treatments and cures.
The president’s budget also included a proposed reorganization and consolidation of existing Institutes and Centers at NIH. It calls for combining the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) with the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) into the singular National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research with a funding level of $2.445 billion. It also proposes to combine the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) into one National Institute of Behavioral Health with a funding level of $2.785 billion. The National Institute on Aging (NIA) would remain a standalone institute with a proposed funding level of $2.687 billion.
The budget proposal offers full funding of the 21stCentury Cures Innovation Fund, which would provide the scheduled $195 million in mandatory funding for the BRAIN Initiative. ABC will continue to call on Congress to restore overall funding for the BRAIN Initiative by increasing the discretionary share of funding, which is currently $230.4 million.
Proposed cuts to research funding were not limited to NIH. The budget would allocate a total of $3.903 billion for the National Science Foundation, a steep reduction of more than 55%. The VA Medical and Prosthetic Research program would be spared, however, with a proposed funding level of $943 million, equal to the FY 2024 appropriated level.
2/17/25 Update
From RDLA:
Recently, the EveryLife Foundation released a statement in response to President Trump’s signing of an Executive Order to cut funding from the National Institutes of Health for research programs at universities and medical systems. The Executive Order would cut indirect cost rates to 15% from an average of more than 27%. The indirect cost rates’ purpose is to cover overhead costs that research institutions must account for to support their research. You can read the statement here.
2/13/25 Update
From Erica Cischke, MPH, Vice President, Government Affairs – Alliance for Regenerative Medicine
Yesterday the same federal judge issued a new TRO blocking the 15% NIH indirect cost rate from taking effect nationwide, in response to a separate lawsuit brought by AAMC and other national organizations against NIH.
A Federal District Court hearing has been set for February 21, 2025.
Both lawsuits as well as Senator Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee contend that the February 7th NIH supplemental guidance is illegal because it directly contravened legislative language, which has been in effect since 2018, blocking the Executive Branch from changing NIH indirect cost rates. As such, the issue of NIH indirect costs will likely become a matter for legislative discussion that could impact FY2025 appropriations bills.
2/11/25 Update
From Erica Cischke, MPH, Vice President, Government Affairs – Alliance for Regenerative Medicine
Multiple state attorneys general are suing the NIH to block the indirect costs rate change. Here is the complaint filed in the US District Court in Massachusetts today. STAT news reported on the lawsuit and did a round-up of reactions to the NIH policy change here. The group United for Medical Research has some useful background information about indirect medical costs on their website.
Several organizations have released statements:
- Association of American Medical Colleges
- American Council on Education
- Association of Public Land Grant Universities
Senator Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee issued a statement on Friday in response to the NIH guidance calling the change to NIH indirect rates “illegal and arbitrary”. Since the announcement, some other members of Congress have begun voicing their concerns. It is unclear whether this issue could impact the looming Senate floor vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of HHS.