Penn, Columbia, and Brown were the first to go. Following a billion-dollar budget reduction by President Trump, Harvard is allegedly seeking an exit strategy. The decrease was made to support health and scientific research.
Now the whole academic community is attempting to convince him to reconsider his intention to cut funding for institutions.
In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a reduction of over $4 billion in funding for universities to assist with administrative and facility costs associated with research contracts, following Trump’s request. Even while university lobbyists have blocked Trump’s proposal in court and gained the support of important Republican senators, they are making an offer.
The colleges’ willingness to negotiate demonstrates their belief that they will not be able to resist Trump forever. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) argued that a drastic budget decrease would cripple their agency, hinder efforts to advance health and research, and give its international competitors a leg up.
University administration and facilities have traditionally been funded by the federal government. Research funds in the fields of science and medicine sometimes come with supplemental indirect-cost reimbursements. Those who support Trump have accused the schools of misusing the funding to support progressive initiatives such as equality, diversity, and inclusion.
In an effort to appease Trump, the colleges have proposed standardizing how the government pays for their indirect costs; however, they deny utilizing the funds in that manner. At the moment, such costs are determined by individual negotiations with each financial institution and can range greatly. Trump claims they are excessively exorbitant, citing the lower rates paid by private foundations for research funding as evidence.
According to Kelvin Droegemeier, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who is leading the effort on behalf of a coalition of universities and research institutes, they have been told by members of Congress from the beginning that someone else will take action if they do nothing. Droegemeier spoke to HEADLINESFOREVER.
They stated that it is not feasible to move on with the existing model. We interpreted it to indicate that we could either actively participate in the change or patiently wait for it to occur.
Many prominent Democrats on Capitol Hill and in party organizations nationwide are putting their faith in colleges and institutions to resist Trump.
Regardless, the alliance is proceeding with negotiations. It is crucial that everyone comprehends that. “You can’t fight something with nothing,” said Toby Smith, a prominent lobbyist at the Association of American Universities, during a recent town hall meeting about funding indirect research expenses.
The ivory tower heavy hitters, including prestigious research universities like Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Yale, who have consistently received indirect cost reimbursements exceeding 60% of the value of the underlying research grant, stand to gain the most from any fee cap or compromise that Trump proposes.
Because of their location in locations with high utility prices and their pricey and state-of-the-art research equipment, major research institutes charge some of the highest rates.
In March, a judge in a Boston federal district court rejected Trump’s proposal to set a maximum charge of 15%. Presently, the average across the country is about 30%. A new round of appeals has begun.
Meanwhile, Republican senators from states that would be negatively impacted by the administration’s proposal, like Alabama’s Katie Britt and Maine’s Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, have voiced their opposition. Collins brought attention to the fact that the administration is specifically prohibited by Congress from making any changes to the indirect cost structure in spending legislation.
But a coalition of educational advocacy organizations, including AAU, ASMCC, AIRI, and AASU, was busy formulating a compromise proposal to present to Trump at the same time that schools were suing and lobbying for relief. Hospitals and research institutions, two more targets of Trump’s budget cuts, are collaborating with them.
“People who think things will be alright with the lawsuits if we wait and see” The man with some clout in Trump’s inner circle—Droegemeier—led the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during Trump’s first term, so he can say with confidence that change is occurring.
There is no doubt in my mind that the White House Office of Management and Budget is diligently addressing the matter. We’re making progress. We’ve joined forces. However, change is on the horizon, and individuals would do well to be ready for it in whatever form it takes if they continue to delude themselves.
The president attempted a fresh strategy this week to strip elite colleges of their indirect financing by ordering government agencies to favor institutions with lower indirect expenses when making awards.
In spring of this year, the university-led committee revealed their new model, which would be “simple and easily explained” and, in keeping with administrative aims, “efficient and transparent.”
Two mechanisms would be available to research groups under the FAIR plan, which stands for Financial Accountability in Research, for the purpose of recovering administrative and facility costs from the government. The first is a more involved breakdown of all indirect expenses, while the second is a more concise and straightforward set proportion of the total budget. (Recall the contrast between federal tax itemization and the basic deduction.)
The former head of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Jeremy Berg, told HEADLINESFOREVER that “the biggest difference is rather than having an indirect cost rate, which is negotiated across the entire university, this model calls for indirect costs to be estimated for every project.” The NIH is responsible for awarding grants totaling $48 billion.
Efforts to influence policy
For decades, people have argued over how much the government should foot the bill for indirect expenses.
No one listened to Obama or Clinton’s suggestions to limit spending on facilities and administration.
If a $100 grant were to incur an extra $10 in indirect expenses for administration and facilities, it would be the maximum amount that Trump suggested during his first term, which is 10%. To prevent him from making the move, lawmakers included language prohibiting it in funding bills.
Droegemeier contacted Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma), the House Appropriations Chair, to inquire about the possibility of a compromise between colleges and Congress following the announcement of the 15% ceiling in February by the Trump administration.
At a crossroads
Judge Angel Kelley handed down a permanent indictment in April, and the government has taken it to Boston’s federal appeals court to challenge it.
Meanwhile, in their version of the NIH financing plan, senators on the Appropriations Committee included language that limits modifications to the present ways of calculating indirect costs.
“Looked at from that angle, it seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action, and I’m all for supporting the endeavor, since I believe it’s the surest way to reach a reasonable conclusion.”