Tag: alarm

  • ‘Self-inflicted wound’: Widespread alarm as Trump administration slashes NIH funding

    ‘Self-inflicted wound’: Widespread alarm as Trump administration slashes NIH funding

    UPDATE: Feb. 11, 2025: A federal judge late Monday barred the National Institutes of Health from enforcing massive cuts to grant funding for researchers’ indirect costs, a move widely decried by universities and other research institutions. 

    U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued restraining orders in two separate cases filed earlier Monday against NIH, including one by 22 state attorneys general and another by the Association of American Medical Colleges and other groups. A third lawsuit — brought by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the American Council on Education and the Association of American Universities — was also filed late Monday. 

    Regarding the AAMC case, Kelley wrote that plaintiffs would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury” without a restraining order against the NIH funding cap. Along with restraining orders, Kelley required NIH to provide biweekly status reports confirming regular disbursements.

    Dive Brief:

    • A coalition of 22 attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday seeking to block the National Institutes of Health’s newly announced research funding cuts.
    • NIH announced Friday it would cut roughly $4 billion a year worth of funding for indirect research costs such as administration and facilities — by capping reimbursement for these expenses at 15% for current and new grants. 
    • Research institutions have previously negotiated individual indirect cost rates, with an average of 27% to 28%, NIH said. Organizations, universities and researchers quickly raised alarms about the cuts, warning they could hurt important medical research and the economy.

    Dive Insight:

    NIH framed its unilateral decision to cut indirect costs as bringing them in line with practices at nonprofits such as the Gates Foundation, which caps indirect costs at 10% for higher education institutions, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which sets a 15% ceiling for colleges and universities.

    In a Friday memo outlining the new policy, the agency said the new cap would “allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission.”

    The same day, the agency flagged on the social media platform X the “old” indirect cost rates negotiated by Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University — which are all between 63.7% and 69% — as well as those institutions’ endowments ranging from $13 billion to $53 billion. 

    NIH noted that of the $35 billion it spent on grants in fiscal 2023 to universities, medical schools and other research institutions, about $26 billion went to direct research and $9 billion went to overhead in the form of indirect costs. 

    Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described NIH’s move as an illegal violation of an appropriations bill that prohibits modifications to NIH’s indirect cost funding. Murray also said that the move will shift costs onto states rather than reducing them.

    In their lawsuit, the attorneys general argued, “Without relief from NIH’s action, these institutions’ cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt.” 

    They pointed to the legislation flagged by Murray that protected indirect reimbursements: During President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration in 2017 included a 10% cap in its budget proposal, but Congress responded the next year with an appropriations provision prohibiting NIH from modifying reimbursement rates, the lawsuit said.

    Filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the 59-page lawsuit — brought overwhelmingly by Democrat-led states — seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking NIH from enforcing the rate cap. 

    Many in the higher education sector reacted with dismay over NIH’s move.

    The decision “sabotages the decades-long partnership that has ensured U.S. global leadership in life-saving medical research,” American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell said in a statement on Friday. 

    “This decision is short-sighted, naive, and dangerous,” Mitchell added. “It is a self-inflicted wound that, if not reversed, will have dire consequences on U.S. jobs, global competitiveness, and the future growth of a skilled workforce.”

    Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, described NIH’s policy change as a “direct and massive cut to lifesaving medical research.” 

    “NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,” Becker said in a statement. APLU noted that funded indirect costs include patient safety, research security and hazardous waste disposal. 

    Jeremy Day, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Comprehensive Neuroscience Center, said on social media that NIH’s cut would “cripple research infrastructure at hundreds of US institutions, and threatens to end our global superiority in scientific research.” 

    Meanwhile, institutions are grappling with what it means for their research programs going forward. The University of Michigan, for instance, said in a statement that NIH’s indirect cost funding supports development and maintenance of its laboratories as well as information technology and administrative support for regulatory compliance. 

    “This change would result in a significant decrease in the amount that U-M receives from the federal government to conduct vital research,” the university said. 

    Others echoed the warning. In a statement, the University of Wisconsin-Madison said NIH’s directive would “significantly disrupt vital research activity and delay lifesaving discoveries and cures.”

    “Indirect costs contribute to everything from utilities charges to building out the laboratories where science is done, to infrastructure for clinical trials of new medicines and treatments,” the university said.

    Source link

  • College presidents’ survey finds alarm over Trump

    College presidents’ survey finds alarm over Trump

    Even before President Donald Trump unleashed a flurry of executive orders involving higher education, college and university presidents expressed serious concerns about his possible impact on the sector and on their own institutions. That’s according to findings released today from Inside Higher Ed’s forthcoming 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents with Hanover Research.

    More than half of presidents surveyed in December and early January—51 percent—at that point believed Trump’s second administration would have a somewhat or significant negative impact on the regulatory environment for higher education. Some 38 percent of respondents said they believed Trump would have a somewhat or significant positive impact on the regulatory environment, while the remainder expected his administration to have no impact. Male presidents were more likely than their female counterparts to express confidence in the Trump administration, with 42 percent of men responding that they expected an at least somewhat positive regulatory environment for the sector compared to 30 percent of women.

    Drilling down into specific concerns, the vast majority of presidents—80 percent—indicated Trump would have a negative impact on DEI across higher education. On an institutional level, 60 percent said he would negatively impact DEI efforts at their own colleges and universities.

    Presidents also expressed concerns about what Trump 2.0 would mean for public perceptions of higher education’s value, the climate for campus speech and the financial outlook for colleges and universities.

    The latest edition of the annual survey of presidents, now in its 15th year, includes responses from 298 leaders from a mix of two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit. It was administered after Trump was elected but before he took office. The findings below are focused exclusively on his new administration and the broader political environment. The full survey, covering a broad range of issues relevant to college leaders, is forthcoming.

    Unpacking the Findings

    Given the timing of the survey and the rapid-fire executive orders and other actions that have followed, which included a temporary freeze on federal funding that created uncertainty and alarm across the sector, some experts believe presidents would respond even more negatively now.

    “I don’t think there’s any question that had this survey been done after Jan. 20, the numbers would be more negative than they were, with what we have seen since: the executive orders flowing out of the White House and funding freezes and just the chaos and uncertainty,” Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, told Inside Higher Ed.

    “The survey indicates that presidents had some sense of what was coming,” Harris said. But he noted their “failure of imagination” to realize how quickly Trump would act.

    Already higher education is feeling the pressure on DEI, an area presidents anticipated would come under fire by the new administration.

    One of Trump’s first executive orders, issued on Jan. 21, called on federal agencies “to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” It also tasked Trump’s attorney general and the education secretary with crafting guidance for universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that banned the consideration of race in admissions policies.

    Universities have reacted in myriad ways to Trump’s attack on DEI. Last month the Rutgers University Center for Minority Serving Institutions canceled a virtual conference on apprenticeships at historically Black colleges and universities, and Michigan State University called off a lunch to celebrate Lunar New Year (but allowed other related events to go on).

    According to the survey, 71 percent of respondents believe that Trump will have a negative impact on the climate for free inquiry and civil dialogue across higher education. But only 52 percent said their own institution would suffer those negative effects.

    The majority of respondents—71 percent—also said Trump would have a negative financial impact on the sector. But at the institutional level, only 45 percent believe the same is true at their institution. And nearly a quarter of respondents believe he’ll positively affect their finances.

    Harris views with skepticism the belief among many presidents that their institutions will fare better than the rest of the sector. He argues that presidents can be “blinded” by proximity to their institution, which makes them overconfident in its strength.

    “I tend to believe the response around the industry more than the individual institution,” he said.

    But Anne Harris, president of Grinnell College—and no relation to Michael—believes that presidents have a firm grasp on their community “and all of its complexity,” which helps them better understand how a situation may play out on campus. She said that the “direct impact of a federal policy is always going to be negotiated, diffused and maybe absorbed by the multiplicity of constituencies on a campus.”

    While the new Republican president was the cause of concern for many respondents, presidents also expressed dissatisfaction with his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, last year.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s 2024 survey of College and University Presidents, only 33 percent of respondents indicated satisfaction with the Biden administration’s record on higher education. Last year’s survey found that 41 percent of respondents were completely or somewhat dissatisfied with Biden, who left behind a mixed legacy on higher education. He was accused of leaving some promises unfulfilled while overreaching in other areas, such as student loan forgiveness.

    Killing the Education Department

    One of Trump’s campaign promises was to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, a process that he has already taken steps toward but that will likely face an uphill battle given that he would need congressional approval to shut it down, which Democrats have made clear they are unwilling to provide. Even with a Republican majority in the Senate, the move faces highly unlikely odds.

    The majority of presidents surveyed disapprove of shutting down the department: 72 percent opposed the idea and 21 percent indicated uncertainty, while 8 percent voiced support for the effort. Presidents of private, nonprofit institutions were most likely to support the move.

    Harris, the Grinnell College president, questions what role last year’s botched launch of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid played in draining support from the Department of Education, given the financial pressures felt by countless students, families and institutions.

    “There are going to be very few presidents who are going to cheer what happened with FAFSA,” she said. “So maybe this is some FAFSA lack of confidence saying the Department of Education did not serve higher ed well with the FAFSA debacle last year. So why not try something else?”

    Brad Mortensen, president of Weber State University, offered a similar perspective.

    “It wouldn’t have surprised me if [that number] was higher, just given how rough of a time the Department of Education had in rolling out the new FAFSA,” Mortensen told Inside Higher Ed. “That had real impacts on all types of institutions across the country.”

    Both presidents indicated that the programs housed in ED are more important than the department itself. They are more concerned about the continued flow of federal financial aid, for example, than where it comes from—whether that’s ED or the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

    Ongoing Optimism

    Concerns about Trump notwithstanding, other findings in the forthcoming full survey were positive—including the financial outlook at the institutional level, despite clear signs of strain across the sector. (Financial findings will be covered in depth as part of the full survey release.)

    Some presidents believe that optimism comes with the job.

    “College and university presidents are a funny lot. As I was applying for this job, I had a past president tell me, ‘Brad, you have to be smart enough to get the job and dumb enough to take it.’ I think by nature, we tend to be naïve optimists because it’s a job with a lot of challenges,” Mortensen said.

    Source link