Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
Academic Science

Trump Proposal to Cut Indirect Research Payments Would Hit State Universities Hardest

By Paul Basken March 31, 2017
Tom Price, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, told a U.S. House of Representatives committee on Wednesday that the government could save taxpayers money while producing the same amount of science by slashing indirect cost payments to research institutions. University researchers disagree.
Tom Price, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, told a U.S. House of Representatives committee on Wednesday that the government could save taxpayers money while producing the same amount of science by slashing indirect cost payments to research institutions. University researchers disagree.AP Images

The Trump administration’s plan to cut billions of dollars in research spending by eliminating indirect cost reimbursements would devastate university science, especially at public institutions, experts warned.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Tom Price, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, told a U.S. House of Representatives committee on Wednesday that the government could save taxpayers money while producing the same amount of science by slashing indirect cost payments to research institutions. University researchers disagree.
Tom Price, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, told a U.S. House of Representatives committee on Wednesday that the government could save taxpayers money while producing the same amount of science by slashing indirect cost payments to research institutions. University researchers disagree.AP Images

The Trump administration’s plan to cut billions of dollars in research spending by eliminating indirect cost reimbursements would devastate university science, especially at public institutions, experts warned.

The U.S. secretary for health and human services, Tom Price, told Congress this week that the idea is to save taxpayers money while giving them the same amount of research activity. Indirect cost payments are funds spent on “something other than the research that’s being done,” Dr. Price told a House of Representatives subcommittee on health appropriations on Wednesday.

But university representatives made clear Thursday that it simply does not work that way. Indirect costs reflect the legitimate expenses of providing scientists with labs and complying with a host of essential services that somehow will still need to be paid, the representatives said.

Under current law, a researcher who receives a federal grant to conduct research cannot simply be billed by his or her university for those costs, said Tobin L. Smith, vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities, which represents major research institutions.

And universities absolutely won’t force students to cover the difference, Mr. Smith said. “The reality is we don’t have other revenue sources to pay for those things, because let’s face it, we are not going to rob tuition to pay for those costs,” he said. “It just is not going to happen.”

It’s not clear what universities would do if Congress actually accepted the administration’s proposal to end indirect cost payments, said David Kennedy, director of costing policy and studies at the Council on Governmental Relations, another association of research universities and affiliated medical centers.

State institutions probably would suffer first and hardest, Mr. Kennedy said, because they would have virtually no ability to cover lab costs with outside resources. Some private institutions might try to let faculty accept some grants and cover facility costs from endowments, though that, too, is hard to predict, he said.

But Mr. Smith cautioned about even that scenario. Some large private universities may have healthy endowments, but often those funds are restricted to specific uses, he said.

Each university negotiates its indirect cost rate with the federal government, with typical levels ranging around 50 percent of the grant value. The National Institutes of Health last year paid $6.4 billion in indirect cost reimbursements to accompany $16.9 billion in total research support, some types of which do not involve indirect cost payments.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Trump administration, for its fiscal 2018 budget recommendation earlier this month, suggested cutting the NIH budget by 18 percent — from $31.7 billion to $25.9 billion. It subsequently proposed cutting $1.2 billion from the NIH’s budget for the current fiscal year.

Other federal agencies also pay indirect costs on their research grants. The administration has not yet announced a budget plan for the National Science Foundation, which gets about $7.5 billion in annual taxpayer support.

Expenses, Not Bonuses

Cutting government spending by attacking indirect cost payments, Mr. Smith said, appears to reflect a failure by some policy makers to understand the basic terms that led to the creation of the system. Indirect cost payments may seem like bonus money for universities, he said, but they actually constitute a basic cost that governments and businesses recognize in many other settings.

If the federal government eliminated the indirect cost payment system, Mr. Smith said, it would need some other means for institutions to cover their essential laboratory and administrative costs. And determining that share on a grant-by-grant basis would be a far less efficient method than the current negotiated system, he said.

We are not going to rob tuition to pay for those costs. It just is not going to happen.

The director of the NIH, Francis S. Collins, although now a member of the Trump administration, made clear this week that he realizes the danger in Dr. Price’s proposal. Already, data show that federal indirect cost payments don’t fully cover the facilities and administrative expenditures incurred by universities, Dr. Collins said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Suggesting the full elimination of indirect cost payments is “really quite threatening” to universities, Dr. Collins told reporters after addressing a policy conference hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “That kind of potential has to be thought through very carefully.”

Even the Johns Hopkins University, annually the largest recipient of NIH dollars, is deeply worried, said Landon S. King, a professor of medicine and executive vice dean of the Hopkins School of Medicine.

Hopkins researchers get about $600 million a year in NIH support, and insufficient indirect cost payments leave the university on the hook for about $100 million a year in additional costs, Dr. King said. Some universities such as Hopkins do accept research grants from foundations that pay even less in indirect cost support, but that’s not a model that can be sustained across the much larger share of grant support coming from the government, he said.

Congress ultimately is likely to realize that, Dr. King said, given its history of bipartisan support for scientific research. Dr. Price’s failure to understand is “disappointing,” perhaps reflecting a medical professional — a former assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Emory University — who means well but has had limited exposure to research activities, Dr. King said.

ADVERTISEMENT

As to Dr. Price’s suggestion that cutting indirect cost reimbursements would not hurt research, Dr. King said, “I feel confident that his colleagues at Emory would say to him in no uncertain terms that he has that wrong.”

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the April 14, 2017, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Scholarship & Research
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Paul Basken Bio
About the Author
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Universities Are Hopeful as Agencies Mull New Rules for Grant Reimbursement
What Trump’s Budget Outline Would Mean for Higher Ed
University-Facility Costs Rise Faster Than Grants, NIH Is Warned
Nation’s Research Universities Are Offered Hope of Fatter Budgets—at a Price

More News

Collage of charts
Data
How Faculty Pay and Tenure Can Change Depending on Academic Discipline
Vector illustration of two researcher's hands putting dollar signs into a beaker leaking green liquid.
'Life Support'
As the Nation’s Research-Funding Model Ruptures, Private Money Becomes a Band-Aid
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress

From The Review

Photo-based illustration of the sculpture, The Thinker, interlaced with anotehr image of a robot posed as The Thinker with bits of binary code and red strips weaved in.
The Review | Essay
What I Learned Serving on My University’s AI Committee
By Megan Fritts
Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin