What's happened
A U.S. appeals court has blocked a Trump-era policy to cut indirect research costs to a flat 15%, preserving university funding for overhead costs like facilities and staff. The decision upholds congressional restrictions and prevents major disruptions to federally funded research, unless the Supreme Court intervenes. The case highlights ongoing legal battles over federal research funding policies.
What's behind the headline?
The court's decision underscores the importance of congressional oversight in federal research funding. The Trump administration's attempt to impose a flat 15% rate ignored established negotiation processes and congressional directives, risking significant financial harm to research institutions. Universities rely heavily on indirect costs to maintain infrastructure and support staff, especially in urban areas where costs are higher. The ruling affirms that any deviation from negotiated rates must follow legislative procedures, preventing arbitrary cuts. This legal victory preserves the stability of research funding, ensuring ongoing support for critical scientific work. Moving forward, the case highlights the need for clear legislative frameworks to manage federal research budgets, avoiding future legal conflicts and ensuring research continuity.
What the papers say
The New York Times reports that the appeals court found the Trump administration's policy unlawful because it violated congressional restrictions and procedural rules, emphasizing that 'lawmakers had laid out a carefully circumscribed procedure.' Ars Technica highlights that the policy would have caused serious financial issues for universities, with many having indirect cost rates above 50%. Both sources agree that the court's ruling maintains the status quo, preventing disruptive funding cuts. The case exemplifies ongoing tensions between executive actions and legislative authority over federal research funding, with legal experts noting that 'Congress explicitly responded to the initial proposal with a rider to block alterations.'
How we got here
The Trump administration proposed reducing indirect research costs to a flat 15%, aiming to cut university overhead funding. Universities and medical institutions argued this would severely impact their budgets, especially in high-cost areas. Previous legal challenges resulted in temporary blocks, with courts citing violations of administrative procedures and congressional restrictions. Congress had explicitly prohibited such uniform reductions through legislative riders, which the courts upheld. The Biden administration has maintained the existing negotiated rates, and the recent court ruling confirms that the policy cannot be implemented without congressional approval.
Go deeper
More on these topics
-
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency of the United States federal government responsible for biomedical and public health research. It was founded in 1887 and is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services...
-
Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.