US Appeals Court Upholds NIH Research Funding Rates Amid Trump Admin Attempt to Cut Costs.
A US appeals court has agreed with a lower-court ruling that the Trump administration's attempt to drastically cut costs for university research funding was blocked by Congress. The NIH policy change, which would have imposed a uniform 15% flat rate on indirect costs, would have been catastrophic for many universities, with many potentially being forced into financial ruin.
Indirect costs cover expenses such as utilities, facilities for research animals, and building maintenance that are not directly associated with the research project itself. These costs can be quite high due to variations in location, where universities in urban areas must pay more for buildings and staff salaries than their rural counterparts.
The NIH had attempted to change these rates from a negotiated system where costs were estimated using formulas provided by the agency. The Trump administration sought to set an arbitrary flat rate of 15% across all grants.
However, Congress intervened long ago in this issue when they attached a rider to the budget agreement in 2017 that prohibited any changes to NIH overhead policy. This provision has been renewed every year since then.
In their decision, the appeals court found it unnecessary to consider the broader implications or questions of arbitrary capriciousness, as the Congressional rider specifically prohibits altering the NIH's indirect cost policies. The judges concluded that the Trump administration failed to present a valid justification for the policy change and ultimately upheld the lower-court ruling to block its implementation.
This decision provides relief to research universities, which heavily rely on these funding costs to support their operations. With Congress having already passed a law to protect these rates, it seems increasingly unlikely that any further attempts to drastically reduce them will be successful.
A US appeals court has agreed with a lower-court ruling that the Trump administration's attempt to drastically cut costs for university research funding was blocked by Congress. The NIH policy change, which would have imposed a uniform 15% flat rate on indirect costs, would have been catastrophic for many universities, with many potentially being forced into financial ruin.
Indirect costs cover expenses such as utilities, facilities for research animals, and building maintenance that are not directly associated with the research project itself. These costs can be quite high due to variations in location, where universities in urban areas must pay more for buildings and staff salaries than their rural counterparts.
The NIH had attempted to change these rates from a negotiated system where costs were estimated using formulas provided by the agency. The Trump administration sought to set an arbitrary flat rate of 15% across all grants.
However, Congress intervened long ago in this issue when they attached a rider to the budget agreement in 2017 that prohibited any changes to NIH overhead policy. This provision has been renewed every year since then.
In their decision, the appeals court found it unnecessary to consider the broader implications or questions of arbitrary capriciousness, as the Congressional rider specifically prohibits altering the NIH's indirect cost policies. The judges concluded that the Trump administration failed to present a valid justification for the policy change and ultimately upheld the lower-court ruling to block its implementation.
This decision provides relief to research universities, which heavily rely on these funding costs to support their operations. With Congress having already passed a law to protect these rates, it seems increasingly unlikely that any further attempts to drastically reduce them will be successful.
And to have these arbitrary 15% rates imposed on them would've been, like, game over for some of them. I mean, indirect costs can be crazy high depending on where they're located and what kind of research they're doing... it's not just about the funding itself, it's about the infrastructure and staff that goes into making that research happen.
.
I'm literally shaking with anger thinking about how the Trump admin tried to screw over our research uni's 
they want to just impose this arbitrary 15% flat rate on indirect costs and watch as all these uni's go bankrupt 
it's not even like they're trying to be fair or considerate of all the factors that affect those costs, nope they just wanna swoop in with their dumb idea and expect everyone else to roll over 
this Congressional rider has been renewed every year since 2017 and now we know it's not gonna get overturned anytime soon 
the appeals court decision is basically saying "sorry trump, you can't just change things willy-nilly without going through proper channels" 
I'm just glad Congress is looking out for us 
anyway, it's nice to know those research universities won't have to deal with financial ruin 
I mean, who wouldn't want to try and cut costs for university research funding? Sounds like a solid plan for a catastrophic failure 
. Anyway, thanks to Congress and their quick thinking in attaching that rider back in 2017, we can rest assured that our research universities will continue to thrive... or at least not implode 
.
. And I think it's safe to say any future attempts to cut costs here are gonna get shot down too 
. Any attempts to revisit this now are just gonna get shot down fast 
It would've been devastating to research projects everywhere. The fact that Congress has already protected those funding costs in law is music to my ears... 
now, let's hope no one tries to mess with it again! 