NIH Indirect Cost Policy Sparks Lawsuit and Budget Crisis

In a significant shift that could reshape the landscape of academic research funding, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has announced a drastic reduction in indirect cost rates for research grants, slashing them from an average of 30% to a mere 15%. This change, effective immediately and retroactively applicable, has sent shockwaves through research universities, which depend on these funds to cover essential services and infrastructure. In response, a coalition of 22 states has filed a lawsuit against the NIH, arguing that this new policy not only undermines established funding agreements but also threatens the viability of critical research initiatives. As legal battles unfold, the implications of this funding cut raise urgent questions about the future of scientific research and its accessibility across the nation.

Date	Event	Details	Implications	States Involved	Legal Basis
February 10, 2023	NIH Announces Change in Indirect Costs	NIH sets indirect costs at 15% for all campuses, retroactively affecting existing grants.	Research universities face budget shortfalls, risking program closures.	Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and 17 other states	Violates Administrative Procedures Act and previous Congressional rider restrictions.
February 10, 2023	States File Lawsuit	22 states file a lawsuit against the new NIH policy claiming it violates laws.	Potential delay in biomedical research and treatment availability for citizens.	Participating states include those won by Kamala Harris and others with Democratic governors.	Claims against the arbitrary nature of the new rate and contract rewriting.
February 10, 2023	Judge Grants Injunction	Judge Kelley grants an injunction against the NIH policy for the suing states.	NIH policy is still effective in 28 other states, causing disparities in research funding.	Only affects states participating in the lawsuit.	Injunction based on concerns over budget shortfalls and operational impacts.
February 10, 2023	Ongoing Legal Proceedings	Lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including compliance reports from NIH.	Regular updates to ensure NIH follows legal obligations; ongoing monitoring of funding impacts.	Continued focus on compliance from NIH for all states involved in the lawsuit.	Request for continuous compliance reports to monitor NIH actions.

Understanding Indirect Costs in Research

Indirect costs are essential for supporting research activities at universities and research centers. These costs cover various services, like maintaining laboratories, paying administrative staff, and ensuring compliance with safety regulations. Without these funds, researchers would struggle to complete their studies effectively. For many institutions, indirect costs make up a significant portion of their funding, often averaging around 30 percent of the total grant.

When the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a new policy to limit indirect costs to 15 percent, it shocked many universities. This change means that research centers will receive much less money to support their operations, which could lead to budget shortfalls. Such a reduction can severely impact critical services, making it harder for researchers to conduct their work and harming the overall progress of scientific studies.

The Lawsuit Against NIH’s New Policy

Following the NIH’s announcement, a coalition of 22 states quickly filed a lawsuit to challenge the new indirect cost policy. They argue that this change violates existing laws and goes against agreements made in the past. By limiting indirect costs, the states worry that universities will face severe financial difficulties, which could disrupt important research projects and services that benefit their communities.

The lawsuit specifically seeks to block the NIH’s new policy from affecting ongoing grants. The states involved are concerned that applying this new rate retroactively is unfair and could rewrite existing contracts. If the judge rules in favor of the states, it might prevent the policy from taking full effect, allowing research centers in those states to maintain their necessary funding.

Consequences for Research Funding

The NIH’s decision to cut indirect costs is likely to have significant consequences for research universities. Many institutions rely on these funds to support essential services, including laboratory maintenance and compliance with safety regulations. A sudden reduction in funding could lead to layoffs, reduced research capabilities, and even the closure of some programs, ultimately harming scientific progress.

Research is crucial for developing new treatments and technologies, and cutting funding can slow down these advancements. Without sufficient support, researchers may not be able to conduct necessary studies, delaying important discoveries. This situation poses a risk not just to universities but also to communities that benefit from medical and scientific breakthroughs.

Historical Context of Indirect Costs

The issue of indirect costs is not new. In 2017, an attempt by the Trump administration to limit these funds faced backlash from Congress, which passed a budget rider to protect indirect costs. This historical context highlights the ongoing struggle over how research funding is managed and the importance of indirect costs for maintaining research integrity and effectiveness.

The Project 2025 document, which guides the current administration, also suggests cutting these funds, indicating that the debate over indirect costs continues. As policymakers consider changes to funding structures, it is crucial to remember the vital role that these costs play in supporting research activities and ensuring that scientists have the resources they need.

The Impact on State Research Centers

The NIH’s new policy creates a divide between states that support the lawsuit and those that do not. States that filed the lawsuit, including those won by Kamala Harris in 2024, will receive protections against the funding cuts. In contrast, research centers in Republican-controlled states may face severe budget shortfalls with no recourse. This discrepancy could lead to unequal research opportunities across the country.

Research centers in states without legal protection will need to adapt quickly to the new funding landscape. They may have to shift their priorities or seek alternative funding sources. This situation could create a competitive disadvantage for researchers in these states, ultimately affecting the progress of research and innovation in critical fields.

Legal Arguments Against the NIH Policy

The states involved in the lawsuit argue that the NIH’s new indirect cost policy violates the Administrative Procedures Act. They claim that the policy is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to provide a solid basis for the new 15 percent rate. The lawsuit emphasizes the importance of sticking to previously negotiated rates that universities have relied on for their budgeting and planning.

Additionally, the states point out that the NIH’s announcement seems to disregard existing legal agreements that protect established indirect cost rates. By challenging the new policy, these states aim to ensure that the rights of research institutions are upheld, reinforcing the importance of following proper legal procedures when making such significant funding changes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Summary

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has announced a significant change in how it handles indirect costs for research, reducing the funding rate from an average of 30% to just 15% for all universities. This sudden cut, which is retroactive to existing grants, has caused budget shortfalls for many research institutions. In response, a coalition of 22 states has filed a lawsuit against the NIH, arguing that this new policy violates existing laws and contract agreements. The lawsuit seeks to block the policy, highlighting concerns about its impact on research and treatment availability for citizens.

---