Two Republican senators, including a reliable ally of President Trump, have raised concerns about the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) decision to cut billions of dollars of “indirect” costs on university research grants.
On Monday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) called the move a “poorly conceived directive” that potentially violates federal law.
“I oppose the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH,” she said in a statement.
Collins noted she had heard from several Maine institutions that the cuts, which in some cases would apply retroactively to existing grants, “would be devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs.”
The controversy stems from the NIH decision announced late Friday to cap payments for indirect costs at 15 percent. Indirect funding can cover universities’ overhead and administrative costs, like electricity and utilities, janitorial services and rent.
Billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and the Trump administration have made slashing federal budgets and eliminating entire agencies a priority. They argue research institutions should adapt to become leaner and more efficient because taxpayers don’t need to be spending money on overhead.
The NIH is the nation’s top funder of biomedical research, and the move was met with shock and anger by universities, scientists and Democratic lawmakers. Experts have said the rate of indirect cost grants is negotiated far in advance between institutions and granting agencies.
Attorneys general of 22 states challenged the move in federal court Monday, arguing it is illegal because Congress specifically prohibited the NIH from changing its grant formula without its approval.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, noted the fiscal 2024 appropriations law “includes language that prohibits the use of funds to modify NIH indirect costs.”
The Maine Republican said she called Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the weekend to express her “strong opposition to these arbitrary cuts.”
She said Kennedy, the nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, “promised that as soon as he is confirmed, he will re-examine this initiative.”
Kennedy’s confirmation appears almost certain, after Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) last week voted to advance the nomination after receiving several vaccine-related commitments from Kennedy.
Collins hasn’t spoken publicly about whether she will vote to confirm the longtime anti-vaccine activist as the nation’s top health official, but her statement Monday didn’t say she would make reversing the indirect funding decision a condition of her vote.
Kennedy can afford to have three Republican senators vote against him and still be confirmed.
But Collins wasn’t the only Republican to voice a concern about the change in NIH research funding reimbursement.
Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a staunch ally of Trump, suggested the administration should proceed cautiously to mitigate the impact to research universities of substantial cuts.
Britt told AL.com she will work with the administration to protect innovation and research, following the NIH announcement about funding.
Britt acknowledged the rationale for the change, saying “hard-earned taxpayer money should be spent efficiently, judiciously, and accountably — without exception.”
But she gently expressed concerns about the impact on the universities in her state.
“While the administration works to achieve this goal at NIH, a smart, targeted approach is needed in order to not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama,” Britt told the outlet.
