With every new administration assuming office, policy shifts are to be expected, and with Trump returning to office, his favorite way of enacting change is through executive orders. Despite being in office for less than a month, he has already begun to carry out aspects of his agenda. From social issues to economic regulations, he and his administration have made many alterations, which has garnered them both support and backlash. One example of such a policy shift is the freezing of federal research funding, which negatively impacts universities and research institutions.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed off on an executive order and mandated federal agencies not to recognize the identity of transgender individuals. This, in turn, led to the suspension of several research programs that were previously funded by the federal government. Such research programs included the National Institute of Health (NIH)’s Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV Interventions. Weeks later, on February 7, 2025, NIH announced it would cap indirect cost reimbursement for research grants at 15%. Indirect costs refer to costs such as laboratory maintenance, utility costs, and administrative staff expenses. While these costs don’t directly relate to any research projects, they are still necessary for research to occur. This is a significant difference, as previous reimbursements used to be around 30%, with some research facilities receiving up to 60% reimbursements for indirect costs.
The impact of such a mandate is detrimental in many ways. This reduction could lead to many financial challenges for universities, forcing them to take difficult action that could include shutting down labs, cutting staff, and halting research projects. In response to this, legal action has been pursued on several fronts. 22 attorney generals from Democratic states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. They argue that the NIH has overstepped its authority and subsequently violated federal law by implementing such cuts without proper procedures. As a result, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued a hearing for the matter on February 21, 2025, and blocked the rollout of the cuts in the meantime.
If these federal cuts are instated, universities may have to explore other ways of funding. This could include increasing tuition, relying more heavily on private donations, or pursuing corporate partnerships. While these alternatives could bridge the gap, they could also shift the focus of the institutions towards commercial interests rather than focusing on research for the greater good. The effects of this could also trickle down to the students and ultimately lead to reduced research opportunities. This, in turn, could affect career prospects and disrupt breakthroughs in medicine and technology.
Similar to many of the Trump administration’s policies, it is hard to gauge how it will pan out and even if it will hold up legally. Specifically, in this case, any follow-up would happen after the hearing on February 21. As universities and people at large attempt to navigate this and other policy changes, Stevens has launched a new resource titled “Federal Policy Updates and Guidance” to provide insight on all federal actions and how it would impact the university and students. President Farvardin encourages all to utilize this platform to keep themselves informed, and states that the university is working around the clock to determine appropriate contingency plans.
