Indirect costs: not just for science

Three ways for scholars to fight the illegal attempt to undermine higher education.

The strength of American society, as well as its standing in the world, are founded in large part on its institutions. These institutions are currently under attack: the rule of law, a stable federal government, the military, health care, and higher education. Together, all of these actions destabilize democracy.

Yesterday, an announcement, concerning indirect costs, emerged from the ongoing attempts by Project 2025/DOGE to illegally remake the federal government. I write to offer thoughts on why any supporter of American academic excellence should care, and what to do.

What was announced? The National Institutes of Health announced that indirect costs on grants would be limited to 15% of the direct operating costs of grants.

The NIH currently distributes $35 billion in grants to U.S. universities and medical centers; $9 billion of that is in the form of indirect costs. If implemented, this would cut that $9 billion to $5 billion. If carried out, this change would threaten the leadership of the U.S. in world scientific research. It also threatens the excellence of U.S. higher education in all sectors, including whatever your area of scholarship may be.

What do indirect costs support? Indirect costs are those that are not easily assigned to any specific direct cost of conducting research. Indirect costs include replacing things that break or need updating in a building, the support staff of a department, and library facilities - in other words, the type of support that all scholars at any academic institution need, no matter what their field.

If I'm not a grant recipient, why should I care? Academic institutions receive up to tens of millions of dollars per year in indirect costs. If this were not available to maintain scientific research facilities, it forces resources to be shifted away from important scholarship. That affects not just natural science and engineering, but also social science, humanities, business, law - basically, all fields.

Scholars who do not receive federal grants may see this is someone else’s problem. But the general attack on higher education is everyone’s problem. Therefore defending against this action is in the interest of anyone who wants to protect the U.S. educational system’s strength.

Is the executive action legal? Despite the claim of the NIH/DOGE/Project 2025 announcement, this action is illegal. As Sam Bagenstos has written, it runs afoul of federal regulations and the Administrative Procedures Act. And both regulations and statute take precedence over executive orders.

Under authority of those laws, the indirect cost rate is negotiated between each research institution and the federal government. Congress is highly unlikely to have ever made this cut. This change is likely to be litigated by researchers, institutions, and/or professional societies as a breach of contract.

What can individuals do? The First Amendment provides all individuals the right to petition their government directly.

There are nonpartisan reasons to block this change:

• NIH research provides jobs, and is among the most efficient ways for the federal government to promote growth.

• Global dominance in biomedical research is in the security and health interests of the United States.

• Illegal executive action takes power away from Congress, and they should not want to give up power.

Here are three things that can be done.

1) Contact members of Congress (U.S. House). Considering how jammed the Capitol switchboard is, district offices are better for a phone call or, even more, an in-person visit. Any concerned citizen may have leverage if their Congressional district is competitive. To find a swing district near you, see VoteMaximizer.org.

2) Contact Senators. Each state’s NIH funding is listed here. Red states receiving over $100M/year in NIH funding include Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. You may know people in these states, or you yourself may vote there.

Talking to red-state legislators can help. Today, Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) is defending NIH. Notably, the University of Alabama in Birmingham is the largest employer in her state.

3) Scholars should contact their professional society. If you are an academic, your professional society has an interest in this topic. For example, my own organizations are the Society for Neuroscience and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. You can contact yours and demand action - including litigation.

This last point is important. First, it is the most effective means for professional scholars to make themselves heard through their own guild. Second, such societies are nonprofit organizations, and may themselves feel under attack. For example, they may be concerned about their tax status. But their reason for existing is to serve their fields. A major threat to higher education would seem to be worth the risk. To do otherwise is to obey in advance.