The NIH’s notice to unilaterally revise indirect cost rates on grants to 15% reads as though it were written by someone who barely understands what indirect costs are and how they are computed, which suggests it was imposed on them from without, as are many agency policies throughout the federal government. While it is unquestionable that the presidency sets policy throughout the executive branch, there is a reason why we rely on knowledgeable professionals in the civil service to advise on such policy. Moreover, the setting of policy cannot contravene federal laws, regulations, Congressional appropriation, case law, and most fundamentally, the obligation of contracts.
The notice in question relies on a specious, unprecedented reading of federal regulations (2 C.F.R. 200.414) that would give any agency the right to unilaterally ignore the federally-negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, which legally binds the federal government, and replace it with a de minimis rate, effectively defrauding institutions of reimbursement of real costs per the terms and conditions of existing contracts. The agency even claims that they would have the right to apply such a reduction retroactively to the beginning of an existing award, and reclaim indirect costs already paid in previous years. Quite apart from its illegality on multiple fronts, the mere pretense of having such a right is to claim to be beneath the most basic principles of honesty and integrity in abiding by one’s word, which a contract is supposed to formalize.
Such thorough dishonesty has long been a hallmark of Donald Trump’s business practices. Stiffing his contractors and subcontractors, even in violation of signed agreements, as a mere negotiating tactic to strong-arm weaker parties into accepting pennies on the dollar, is well-documented in Trump’s business career, via numerous legal disputes. A most thorough exposé of his amoral practices was given by his long-time fixer, Michael Cohen, in the book Disloyal. No one should be shocked by its contents, as it well accords with the public persona of Trump, which people excuse because they agree with him on one or another issue, thinking they are using him when they are the ones being used.
Having decades of experience in this domain, I am well positioned to appreciate how thoroughly ignorant Elon Musk and others in the Trump administration are in this matter, when they characterize indirect costs as some kind of surcharge by which universities rip off the federal government. In fact, indirect cost, which is to say the added cost of administration and facilities that is attributable to supporting research, is painstakingly audited every one to three years by the negotiating agency (DHHS or the Office of Naval Research). In fact, even the negotiated rate, often around 55%-65% of direct costs for universities (with certain excluded categories), and higher for hospitals, does not cover the full real cost of supporting federally-sponsored research. Large institutions cover the difference with internal funds. They can accept lower indirect rates from non-profit foundations (a small fraction of most research portfolios) only by cost-sharing with internal funds, so most institutions require investigators to provide such sources themselves. The actual indirect cost recovery rate ends up averaging 40% of directs or less, so a large institution may already be subsidizing federally-funded research on the order of $100M/yr or more.
A reduction to 15% would require a level of cost sharing that would be unbearable for many small to mid-size institutions, forcing them to refuse NIH funding. If the intent is to punish big universities, it will actually hurt small institutions more, but Trump has never truly cared about small businesses, as his own business practices prove. Elon suggests universities should use their endowments, proving he has no idea how endowments work. You can only spend the revenue, not the assets, or it’s not a true endowment. The revenue in most cases (2%-4% of assets depending on market) is already obligated to pay for the salaries of faculty beyond the NIH salary cap (reduced in 2012 and returned to that level only in 2022). Again, this “solution” would not help small institutions, but there is no evidence Musk cares about the consequences of his supposed “efficiency,” which should mean doing more with less, not less with less. Moreover, since 2008, NIH alone among federal agencies has refused to pay inflationary 3% increases, at first as a crisis measure, and now as a permanent fiction that inflation does not exist.
Indirect costs are so named because they cannot be directly attributed to a particular grant, but they are directly attributable to research operations as a whole. Federally-funded projects require added space, utilities and infrastructure, especially IT. They also require considerable administrative effort to maintain audit compliance for all transactions and reports. Ironically, NIH imposes more administrative burden on recipients than any other federal agency, yet they would illegally demand that this administrative work be uncompensated. It is already inadequately compensated. Since a cap of 26% of direct costs was imposed in 1991 on the administrative portion of indirect cost rates, real administrative burden has increased over the decades due to dozens of new regulatory changes, so the real cost of research administration is closer to 30%-35%. These are not mere secretaries or clerks. They are more like bookkeepers who must also have vast regulatory knowledge to ensure proposals, reports, and finances are all compliant. Grant administration is notoriously understaffed and overworked; draconian cuts will mean layoffs, worsening the problem possibly to the point of dysfunction. Small businesses actually tend to have higher negotiated rates, since they lack the efficiencies of scale that large universities have.
An intelligent examination of indirect cost rates might consider reducing the facilities portion and increasing the administration portion, since universities might be reasonably expected to shoulder more of their facilities costs, and the current model with capped administrative expenses may create perverse incentives to overbuild infrastructure (though this is speculative). NIH very recently recognized that recipients are undercompensated for administrative costs, by increasing the indirect cost base on subcontracts from $25,000 to $50,000. Its sudden new claim that universities are overcharging is a willful lie.
The 15% rate is based on no new analysis whatsoever; it was simply the lowest rate that they think they can legally get away with. This is naked confiscation, or more bluntly, theft. The felonious behavior of Donald Trump was not limited to his Stormy Daniels payments (which were exposed only because he initially stiffed his fixer Michael Cohen on his holiday bonus, necessitating later payments), for hundreds of small contractors have attested to his refusal to make legally obligated payments for no other reason than to apply leverage and force them to accept lower payment. Cohen correctly identified this as the tactics of a gangster.
The United States government enjoys what authority it has only insofar as it is grounded in the rule of law, for it makes no claims to an immanent right to rule, as did absolute monarchs. When a government willfully acts without any regard for the rule of law, not only in this but in many other matters, it loses its authority and right to command obedience. I have only spoken on the matter that happens to be within my expertise, and perhaps this will only be persuasive to those with similar knowledge. But I do not delude myself that he is acting incompetently only in my domain of knowledge; there is little reason to doubt that such infantile recklessness, matched with an uncritical and unmerited confidence in one’s own judgment, pervades all of his rash orders.
Many of these orders may be stopped by the courts, but a thief does not cease to be a thief simply because he is prevented on several occasions. The most serious concern is not how many illegalities will stand, but the fact that the chief enforcer of federal laws sees illegality as a fair means to any end, even going so far to condemn and discredit judges who rule against him. The dictatorship which seemed like a delusion when it was described only by those on the left is now already a practical reality, at least as far as the compliant Congressional majority is concerned. Even if they should change their position later, they may find there is no longer a state apparatus willing to implement their will.