How Trump Officials Undermined Universities: Inside the Controversial NIH Memo

On the afternoon of February 7, a surprising memo reached the National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff just as they were preparing to leave for the weekend. This memo came from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and instructed the NIH to post an important announcement right away.

The memo revealed a new policy that could severely impact scientific research at many universities and institutions. It stated that the NIH would impose a cap on indirect costs—funding that supports administrative and logistical tasks related to research. Previously, some NIH-grant recipients enjoyed rates as high as 75 percent, but now, they would be limited to only 15 percent. This drastic change would also affect grants that had already been awarded.

Many at the NIH were taken aback. It seemed the announcement was crafted to look like an initiative directly from the NIH Office of the Director. However, no one at the agency had seen it before that Friday afternoon. People were concerned; it appeared to be a unilateral decision from the administration, raising questions about the decision-making process at the NIH.

Following the memo’s release, a wave of confusion swept through the NIH and many universities across the nation. Researchers faced the grim reality that they might have to close their labs or lay off staff. The turmoil prompted a federal judge to temporarily block the cap on indirect costs, but the incident spotlighted how the current administration was exerting its influence over the NIH.

In a typical situation, important policy decisions undergo a lengthy review process with input from various stakeholders, sometimes taking months or years. However, this time, HHS officials demanded the memo be published within hours of its arrival. The rushed timeline left IDH staff with little opportunity to respond or voice concerns.

Usually, changes of this magnitude are discussed collaboratively. Still, there was no chance for conversation here. Critics argued that this move was not about improving research efficiency. Instead, it felt like an attempt to dismantle critical support for scientific endeavors. Those within the NIH noted it was unusual and inappropriate for the agency to be forced to align with this untested memo.

Despite the challenges, the HHS leadership insisted on pushing the memo live. NIH staff faced technical issues while trying to upload the announcement, and the pressure from HHS officials grew. They relentlessly checked in until the memo was finally published, just before 5:45 p.m.

Once the news spread, the academic community reacted with panic and outrage. It became clear that many at the NIH were blindside by the abrupt announcement. The unusual format and tone of the memo led NIH staff to question its legitimacy and origin.

The reality was that the NIH had already faced challenges from the Trump administration earlier in the year. A memo from the Office of Management and Budget had frozen funding for grants, leaving many in limbo. In Trump’s first term, efforts were made to limit indirect costs, which previously resulted in pushback from Congress to protect funding rates.

Following the chaos, the NIH eventually instructed its staff to resume processing grants, but the damage had already been done. Funding disruptions had halted important research, leaving many scientists in precarious positions. For those remaining at the NIH amid widespread layoffs, there was growing concern about job stability and the future of the agency. It echoed a troubling sentiment: if the administration continued to overlook the NIH’s expertise and purpose, the foundation of medical research in the country could face significant decline.

Source link