The Trump administration’s recent proposal to cap grant funding from the National Institutes of Health has been met with widespread concern, particularly from research institutions like Tulane University.  

The cuts target indirect costs, which include expenses that are essential to the operation of an organization and are linked to specific research projects. The funding provides reimbursement for these indirect costs already paid for by the university in support of research. Common indirect costs include heating and facilities fees, equipment use and maintenance, cleaning management and administrative fees. The proposed cuts will cap indirect cost payments for new and existing projects at just 15%, whereas before the new directive, indirect cost rates at top research institutions could range from 25% to 70%, with Tulane receiving roughly half of its federal funding for indirect research costs.  

“In 20 years of my research career, I have never seen so much confusion, so much angst,” Giovanni Piedimonte, vice president for research at Tulane, said. “This is going to be a devastating blow to research operations in any academic institution.”  

In 2024, Tulane received more than $133 million in NIH funding for biomedical research, including over 1,600 clinical studies. Most of that money goes to studies at the Tulane School of Medicine, but the Cecilia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and the Tulane National Primate Research Center also receive sizable amounts. Across schools, critical research on “cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, hypertension and numerous other life-threatening conditions” is actively occurring, according to a message sent to faculty and staff by President Mike Fitts earlier this week.  

Tulane may be especially affected by the proposed funding cuts, as it relies on federal grants more than peer institutions. According to Piedimonte, over 70% of Tulane’s research funding comes from the federal government.   

It is difficult to say precisely how much funding Tulane researchers will collectively lose, given the rapidly changing legal status of these orders. However, Tulane spokesman Michael Strecker estimated that the university stands to lose approximately “$32 million annually, at the current level of research activity.” Research juggernauts like Harvard University could lose over $100 million in research funding under the new policy.  

While the new policy will affect all research activity, the proposed cuts especially target diversity, equity and inclusion programs.   

“It’s obvious that the number one target of this situation is DEI … There are already concerted efforts to remove funding from this kind of grant,” Piedimonte said. 

Without indirect cost reimbursements, universities would have to rely on philanthropy, their own endowments or gifts from foundations. However, private donations usually support particular causes, not entire research programs, and much of the money that forms the school’s endowment is already earmarked. Further, the university can only accept gifts from foundations because indirect costs associated with the awarded projects are already covered by federal grants.  

“There’s nothing that can replace indirect costs,” Piedimonte said. 

On Feb. 10, Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary injunction on the Trump administration’s executive order, which applies to all states. Previously, only 22 states were protected against the cuts by a temporary restraining order. How long the restraining order will last will depend on how long it takes the cases to move through the federal court system.  

Several organizations, including Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University and the Association of American Universities, which includes Tulane, have sued the NIH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the proposed funding cuts. 

The complaint argued that the funding cuts constitute a “flagrantly unlawful action” by the NIH and HHS that “will devastate medical research at America’s universities… Americans’ quality of life,” and America’s “enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.”