Trump plan would cut UConn research funding by $35 million 

The National Institutes for Health (NIH) cut indirect funding for research to 15%, according to supplemental guidance from the NIH. This includes a $35 million cut to the University of Connecticut and UConn Health research, according to a press release. 

In response, 22 states including Connecticut have sued, with the effort being led by attorney generals of Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan. A federal judge has temporarily placed the cuts on hold, according to CBS News. 

University Spokesperson Stephanie Reitz explained what indirect costs are in an email. 

“In addition to grant funds that go toward federally funded research, institutions can recover part of the overhead costs they incur to undertake that research,” Reitz said. “The percentage that’s reimbursed to the institution is the ‘indirect costs recovery rate’ they reference in their letter.” 

Indirect costs for UConn and similar institutions which conduct NIH-funded research are money for use and depreciation of buildings, research equipment, labs and other administrative costs, according to Reitz. 

“Currently, UConn can recoup 61% of its indirect costs for NIH-funded research at Storrs and the regional campuses, and 66.5% for research at UConn Health,” Reitz said. 

According to Reitz, this cut would increase costs to UConn or a reduction in research activity. 

“Federal funding, including from the NIH and other agencies, comprises 85% of UConn’s external revenue for research, training, and public service,” Reitz said. 

UConn President Radenka Maric, Provost Anne D’Alleva, UConn Health CEO Andy Agwunobi and Vice President for Research Pamir Alpay released a statement to staff and faculty. 

“If implemented as announced, this change will impair our ability to produce innovative research that benefits all parts of society and place a significant financial strain on the university,” the statement said. 

UConn and UConn Health combined got $620,648,927 in funding from the NIH this year, according to a press release explaining the lawsuit from Chief of Communications for the Attorney General’s Office Elizabeth Benton. 

In Benton’s press release, Attorney General William Tong discussed the impacts of the cut. 

“Donald Trump is defunding cancer research. He is defunding treatment for heart disease. He wants to defund research into autism, Alzheimer’s, and preventable newborn deaths. He wants to make us all sicker, and we cannot let him,” Tong said in the press release. “In his sloppy rush to slash funding, Trump has ignored federal law, and we are seeking a court order immediately blocking this illegal overreach.” 

The press release discussed indirect cost agreements. 

“Indirect cost reimbursements are based on each institution’s unique needs, negotiated with the federal government through a carefully regulated process, and then memorialized in an executed agreement,” the press release states. “The Trump Administration’s purports to toss those agreements aside, putting public health and medical advancements at risk. The coalition’s lawsuit seeks to prevent that reckless and illegal conduct.” 

The lawsuit from 22 states alleges that the suspension violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies can enact regulations. 

UConn issued a declaration in support of the action. 

“The cut will create a burden on UConn and [UConn Health] as many of these costs are unavoidable and committed (such as the facility cost of a laboratory) to conduct NIH research,” Alpay said in the declaration. “Such reduction may result in jobs loss.” 

Another statement from UConn said that this policy would not result in a reduction in costs but would force UConn to take on these costs through things like state appropriations, placing burden on taxpayers; tuition revenue which could increase costs to students and endowment funds. 

Supplemental guidance from the NIH defended the cut. 

“Indirect costs are, by their very nature, ‘not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted’ and are therefore difficult for NIH to oversee,” the guidance said. “Yet the average indirect cost rate reported by NIH has averaged between 27% and 28% over time. […] And many organizations are much higher—charging indirect rates of over 50% and in some cases over 60%.” 

The guidance compared funding from private foundations to funding from the federal government. 

“Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations,” the guidance said. “For example, a recent study found that the most common rate of indirect rate reimbursement by foundations was 0%, meaning many foundations do not fund indirect costs whatsoever.”