As President Donald Trump’s administration continues to find ways to slash spending, the National Institutes of Health set new caps on funding over the weekend. But the move — which the scientific community says amounts to devastating cuts to institutions’ research capabilities — could hit some red states particularly hard, prompting some Republican senators to lobby Trump for a carveout and minimize the consequences for their constituents.
“I’ve heard from my people back home that it would be very difficult for universities in Louisiana to conduct this research,” Sen. Bill Cassidy said. “Of course, I want research done for the sake of my people in Louisiana,” which received $228 million in funding from the NIH in fiscal year 2023.
“One thing I’ve heard loud and clear from my people in Louisiana is that Louisiana will suffer from these cuts,” he added. “And research that benefits people in Louisiana may not be done.”
On Saturday, immediately after NIH’s late Friday announcement, Sen. Katie Britt spoke to Alabama-based AL.com about the cut, promising to work with Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on “a smart, targeted approach” to cost savings that wouldn’t hinder “lifesaving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama,” Britt said.
Britt, who attended the Super Bowl with Trump, told reporters on Monday that she had a call scheduled with Kennedy to discuss her concerns. The University of Alabama-Birmingham is the state’s largest employer and has been awarded over a billion dollars from the NIH in recent years.
North Carolina Sen. Ted Budd, a Trump loyalist, likewise expressed discomfort with the cap on Monday. Budd said his office has been reaching out to the administration with its concerns but declined to comment further. North Carolina’s Research Triangle is the largest research park in the country, with over $2 billion in NIH funding going to the state.
“Obviously we’ve got to get a lot of these back online,” North Carolina’s other senator Thom Tillis told NOTUS. “If you look at how they monitor these programs, I hope we’re gonna see some tailoring there like we’ve seen on some of these other policies.”
The new NIH guidance directs grant-seeking institutions to cap their requests for funding for “indirect” costs to 15%, well below the current average of around 28%. Rates are negotiated by each institution that receives funding and can reach as high as 70%. Indirect funds are awarded on top of each individual grant a researcher or group receives and go toward things like lab maintenance and equipment purchases.
Critics of the new limit say it will force institutions to cut back on the infrastructure that supports their research goals — slashing jobs and productivity in the process.
“These ‘indirect’ costs for research are actually foundational to a thriving, world-class research enterprise; they make it possible to do serious research to begin with,” Kimberly Allen, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in an email. “They include essentials such as data storage; hazardous materials management; radiation safety; the costs of maintaining and renewing research facilities and equipment; research administrative systems; and compliance with federal regulations.”
The NIH did not respond to a request for comment.
Twenty-two states sued the NIH on Monday to prevent the cap from being enacted, leading a federal judge to issue an injunction. However, a reprieve from the cuts only applies to the states that joined the lawsuit — Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina, among them. Republican strongholds Alabama, Louisiana and Texas did not join the suit and, therefore, still face a steep reduction in research funding.
Maine was also involved in the lawsuit over the cap. Sen. Susan Collins called the NIH directive “poorly conceived.”
Collins is an essential swing vote for Kennedy’s cabinet confirmation, expected to take place later this week. She had previously said she would vote to confirm him and that Kennedy promised her that he would reexamine the new cap once he was in place as HHS secretary.
Not every rural senator opposed the cap. Plenty felt that the limit was a good idea, in line with the Department of Government Efficiency initiatives that have run rampant throughout the agencies since Trump’s inauguration.
Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville told NOTUS that he had heard from people at UAB and the University of Alabama-Huntsville over the weekend who were worried about how the change would affect the institutions’ ability to conduct research, but he wasn’t worried about any long-term impact.
“They’re really concerned,” Tuberville said. But, “It’s not just us. Everybody’s being evaluated.”
“We’re leaking oil,” Tuberville added. “We’ve got to find out where it’s going.”
Sen. James Lankford said that the new limitation on indirect costs was comparable to that imposed by “any nonprofit or NGO that’s out there.”
“If you’ve got 70% going towards administrative costs, we’re not actually solving cancer that way. We’re keeping the lights on in the building,” Lankford said.
The Oklahoma senator shrugged off the idea that cutting indirect costs could have an economic or personnel impact, saying that research facilities would find ways to cut costs that would simply make them more efficient. Oklahoma received $148 million in NIH funds.
“The people that are doing the research, they’ve dedicated their lives to doing the research. They’re not going to walk away from that. They shouldn’t walk away from that. It’s their passion,” Lankford said.
Democrats warned that the loss of funding would have exactly that effect.
“This will derail major breakthroughs by forcing research institutions — like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the University of Washington in my state — to now scramble to make up this massive shortfall, almost certainly forcing layoffs across the country,” Sen. Patty Murray said in a statement.
Eleven research institutions, along with the Association of American Universities and the American Council on Education, filed their own lawsuit against the new funding cap on Tuesday. The lawsuit calls the funding cap a “disaster for science” and says it will make it harder for large universities to contribute to medical and scientific breakthroughs. It could even cause smaller institutions to close entirely, the plaintiffs warn.
“America’s rivals will cheer the decline in American leadership that the guidance threatens,” the lawsuit states.
But some Senate Republicans thought a lower cap made practical sense — if it could be implemented with some flexibility.
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said that he felt the 15% limit was “very reasonable in most cases,” although he added that there might need to be some leeway for certain projects with high equipment costs.
“You’ve also got to account for the cost, and in some cases, for smaller experiments, that cost might be greater than 15%. So the question is, how do we address it?” Rounds said.
But when asked if he was concerned about the impact of the indirect cost limit on jobs, Rounds demurred, saying that institutions would simply need to find the “most efficient way” to staff their facilities. South Dakota received $30 million in funding from the NIH in 2023.
Some senators said they were simply happy to not have to wonder if money meant to fund lifesaving research was going to the right people.
“I’m in New Hartford, Iowa, where I’ve lived for 91 years, and I tell the taxpayer, we’re spending $1 on cancer research, but 40% of it’s going towards university bureaucrats,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley. “It’s pretty hard to explain.”
Several senators declined to comment on the funding limits, including Sen. Ashley Moody of Florida ($914 million of NIH funding in fiscal year 2023), Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ($232 million), Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska ($16 million), and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri ($808 million).
There is another way for lawmakers to protect their state’s funding. After Trump tried cutting NIH spending during his first administration, Congress enacted an appropriations rider that prohibits HHS and the NIH from unilaterally changing how the health agencies fund indirect costs. That rider has been on every appropriations bill since 2018.
Lawmakers seemed unfamiliar with the provision, at least for now.
Cassidy said that Collins, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, told him about the rider but that he needs to “figure out that key point.”
“I do not want all the NIH money to be going to Massachusetts and California,” Cassidy said. “I want it to as well come to Louisiana.”
This story has been updated with a quote from Sen. Thom Tillis.
—
Margaret Manto and Ben T.N. Mause are NOTUS reporters and Allbritton Journalism Institute fellows.
Violet Jira, a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow, contributed to this report.