Support and reassurance from our research leadership @kirkdombrowski.bsky.social:
We have consulted with other universities and discussed this notice among university leadership. At this time, we do not feel that this change is likely to come into effect on the announced date for two reasons:
1. Congress, in appropriating funds to NIH programs in FY24 (the most recent budget, and that which we continue to operate under), specifies the indirect cost rates that will accompany those funds. In the NIH funding, it specifies the use of federally negotiated indirect rates.
2. The temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a federal judge in Rhode Island earlier this week prevents the arbitrary change of federal payments until the legality of proposed changes is decided by the courts.
This was a blanket ruling applying across agencies and included, but is not limited to, payment for work related to recent executive orders. It is likely that this decision includes the NIH NOT instigated change.
For that reason, UVM is encouraging our NIH investigators to carry on your work under conditions that exist today, assuming the continuation of our current indirect rates. For investigators submitting grants to the NIH in the near future, you should submit using our current approved rates.
After, let's call it a good night sleep for the sake of argument, a good night sleep, I read the "Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement: Indirect Cost Rates" more carefully at the suggestion of an experience colleague.
The first paragraph explains what indirect costs are. NIH would not do this as they would assume their audience was university grant administrators and nerds like me.
This reads like the beginning of a book report where a student was explaining something they just read about on Wikipedia.
Almost certainly this was written at Heritage by the 2025 people who had this exact recommendation. Some of the other rule changes were written the same way. The sloppiness is because it is written by an activist who is not a subject matter expert seeking to sound official.
I agree that the document was very likely initially written by people outside of NIH.
However, I do think that the title is accurate. The most recent version of the NIH Grants Policy Statement is 2024; it hasn’t been updated in 2025 yet.
If they had used FY24 in the Guide Notice, it would have made no sense since we are currently in FY25 and there is no published 2025 NIH Guide Policy Statement yet.
Wow. Getting the FY wrong suggests to me this wasn't even written or reviewed by someone with government experience, or budgeting off of federal grants of any sort.
And maybe end with "We will not be applying this cap retroactively back to the initial date of issuance of current grants to IHEs, although we believe we would have the authority to do so under 45 CFR 75.414(c).". Who is "we"? Presumably the Muskrats?
Same terms as this part of Project 2025, Dept of Ed chapter, page 355 I think.
Fwiw any number of people could’ve written the memo on the transition team, in friendly NGOs, etc (not uncommon for new political team to get help with drafts of major policy shifts imho):
Thanks Jeremy. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. The idea it came from the DOGE Bros rather than the NIH per se is actually a bit reassuring to me. It means the NIH employees themselves haven’t yet been pulled into this nonsense.
The first thing many of my research admin colleagues have said “was this written by AI or one of the Musk minions?” It reads 0% like ANY NOT ever issued.
I keep rereading this section & can’t figure out what on earth they are talking about. What is your read?
“Only three universities in the sample refused to accept indirect cost rates lower than their federal indirect rate...”
I think it’s some report from a philanthropic sponsor about the universities taking a reduced indirect. Only 3 said absolutely not (I’ve worked at a university who wouldn’t accept 0% IDC). It’s negating the entire conditions and context surrounding the “survey” I’m 100% sure.
The clincher:
"We will not be applying this cap retroactively back to the initial date of issuance of current grants to IHEs, although we believe we would have the authority to do so under 45 CFR 75.414(c)."
Just completely orthogonal in tone and content to any NIH/NSF notice I've ever read
Comments
We have consulted with other universities and discussed this notice among university leadership. At this time, we do not feel that this change is likely to come into effect on the announced date for two reasons:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html
1/n
2/n
Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement: Indirect Cost Rates
This is Fiscal Year 2025, not 2024.
NIH almost always refers to "F&A cost reimbursement" rather than "Indirect Costs"
3/n
This reads like the beginning of a book report where a student was explaining something they just read about on Wikipedia.
4/n
Later, they cite
[2] NIH, Fiscal Year 2021 Overview Supplementary Tables at 87, https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY21/br/5-SupplementaryTables.pdf.
This is the only link to budget data. There is no way NIH would cite FY2021 data for no reason, rather than the most recent.
5/n
My guess is some DOGE boy was assigned to look up stuff for a couple of hours and write this.
6/n
However, I do think that the title is accurate. The most recent version of the NIH Grants Policy Statement is 2024; it hasn’t been updated in 2025 yet.
See: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-c...
(First bsky post is about F&A....embarrassingly on-brand.)
But the other problems (and more) remain...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwJV_NuN43Y&t=4517s
Fwiw any number of people could’ve written the memo on the transition team, in friendly NGOs, etc (not uncommon for new political team to get help with drafts of major policy shifts imho):
Knowing people inside the NIH have folded would be heartbreaking.
“Only three universities in the sample refused to accept indirect cost rates lower than their federal indirect rate...”
messing up the administrative process is why they keep losing in court when challenged
"We will not be applying this cap retroactively back to the initial date of issuance of current grants to IHEs, although we believe we would have the authority to do so under 45 CFR 75.414(c)."
Just completely orthogonal in tone and content to any NIH/NSF notice I've ever read
https://bsky.app/profile/ashleemboyer.com/post/3lhmvqo6mrc2r