Featured Image: The NIH’s drastic cuts to indirect research funding will strain the ability of the Tri-I to cover critical expenses like facilities, utilities, and financial administration.

Overview of NIH funding changes

In February 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a significant policy change, capping indirect cost reimbursements at 15% for all new and existing grants. This represents a substantial reduction from previously negotiated rates, which averaged between 27% and 28%, with some institutions receiving rates exceeding 50%. Indirect costs, also known as facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, cover essential expenses such as laboratory maintenance, utilities, and administrative support necessary for conducting research.

By capping indirect cost rates at 15%, the NIH is aligning its approach with that of private foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has a maximum indirect cost rate of 10% for U.S. universities. However, research institutions warn that this shift may create financial shortfalls, jeopardizing both ongoing and future projects.

Impact on Tri-Institutional scientists

The Tri-Institutional (Tri-I) collaboration—comprising Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM), Rockefeller University, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC)—relies heavily on NIH funding to support a wide array of research initiatives. All three institutions’ indirect cost rates were close to 70% before the NIH policy change. The new indirect cost rate cap poses several challenges.

For principal investigators and faculty:

• Reduced research budgets. With NIH limiting reimbursement for indirect costs, labs may struggle to cover expenses such as lab maintenance, core facility fees, and administrative support.
• Heightened grant competition. With fewer available funds, researchers may need to devote additional time and effort to securing competitive grants, potentially diverting focus from their scientific work.

For graduate students and postdocs:

• Funding instability. Training grants and fellowships that support early-career researchers could face budget constraints, affecting stipends, research opportunities, and overall training experiences.​
• Impact on international trainees. With potential shifts in funding priorities, international students who rely on external grants may face additional challenges, according to an email sent by Cornell’s interim president on February 21, 2025.

For research staff and core facilities:

• Potential hiring freezes and budget cuts. Reduced NIH reimbursements may limit the hiring of research assistants and administrative personnel who support scientific operations​.
• Operational challenges. Core facilities that provide essential services, like imaging and sequencing, may experience budget cuts, leading to reduced access or increased costs for researchers.

Reactions from the Tri-I

In response to the NIH’s policy change, several institutions have taken legal action. Cornell University, along with eleven other universities and three higher education groups, filed a lawsuit against the NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), challenging the 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursements. The lawsuit alleges that the proposed cuts violate federal grant regulations and administrative law and would harm medical research, the training of future scientists, and the U.S.’s leadership in biomedical innovation.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, pausing the implementation of the NIH’s new policy while litigation continues. This development reflects the broader concern among researchers about the detrimental effects of the funding cuts.

In response to these developments, WCM’s leadership has emphasized the institution’s commitment to supporting its researchers. Dean Robert A. Harrington recently addressed the Weill Cornell Medicine community via email, noting that leadership is actively monitoring federal policy changes and participating in discussions at the national level.

Implications for graduate students

Graduate students and postdocs, particularly international trainees, may face new hurdles in securing funding. While U.S. citizens and permanent residents have access to NIH training grants such as the F31 and T32, international students often depend on institutional or private fellowships. Any reductions in training grant funding could disproportionately affect international researchers by limiting available institutional resources​.

Faculty members have raised concerns that financial uncertainty could discourage prospective PhD students and postdocs from pursuing academic careers. To address this, institutional leaders are advocating for stable funding streams and exploring alternative financial support mechanisms.

Legal and institutional responses

Twenty-two state attorneys general have also sued to block NIH funding cuts on the basis that such cuts violate congressional restrictions. These legal challenges have led to a temporary block against the policy, allowing institutions to continue operations under the previous funding structure while litigation is ongoing.

In response, WCM has initiated discussions with academic leadership to assess the impact of these funding changes on ongoing projects and institutional budgets. Nationally, faculty and administrators are working with policymakers to emphasize the necessity of stable NIH funding for continued scientific progress.

Actionable steps for the Tri-I community

To navigate these funding changes, scientists and trainees in the Tri-I can take proactive steps.

Stay informed: Regularly check institutional announcements and federal policy updates through WCM Central (or your institution’s equivalent) and NIH notices.

Diversify funding sources: Apply for private and non-federal fellowships to supplement NIH support.

Engage in advocacy: Join professional organizations that advocate for research funding, such as the National Postdoctoral Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Provide feedback: Participate in surveys and discussions led by WCM, Rockefeller, and MSKCC leadership to share concerns about funding impacts. If your institution is not offering venues for discussion, pressure the administration to engage in regular, transparent communication with researchers.

Conclusion

As NIH funding policies shift, universities across the U.S. face new challenges. However, institutional leaders are proactively working to minimize disruptions and safeguard research progress. By staying informed and engaged, scientists at all levels can contribute to ongoing efforts to secure stable research funding. As legal and policy discussions unfold, Tri-I researchers will need to remain adaptable while advocating for the resources necessary to sustain world-class scientific discovery.