Friday, Feb. 7, U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced federal research funding cuts for the National Institute of Health. The decrease would impact universities and hospitals nationwide that rely on federal funding to conduct cutting-edge biomedical research.
However, a federal judge in Boston, Mass., blocked the measure Feb. 11, pausing the funding changes and temporarily protecting universities’ research capacity.
The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by 22 U.S. states, which lambasted the extent to which such cuts would undermine crucial research on conditions like diabetes and heart disease and stifle higher learning opportunities for students.
Specifically, Trump’s executive order called for reducing the “indirect costs” portion of NIH research grants, which covers infrastructural and material needs for research teams, such as lab equipment, facility costs, administrative salaries and utilities.
If allowed to continue, Trump’s order would limit indirect costs to 15% of a research grant. For the 2025-26 fiscal year, indirect costs made up 56.25% percent of the College’s “organized research” funding and 40.7% of “other sponsored activity.”
In 2023, the College received six awards from the NIH totaling $2,474,097. According to the NIH’s Research Portfolio database, the College’s Biology Department received the most funding at $1,713,314. 50.70% of the College’s total NIH funding consisted of indirect costs in 2023.
The changes would most imminently affect universities with partnering hospitals, such as Vanderbilt University and Johns Hopkins University, who rely heavily on NIH support to conduct research and maintain the infrastructural needs of their hospitals.
The College’s website specifies that higher education institutions are retroactively reimbursed for such expenses.
“To calculate the level of federal IDC reimbursement, every 2 to 4 years, the agency responsible for setting a university’s IDC rate (for W&M – the Department of Defense Office of Naval Research, ONR) comprehensively reviews these shared costs to determine the appropriate federal reimbursement rate,” the College’s website said.
Thursday, Feb. 13, in an official joint statement emailed to the student body, Provost Peggy Agouris and Vice President for Student Affairs Virginia M. Ambler ’88 Ph.D. ’06 noted that it’s too early to determine the precise impacts of Trump’s executive orders on the College. They further emphasized the College’s commitment to preserving its well established principles while weathering federal policy shifts.
“This community is justly proud of our values-based approach to teaching, learning, and research – anchored in longstanding commitments to belonging, curiosity, excellence, flourishing, integrity, respect, and service,” they wrote. “At times of uncertainty, we remind ourselves how durable these values are.”
Agouris and Ambler reaffirmed the College’s vigilance regarding any sudden changes that may occur at the federal level, recognizing the unprecedented uncertainty the higher education landscape currently faces under the Trump administration.
“Executive orders from Washington that may impact higher education have proliferated this past month, with confusing stays and reversals,” they wrote. “As they are announced, university leadership works closely with relevant departments to evaluate any potential impact to W&M. Our priority is to provide timely and accurate information.”
In an update posted on the website of the Office of Sponsored Programs, which is responsible for managing the allocation of federal research funding, the office encouraged faculty to pursue their research as planned by submitting grant proposals and making purchases as if under typical circumstances.
“Please continue to conduct your research and to charge expenses to your projects according to sponsor-approved budgets,” the website said. “Continue to submit your grant proposals as planned, by their posted due dates – while paying close attention to possible changes in submission due dates and in requirements in new funding announcements.”
The Office of Sponsored Programs also instructed faculty to report any communications they receive from the federal government before making any operational changes.
“If you are contacted directly by a federal agency, prime entity or sub-awardee about a federally funded grant or contract, please share that information with your Sponsored Programs (OSP) Administrator as soon as possible,” the website said.
Data purges to the Center for Disease Control website have also been affecting colleges and universities, which temporarily removed thousands of guideline websites and research on issues of public health, such as rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The public health community is especially concerned with Trump’s drastic cut to the United States Agency for International Development funding.
Assistant professor of public health Scott Ickes ’04 researches topics that federal websites like the CDC and NIH typically display, such as the causes of poor nutrition and solutions to improve nutrition in underserved communities.
In an email to The Flat Hat, Ickes explained that he is most troubled about the impacts of the administration’s significant reduction of USAID funding.
“It’s difficult to pinpoint one area, but I am concerned for countries with weak and unstable health systems that may really struggle to function apart from USAID funding,” Ickes wrote. “Much of USAID’s work is in strengthening health systems — partnering with local governments to establish robust health systems. This is often slow work that is about building infrastructure and human resources. These changes could really stimy that work and put many countries on a much different trajectory.”
Ickes further expressed apprehension about what these federal cuts will mean for the United States’ reputation as a leader in global medical research.
“The U.S. has been by and large respected and appreciated as a leader in the global health field,” he said. “These abrupt changes may quickly change our nation’s international perception.”
Abigail Mulhern ’27 is a mathematics major specializing in pre-college math education and plans on conducting research for an honors thesis. She believes that while federal research funding cuts may be detrimental, they might also serve as cost savings in instances where higher education institutions can cover indirect costs themselves.
“If lab equipment and facility management is something that these research institutions can afford to do on their own, then I would completely understand why the funding should be cut out of that,” Mulhern said. “But I would want more information on what the direct costs are versus the indirect, how it’s been done in the past, and what the institutions are specifically asking for.”
Norah Myerow ’27, a biology major, noted that she has been having a difficult time finding research opportunities on campus. While she is unsure if this is because of potential federal research cuts, she still finds the possibility concerning.
“I’ve already been hearing some instances from other students that their labs that they are currently in have been underfunded, and for the research that they’re getting paid to do, they are getting paid less or not at all,” Myerow said. “I think it’s probably going to make it a lot harder for students who are looking to do research like myself.”
