\u201cThe proposal is in the Senate, but this signals that both Democrats and Republicans have no appetite for NIH cuts in 2026 or a large reorganization, and that\u2019s a great sign,\u201d said Scott Delaney, a Harvard research scientist and the co-creator of the Grant Witness<\/a>, a database tracking cuts.<\/p>\n 2. A new Trump executive order calls for sweeping changes to funding decisions.<\/p>\n On Aug. 7, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at reforming federal grant funding and \u201cending offensive waste of tax dollars.\u201d The order states that last year, more than a quarter of new NSF grants went to \u201cdiversity, equity, and inclusion and other far-left initiatives.\u201d<\/p>\n The executive order requires federal agencies to appoint senior political officials to review and approve all discretionary grants, including renewals, ensuring they align with White House priorities. Career experts and peer reviewers will continue to be involved in the process, but will no longer have the final say.<\/p>\n It also directs federal agencies to incorporate a \u201ctermination-for-convenience\u201d clause that would make it easier for the government to cancel grants. The order also says that federal funding may not be distributed to programs that use racial preferences, deny <\/b>binary sex classifications, support undocumented immigration, or promote what the directive deems \u201canti-American values.\u201d<\/p>\n Attorneys at Washington, D.C.-based firm Arnold and Porter<\/a> wrote in an analysis that the order is not legally binding but that it sets the tone for subsequent Office of Management and Budget guidance and potential rulemaking.<\/p>\n 3. A new policy may limit the number of NIH grants awarded. <\/p>\n The NIH plans to shrink<\/a> the share of grant applications it will award for the <\/b>remainder of this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, due to a new Trump administration policy. The policy will continue into next year unless Congress steps in. <\/p>\n The impact weighs heavily on R01 grants, which are often awarded to universities and medical labs working on scientific research and training graduate students and postdocs, according to the Globe\u2019s sister publication, STAT<\/a>.<\/p>\n Driving the policy is an administration decision to change the way NIH distributes funding for multiyear grants. In the past, federal agencies have spread out funding over the life of the grants, which typically last three to five years. According to the new policy, at least one-half of the NIH\u2019s remaining funds for supporting new projects in 2025 must be paid out up front. <\/p>\n \u201cInstead of supporting five grants for one year, it\u2019s funding one grant for five years,\u201d Delaney said.<\/p>\n He added that the push to fund grants for multiple years at once is the result of many in the NIH rushing <\/b>to spend funds that were allocated for this year but have not been distributed due to grant terminations and disruptions to the grant review process. <\/p>\n An NIH spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. <\/p>\n 4. A new approach to lowering indirect costs <\/p>\n In February, the NIH sparked widespread panic in the research community by issuing a rule that capped indirect cost reimbursement at 15 percent \u2014 far below the typical 30 to 70 percent institutions depend on to cover infrastructure and administrative support. Previously, each research institution negotiated rates with NIH based on its documented expenses.<\/p>\n The measure was blocked in April by an injunction that is being litigated through the Massachusetts Appeals Court. <\/p>\n \u201cThis money pays for our power, the lease of our building, it\u2019s the infrastructure we all need,\u201d said Dr. Bruce Fischl, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School.<\/p>\n The Trump administration argues the cap is to align indirect costs with those paid by private foundations and to direct more of the budget to research rather than overhead. <\/p>\n The administration is also trying to limit indirect cost rates in another way. The president\u2019s August executive order directs grant reviewers to prioritize institutions with lower indirect cost rates over those with higher ones. It also encourages agencies to avoid concentrating funding among repeat recipients and instead support a broader mix of institutions. <\/p>\n \u201cThis may significantly reduce cost recovery for institutions with higher [indirect cost] rates, an issue that is both the subject of active litigation and Congressional review through annual appropriations and authorizing legislation,\u201d Arnold and Porter<\/a> attorneys noted.<\/p>\n The Joint Associations Group, a coalition of national academic, medical, and independent research institutions, proposed a new approach to calculating indirect costs. Instead of negotiating indirect cost rates with each institution, the group proposed a model that calculates indirect costs based on the total project cost, aiming for a clearer understanding of how funds are allocated and used. <\/p>\n 5. The immigration crackdown <\/p>\n Since the Trump administration took office, New England has lost $3.15 billion in research funding from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Health and Human Services. The latest update includes most of the grants terminated at Harvard, totaling $2.4 billion. Of that, $2.16 billion comes from NIH awards \u2014 roughly one-quarter of all NIH terminations nationwide \u2014 and has catapulted Massachusetts to the top of the list for revoked federal research funding.<\/p>\n Researchers warn that these cuts threaten long-term innovation, drug development, and America\u2019s global leadership in science. <\/p>\n Fischl added that the administration\u2019s immigration policy is also <\/b>slowing scientific advances.<\/p>\n \u201cA significant fraction of the smartest people in the world want to come to the states, and when they come, they frequently stay,\u201d he said. \u201cThey are a boon to our economy, but that\u2019s drying up. People are afraid. I have postdocs that haven\u2019t seen their families in two years because they\u2019re afraid to go home because they\u2019re not sure they\u2019re going to make it back. It\u2019s heartbreaking that these people want to contribute to our society and we\u2019re not letting them.\u201d<\/p>\n Sarah Rahal can be reached at sarah.rahal@globe.com<\/a>. Follow her on X @SarahRahal_<\/a> or Instagram @sarah.rahal<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"Scott](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/FNWGU2RP7HQLOKDZ6NQRWMGR5Y.jpg\")
Scott Delaney is the co-creator of the Grant Witness database. Suzanne Kreiter\/Globe Staff<\/p>\n![\"Dr.](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/35YMNR2CUGEVLIUHHMCYGA2GYY.jpg\")
Dr. Bruce Fischl, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School, does research on the intersection of computer science and neuroradiology at Massachusetts General Hospital.Pat Greenhouse\/Globe Staff<\/p>\n