By SUSAN JONES
The impacts on federally funded research in the past eight months are undeniable, but it’s sometimes hard to keep up with where the various directives and orders from the Trump administration and funding agencies stand.
For instance, just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote to lift a lower court judge’s order blocking $783 million worth of cuts from the National Institutes of Health that the government said had been intended to explore topics like diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, “gender ideology” and vaccine hesitancy, according to the New York Times.
But a different five-justice majority let stand, for now, a lower court’s ruling that the administration’s underlying policy directing the cuts was probably unlawful and should be put on hold. The case will now go back to the lower courts. The ruling appears to mean that grants already canceled will not be immediately reinstated but that recipients may be able to sue in a specialized court. Further cancellations may be barred.
Got all that? Yes, it’s all pretty confusing.
We asked Rob Rutenbar, Pitt’s senior vice chancellor for research, and the Pitt Research team to try to clarify where federal research funding now stands, both at Pitt and nationally. The answers do not reflect yesterday’s ruling.
What is the status of all the proposed cuts to indirect costs for NIH, DOD, NSF, etc.?
-
NIH: The district court enjoined and vacated the policy. Defendants appealed. The case is expected to be heard early October.
-
Department of Energy: The court vacated the DOE policy and declared that it violated grant making regulations, was arbitrary and capricious, and was impermissibly retroactive. Defendants have appealed this decision.
-
National Science Foundation: The court vacated the NSF policy and declared it invalid, was arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. Defendants had until Aug. 19 to appeal, and it looks like they did. Please read here for more.
-
Department of Defense: A preliminary injunction is in effect, motion for summary judgment has been filed. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 4.
How many grants to Pitt researchers have been cancelled or curtailed? What is the monetary amount of those grants?
As of Aug. 6, 2025, 85 awards totaling $25 million. Rutenbar said at the Aug. 13 town hall that several awards have been “uncanceled,” bringing the number down from 100 awards totaling $40 million.
He also said that they’ve had requests for changes in language in 167 awards, and they have filed 22 appeals of award terminations, of which six were denied and the rest remain in limbo.
Other than the direct impact to those researchers whose grants were canceled, what is the larger impact to Pitt?
At a high level, the actual and proposed cuts have created a degree of uncertainty across all major research institutions, including Pitt, which will most likely continue as we wait for Congress to weigh in on the president’s proposed budget cuts to major funding agencies. We are hopeful that they will come to a suitable arrangement which maintains the efficacy of our research infrastructure in the United States.
Have any grants in the humanities been impacted?
As of Aug. 6, 2025, six humanities awards have been impacted.
Does there continue to be a slowdown of grant approval?
It appears so. Receiving notifications about new awards continues to be slow. Some applications were reviewed months ago, with faculty having been notified of positive scores, yet are still pending. Other applications that were slated to be reviewed are still pending without correspondence about whether they were reviewed or what the outcome was. Also, NIH is requiring changes to continuing projects/documents before the next year of funding is issued.
What advice are you giving to people filing for new grants?
Go for it — submit your proposals. Not submitting one is a surefire way to not get funded. Also, talk to our Pitt Research team. We have resources to assist you with your proposals and finding alternative means of funding.
What has been the response from lawmakers you’ve been in contact with to these potential cuts? Are you getting any help from the Pennsylvania delegation to Congress?
Lawmakers have consistently engaged with the University and have been very responsive to our concerns. It’s clear they understand the significance of the issues and what’s at stake for Pitt and Pennsylvania.
Has there been any response yet to the Joint Associations Group recommendations on indirect costs?
The Joint Associations Group (JAG) released its recommended Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) model on July 11, 2025, followed by a July 15 rollout webinar with the research community. JAG members had previously briefed House and Senate appropriators as well as officials at the White House Office of Management & Budget.
Although final action on the proposed FAIR model will take time, the reaction by Congressional Appropriations Committees has been positive. The chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee inserted language in the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill directing the Department of Commerce, NASA and NSF to continue using universities’ current negotiated indirect cost rates rather than implementing the administration’s mandated caps.
Similarly, the House Energy-Water report directs DOE to pause its implementation of a 15% cap while appropriators work to develop a new indirect cost policy with stakeholders. “A blanket indirect cost rates policy, while well-intentioned, does not fully address the unique nature of the department’s research and development work,” the House report states.
Find more information about White House executive orders and funding on the Pitt Research website.
Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.