Deplorable:
Despite a court order blocking an attempted freeze on all federal grants, loans, and other forms of financial aid, researchers across Iowa’s public universities are being impacted by President Donald Trump’s executive orders — including those eliminating “radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.”
“If a project includes DEI components, outreach, or related activities (i.e., your project contains explicitly outlined DEI goals), you must pause these immediately,” Iowa State University’s research office last week advised principal investigators on its grants, contracts, or subcontracts — reporting that several federal funding agencies have provided explicit DEI-related guidance.
“All have used language stating that grantees shall cease and desist all DEI activities required of their contracts or grants,” according to the ISU guidance. “This work may include but is not limited to: a DEI plan requirement, training, reporting, considerations for staffing, or any other direct or indirect contract or grant activity.”
Such funding agencies include the U.S. departments of education and energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration — or NASA — which have contracts with Iowa State, University of Iowa, and University of Northern Iowa researchers.
“NASA contractors and grantees immediately shall cease and desist all (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) activities required of their contracts or grants,” that agency advised in a Jan. 23 memorandum.
UI researchers in the 2024 budget year received $20.6 million from NASA — just 7 percent of the $313.1 million its researchers received from federal funding sources, including $177.3 million from the National Institutes of Health and $27.4 million from the Department of Education.
Iowa State researchers last year attracted a record $346.2 million — $236.3 million of which came from federal sources, also a record, including $111.9 million from the Department of Energy and 448.9 million from the Department of Agriculture.
UNI, though not an R1 research university like UI and Iowa State, in 2024 received $35.1 million in external funding — including $19 million from federal sources.
Much of those dollars supporting research across Iowa’s three public universities are tied to ongoing grants and contracts, meaning a federal funding freeze or reduction could halt or hinder a wide range of work — from studies of innovative cancer care, hearing aids, or dementia treatment to projects aimed at protecting wind and solar farms from cyberattacks or processing winter crops into renewable natural gas.
One Iowa State aerospace engineering professor is leading a national team designing a center to study windstorms and their effects on buildings and infrastructure with a four-year $14 million grant from the National Science Foundation.
One UI journalism professor landed a $1.7 million grant from the Department of Defense’s social-science Minerva Research Institute to examine the global spread of propaganda, disinformation, and manipulative content on social media.
“Since the new executive administration assumed office on January 20, 2025, numerous executive orders have been issued that may signal shifts in federal priorities,” Iowa State’s Office of the Vice President for Research said in recent guidance to its researchers. “These changes could potentially impact both awarded projects and those awaiting funding from federal agencies or sponsors.”
The UI Office of the Vice President for Research issued similar guidance after Trump on Jan. 27 issued an executive order freezing federal funding — an order a judge temporarily blocked.
“We understand that the uncertainties regarding recent directives have created a considerable amount of concern within our research community about current and future funding,” UI Interim Vice President for Research Lois Geist wrote in a campus message. “My office is working closely with the Division of Sponsored Programs to communicate with investigators who are directly impacted by recent agency communications. We are in the process of reviewing the details of specific projects to determine which employees may be impacted and to what extent.”
For the time being, Geist said researchers can continue their federally-funded work “unless we are instructed to do otherwise.”
Though a federal judge in late January issued a temporary restraining order directing federal grant-making agencies like the National Science Foundation or National Institutes of Health not to “pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards and obligations” on the basis of Trump’s orders — Iowa’s public universities are keeping close watch over guidance from their funding agencies.
And Friday, for example, the NIH issued new guidance on how it would fund “indirect costs” for any new grants issued. The NIH historically has negotiated by individual grant its indirect cost coverage for things like “facilities” and “administration” — including buildings, equipment, maintenance, personnel, and accounting.
But going forward, the agency will implement a standard 15 percent indirect rate across all its grants — allowing recipients “a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission.”
“NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life,” according the NIH guidance Friday. “Indirect costs are, by their very nature, ‘not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefited’ and are therefore difficult for NIH to oversee.”
Reiterating its mission to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems in order to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability,” the entity reported spending more than $35 billion in the 2023 budget year on almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions.
Of that total, about $26 billion went toward direct costs for research, while $9 billion was allocated to overhead through NIH’s indirect cost rate.
The average indirect cost rate for NIH grants has averaged between 27 and 28 percent — with many charging indirect rates topping 50 or even 60 percent.
“Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations,” according to the NIH guidance. “For example, a recent study found that the most common rate of indirect rate reimbursement by foundations was 0 percent, meaning many foundations do not fund indirect costs whatsoever.”
The institute also reported a recent analysis of 72 universities found 67 were willing to accept research grants with no indirect cost coverage. Harvard University required at least 15 percent, the California Institute of Technology required 20 percent, and just three others refused to accept indirect cost rates lower than their federal indirect rate: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the universities of Michigan and Alabama at Birmingham.
The NIH’s new 15 percent indirect rate policy is being applied to all new grants and all those with go-forward expenses starting Feb. 10.
Acknowledging the many NIH grants across its campus, the UI Office of Vice President for Research on Saturday said it’s evaluating the potential impact.
“Overall, the federal transition continues to be a rapidly changing environment,” Vice President Geist wrote, reporting her team is “engaging with our federal delegation as well to ensure they understand the profound impact this change would have on research at the University of Iowa.”
www.thegazette.com
Despite a court order blocking an attempted freeze on all federal grants, loans, and other forms of financial aid, researchers across Iowa’s public universities are being impacted by President Donald Trump’s executive orders — including those eliminating “radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.”
“If a project includes DEI components, outreach, or related activities (i.e., your project contains explicitly outlined DEI goals), you must pause these immediately,” Iowa State University’s research office last week advised principal investigators on its grants, contracts, or subcontracts — reporting that several federal funding agencies have provided explicit DEI-related guidance.
“All have used language stating that grantees shall cease and desist all DEI activities required of their contracts or grants,” according to the ISU guidance. “This work may include but is not limited to: a DEI plan requirement, training, reporting, considerations for staffing, or any other direct or indirect contract or grant activity.”
Such funding agencies include the U.S. departments of education and energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration — or NASA — which have contracts with Iowa State, University of Iowa, and University of Northern Iowa researchers.
“NASA contractors and grantees immediately shall cease and desist all (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) activities required of their contracts or grants,” that agency advised in a Jan. 23 memorandum.
‘Considerable amount of concern’
UI researchers in the 2024 budget year received $20.6 million from NASA — just 7 percent of the $313.1 million its researchers received from federal funding sources, including $177.3 million from the National Institutes of Health and $27.4 million from the Department of Education.
Iowa State researchers last year attracted a record $346.2 million — $236.3 million of which came from federal sources, also a record, including $111.9 million from the Department of Energy and 448.9 million from the Department of Agriculture.
UNI, though not an R1 research university like UI and Iowa State, in 2024 received $35.1 million in external funding — including $19 million from federal sources.
Much of those dollars supporting research across Iowa’s three public universities are tied to ongoing grants and contracts, meaning a federal funding freeze or reduction could halt or hinder a wide range of work — from studies of innovative cancer care, hearing aids, or dementia treatment to projects aimed at protecting wind and solar farms from cyberattacks or processing winter crops into renewable natural gas.
One Iowa State aerospace engineering professor is leading a national team designing a center to study windstorms and their effects on buildings and infrastructure with a four-year $14 million grant from the National Science Foundation.
One UI journalism professor landed a $1.7 million grant from the Department of Defense’s social-science Minerva Research Institute to examine the global spread of propaganda, disinformation, and manipulative content on social media.
“Since the new executive administration assumed office on January 20, 2025, numerous executive orders have been issued that may signal shifts in federal priorities,” Iowa State’s Office of the Vice President for Research said in recent guidance to its researchers. “These changes could potentially impact both awarded projects and those awaiting funding from federal agencies or sponsors.”
The UI Office of the Vice President for Research issued similar guidance after Trump on Jan. 27 issued an executive order freezing federal funding — an order a judge temporarily blocked.
“We understand that the uncertainties regarding recent directives have created a considerable amount of concern within our research community about current and future funding,” UI Interim Vice President for Research Lois Geist wrote in a campus message. “My office is working closely with the Division of Sponsored Programs to communicate with investigators who are directly impacted by recent agency communications. We are in the process of reviewing the details of specific projects to determine which employees may be impacted and to what extent.”
For the time being, Geist said researchers can continue their federally-funded work “unless we are instructed to do otherwise.”
‘Profound impact’
Though a federal judge in late January issued a temporary restraining order directing federal grant-making agencies like the National Science Foundation or National Institutes of Health not to “pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards and obligations” on the basis of Trump’s orders — Iowa’s public universities are keeping close watch over guidance from their funding agencies.
And Friday, for example, the NIH issued new guidance on how it would fund “indirect costs” for any new grants issued. The NIH historically has negotiated by individual grant its indirect cost coverage for things like “facilities” and “administration” — including buildings, equipment, maintenance, personnel, and accounting.
But going forward, the agency will implement a standard 15 percent indirect rate across all its grants — allowing recipients “a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission.”
“NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life,” according the NIH guidance Friday. “Indirect costs are, by their very nature, ‘not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefited’ and are therefore difficult for NIH to oversee.”
Reiterating its mission to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems in order to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability,” the entity reported spending more than $35 billion in the 2023 budget year on almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions.
Of that total, about $26 billion went toward direct costs for research, while $9 billion was allocated to overhead through NIH’s indirect cost rate.
The average indirect cost rate for NIH grants has averaged between 27 and 28 percent — with many charging indirect rates topping 50 or even 60 percent.
“Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations,” according to the NIH guidance. “For example, a recent study found that the most common rate of indirect rate reimbursement by foundations was 0 percent, meaning many foundations do not fund indirect costs whatsoever.”
The institute also reported a recent analysis of 72 universities found 67 were willing to accept research grants with no indirect cost coverage. Harvard University required at least 15 percent, the California Institute of Technology required 20 percent, and just three others refused to accept indirect cost rates lower than their federal indirect rate: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the universities of Michigan and Alabama at Birmingham.
The NIH’s new 15 percent indirect rate policy is being applied to all new grants and all those with go-forward expenses starting Feb. 10.
Acknowledging the many NIH grants across its campus, the UI Office of Vice President for Research on Saturday said it’s evaluating the potential impact.
“Overall, the federal transition continues to be a rapidly changing environment,” Vice President Geist wrote, reporting her team is “engaging with our federal delegation as well to ensure they understand the profound impact this change would have on research at the University of Iowa.”
Iowa universities brace for impact from executive orders
Despite a court order blocking an attempted freeze on all federal grants, loans, and other forms of financial aid, researchers across Iowa’s public universities are being impacted by President Donald Trump’s executive orders — including those eliminating “radical and wasteful government DEI...
www.thegazette.com
