Amo, DeGette, Sánchez, Fletcher, Houlahan Lead 148 Colleagues in Demanding Answers on National Institutes of Health Research Cuts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Gabe Amo (RI-01) and Congresswomen Diana DeGette (CO-01), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07), and Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06) led over a majority of the House Democratic Caucus in a letter to Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that expresses alarm at the illegal decision by President Trump to reduce the reimbursement rate for indirect research costs to 15 percent across the board.

“The dramatically lower indirect cost rate cap will have far-reaching consequences for institutions and researchers nationwide, reducing their capacity to conduct cutting-edge research,” said the lawmakers. “Slashing this funding means cutting financial support for the construction and maintenance of laboratories and high-tech facilities; energy and utility expenses; and the essential safety, security, and other support services researchers need to perform their work. Indirect costs make research possible. Without fair reimbursement for indirect costs, research institutions may be forced to close laboratories, lay off staff, stop clinical trials, and pause research programs. This will force Americans to go without lifesaving and life-extending treatments.”

Read the full letter HERE

In addition to the five leads, the letter was signed by Representatives Alma Adams (NC-12), Becca Balint (VT-AL), Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Wesley Bell (MO-01), Ami Bera (CA-06), Donald Beyer (VA-08), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Brendan Boyle (PA-02), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Shontel Brown (OH-11), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), André Carson (IN-07), Troy Carter (LA-05), Ed Case (HI-01), Sean Casten (IL-06), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Judy Chu (CA-28), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Herbert Conaway (NJ-03), Lou Correa (CA-46), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Jason Crow (CO-06), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Christopher Deluzio (PA-17), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Shomari Figures (AL-02), Bill Foster (IL-11), Valerie Foushee (NC-04), Laura Friedman (CA-30), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Vicente Gonzalez (TX-23), Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Al Green (TX-09), Raul Grijalva (AZ-07), Jahana Hayes (CT-05), Pablo Hernández (PR), James A. Himes (CT-04), Val Hoyle (OR-04), Glenn Ivey (MD-04) Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr. (GA-04), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09),William R. Keating (MA-09), Robin L. Kelly (IL-02), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Greg Landsman (OH-01), John Larson (CT-01), George Latimer (NY-16), Summer Lee (PA-12), Teresa Leger Fernandez (NM-03), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Stephen F. Lynch (MA-08), Seth Magaziner (RI-02), Lucy McBath (GA-06), Sarah McBride (DL-AL), Jennifer L. McClellan (VA-04), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI-08), Morgan McGarvey (KY-03), James McGovern (MA-02), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Gregory Meeks (NY-05), Robert Menendez (NJ-08), Grace Meng (NY-06), Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Dave Min (CA-47), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Frank Mrvan (IN-01), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Johnny Olszewski (MD-02), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Chris Pappas (NH-01), Brittany Pettersen (CA-07), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Nellie Pou (NJ-09), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Josh Riley (NY-19), Luz M. Rivas (CA-29), Deborah Ross (NC-02), Raul Ruiz (CA-25), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-IL-09), Bradley Schneider (IL-10), Hillary J. Scholten (MI-03), Kim Schrier (WA-08), David Scott (GA-13), Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (VA-03), Terri A, Sewell (AL-07), Brad Sherman (CA-32), Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Eric Sorensen (IL-17), Darren Soto (FL-09), Melanie A. Stansbury (NM-01), Greg Stanton (AZ-04), Haley Stevens (MI-11), Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10), Emilia Sykes (OH-13), Mark Takano (CA-39), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), Mike Thompson (CA-04), Dina Titus (NV-01), Jill N. Tokuda (HI-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Lori Trahan (MA-03), Sylvester Turner (TX-18), Lauren Underwood (IL-14), Gabe Vasquez (NM-02), Marc Veasey (TX-33), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), Eugene Vindman (VA-07), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2025, the Trump administration announced a new policy that would slash the NIH reimbursement rate for indirect research costs to 15 percent. This illegal move would have far-reaching consequences for institutions and researchers nationwide, cutting off financial support for the construction and maintenance of laboratories and high-tech facilities; energy and utility expenses; and the essential safety, security, and other support services researchers need to perform their work. Simply put, indirect costs make research possible. Without fair reimbursement for indirect costs, research institutions may be forced to close laboratories, lay off staff, stop clinical trials, pause research programs, and redirect resources from critical areas like financial aid. This will force Americans to go without lifesaving and life-extending treatments.

On February 10, 2025, a federal judge in Boston issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on the effort in response to a federal lawsuit filed by hospitals and medicals schools affected by the substantial loss in potential research funds.

Funding for NIH research enjoys support from both sides of the aisle. On May 1, 2024, a bipartisan group of nearly 200 lawmakers called for $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 funding for NIH. 

READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER
Dear Acting Director Memoli:

The United States is a global leader in biomedical research and innovation due to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. That is why we are alarmed by NIH’s illegal decision to slash the reimbursement rate for indirect research costs to 15 percent across the board.[1]  

Because of the NIH, grantee institutions, and a vibrant life sciences sector, the United States has made significant strides in medicine, improving and saving lives with each breakthrough. From 1991 to 2022, the cancer mortality rate in the United States decreased by 34 percent.[2] Annual HIV infections fell by two-thirds from the height of the HIV epidemic, and 65 percent of individuals diagnosed with HIV in 2022 achieved viral suppression.[3] The life expectancy of someone born with cystic fibrosis today is multiple decades longer than it was 30 years ago.[4]  Each of these achievements was driven by research conducted at or funded by NIH.

The dramatically lower indirect cost rate cap will have far-reaching consequences for institutions and researchers nationwide, reducing their capacity to conduct cutting-edge research. Slashing this funding means cutting financial support for the construction and maintenance of laboratories and high-tech facilities; energy and utility expenses; and the essential safety, security, and other support services researchers need to perform their work. Indirect costs make research possible. Without fair reimbursement for indirect costs, research institutions may be forced to close laboratories, lay off staff, stop clinical trials, and pause research programs. This will force Americans to go without lifesaving and life-extending treatments. 

The supplemental guidance for this misguided and detrimental announcement states that the “United States should have the best medical research in the world.[5]” Cutting vital funding for indirect costs accomplishes the exact opposite. Instead of supporting efforts to cure disease, this policy will severely compromise the United States’ ability to conduct lifesaving research. 

A recent Washington Post article described how a researcher who studies how cells communicate faced a setback when the lab's “cold room” broke down. This cold room is essential for conducting experiments critical to advancing our understanding of colon cancer and developing potential cures. The expenses associated with maintaining cold rooms represent the kind of funding that would be slashed under NIH’s policy, compromising the infrastructure that allows researchers to carry out their vital work.

Research universities generate significant economic activity in communities throughout the country. In 2024, the NIH supported work at over 2,500 institutions in all 50 states, as well as in U.S. Territories and Commonwealths.[6] In Fiscal Year 2023, each dollar of NIH funding generated $2.46 in economic activity.[7] The economic pain caused by slashing NIH research funding will not be contained to university campuses. It will reverberate into communities throughout the country, hurting hardworking families already struggling to keep up with rising costs.  

The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 was passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis and contains a provision to prevent NIH from unilaterally making changes to how the agency pays for indirect costs. We are encouraged that a federal judge has issued a temporary order halting this controversial decision. However, the uncertainty and disruption caused by these irrational decisions highlight the need for the NIH to immediately rescind this guidance on indirect costs and refrain from taking unilateral action on payment for indirect costs in the future. With this in mind, we request answers to the following questions:  

1. What measures has the NIH taken to thoroughly assess the impact of capping indirect cost payments? 
    
2. Were alternative solutions considered that would allow for budgetary savings without compromising research institutions’ ability to conduct research?
    
3. How does the NIH plan to address concerns from research institutions about potential layoffs and halted studies caused by the new indirect cost rate?
    
4. How will significantly reducing funds available to maintain critical laboratory infrastructure impact the overall quality and progress of biomedical research and innovation in the United States?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.  We ask that you provide responses to these questions no later than February 28, 2025. 

###