Harvard Submits Declaration Alongside Lawsuit by 13 Colleges Over NIH Order, Calls Funding Caps ‘Disastrous’

Updated February 11, 2025, at 12:23 p.m.

Harvard’s top research officer submitted a declaration alongside a lawsuit filed on Monday by 13 United States universities over the Trump administration’s order to limit funding for indirect costs tied to research projects.

The declaration makes Harvard’s starkest case yet against the Friday order, describing the caps as an unprecedented financial blow that would stall research University-wide.

The lawsuit — which Harvard did not join as a plaintiff — names the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and agency officials as defendants. It was filed by three Ivy League colleges and co-signed by the American Council on Education, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and the Association of American Universities, of which Harvard has been an affiliate since 1900.

The plaintiffs alleged that the order, which governs grants issued by the NIH, violated federal law and would threaten the U.S.’ “status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.”

Vice Provost for Research John H. Shaw wrote in his declaration that the cap on indirect costs would decrease indirect funding by $107 million for the University — a reduction he described as “disastrous” for Harvard’s research.

“It will necessarily and immediately result in staffing reductions across the board, which will immediately slow down research projects, present potential health and safety risks, and even jeopardize national security interests,” Shaw wrote.

Just hours before the lawsuit was filed, attorney generals in 22 states — led by Massachusetts Attorney Andrea J. Campbell — separately sued the Trump administration over the order. A federal judge blocked the order from going into effect in the states which co-signed the lawsuit and set a hearing for Feb. 21.

The NIH’s Friday order sought to slash funding for maintenance, utilities, laboratory equipment, and other indirect expenses associated with research projects. If it had not been blocked in Massachusetts, Harvard would have been forced to charge the NIH at most 15 cents in overhead costs for every dollar spent on research — a significant decrease from the 69 cents the University currently charges.

The NIH covered $135 million in indirect cost expenses from Harvard researchers in fiscal year 2024, according to Shaw. Under the new limits, Harvard would have received only $31 million, he wrote.

Over the next five years, Shaw estimated Harvard would lose $590 million relative to anticipated levels.

Shaw’s declaration follows Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76’s sharp rebuke against the directive in a Sunday email to Harvard affiliates.

The Monday filing struck many of the same themes as Garber’s email, which described the NIH order as a threat to vital research. But Harvard’s choice not to sign onto the lawsuit lets other schools lead the charge in combating the directive.

“NIH’s extraordinary attempt to disrupt all existing and future grants not only poses an immediate threat to the national research infrastructure but will also have a long-lasting impact on the country’s research capabilities,” the plaintiffs wrote.

The plaintiffs took particular aim at the NIH’s effort to set a universal cap on indirect cost reimbursements, writing that Congress had instructed the NIH to account for “each institution’s unique cost structures and grants.”

The campaign to set a cap on indirect cost reimbursements is a second try for the Trump administration. In 2017, Trump unsuccessfully attempted to implement a 10 percent cap on indirect costs.

In a Sunday interview on Air Force One, Trump targeted Harvard in an explanation of his administration’s decision to pursue the cut again.

“Why are we giving money to Harvard when it’s got a $50 million endowment?” Trump asked. “And yet they don’t use that endowment to help their students.”

Shaw wrote that Harvard’s endowment would not offset lost federal support for indirect costs, as 70 percent of the endowment is restricted to “donor-designated purposes.”

“Harvard is not legally permitted to use those funds to cover research infrastructure costs,” Shaw wrote.

Former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey S. Flier called the cut a “moronic approach” to tighten federal spending and said that it would impede critical scientific research.

“I can assure you, there would be people who would not have jobs,” he said. “There would be labs that would be closed down, there would be facilities that would no longer exist or would have to function in a different way.”

Friday’s order, Flier said, was an example of the Trump administration’s rapid-fire campaign against higher education — a campaign whose effects Harvard and its peers have struggled to contain.

“They have the capacity to do tremendous damage to Harvard, broadly speaking, and all these other institutions, and they have the ability to do it with legal mechanisms,” he said.

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.