Trump’s 15% cap on grant costs will spark the reform the academy needs

New York Post - Mar 23rd, 2025

A federal judge, Angel Kelley, appointed by President Biden, has blocked a proposed 15% cap on taxpayer coverage of 'indirect costs' associated with National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants for university research. This decision has ignited controversy, with critics arguing that the current system allows universities, such as Harvard, to exploit taxpayer money by charging excessively for costs that are not transparently itemized. The case highlights ongoing tensions between efforts to reform government funding and institutional practices that some see as wasteful or unaccountable.

The issue gains further complexity in the context of recent political and social dynamics, with arguments that universities are increasingly aligning their research agendas with progressive social movements. This shift is perceived by some as compromising scientific integrity and public trust. The blocked cap is part of broader debates about the role of taxpayer funding in academia, accountability in research expenditures, and the influence of political ideologies on scientific research. The ongoing dialogue reflects broader societal questions about how public resources should be allocated and the responsibilities of academic institutions in stewarding these funds effectively.

Harvard University Research Funding Indirect Costs Francis Collins Angel Kelley Nih Grants Elizabeth Janiak Judicial Resistance Dei Agenda

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical view of judicial and academic practices related to NIH grant funding, using strong language and a clear stance to engage readers. Its strengths lie in addressing timely and relevant public interest issues, such as the allocation of taxpayer money and the influence of politics on research. However, the lack of balanced perspectives, limited source quality, and insufficient transparency undermine its credibility and potential impact. While the article is likely to provoke discussion and capture attention, its effectiveness in driving informed debate or policy change is constrained by its speculative assertions and absence of comprehensive evidence. Overall, the story highlights important concerns but could benefit from a more balanced and well-supported approach to maximize its influence and reliability.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that are partially verifiable. For instance, it claims that a federal judge blocked a 15% cap on indirect costs for NIH grants, a move attributed to Judge Angel Kelley. This claim aligns with known actions of the judiciary regarding administrative reforms, but lacks detailed verification of the specific legal reasoning and context. The story also discusses Harvard's study funding, mentioning specific figures for direct and indirect costs, which would require verification through grant documentation or financial disclosures. The article's assertion that private contracts typically allow nothing for indirect costs is a broad generalization that may not hold true across all contracts, necessitating further evidence. Overall, the story mixes verifiable data with speculative commentary, impacting its overall accuracy score.

Balance

The story exhibits a strong bias against the judicial decision and the academic institutions involved. It frames the issue as a moral failing of the judicial system and academia, particularly targeting left-leaning politics and policies. The language used, such as 'scam cries out for disruption' and 'shameless “science” bros,' suggests a lack of balance in presenting different perspectives. The piece does not offer counterarguments or perspectives from those who might support the current funding model or the judicial decision, leading to an unbalanced presentation.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and direct style, with a strong narrative voice that conveys the author's perspective. However, the use of charged language and sarcasm, such as 'gold-plated dream-catchers' and 'Great Awokening,' may confuse readers unfamiliar with the context or jargon. While the structure is logical, with a clear argument progression, the tone may detract from the clarity for some audiences, particularly those seeking a neutral presentation of facts.

Source quality

The article lacks direct citations or references to authoritative sources that would support its claims. It references a column by Matt Taibbi but does not provide a direct source or context for his statements. The absence of primary sources or expert opinions weakens the credibility of the information presented. Without clear attribution to reliable sources, the article's assertions remain largely unsupported by verifiable evidence, diminishing the quality of its sourcing.

Transparency

The article does not disclose the basis for many of its claims, nor does it explain the methodology behind the figures and assertions it presents. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the narrative. The lack of transparency in sourcing and the basis for claims makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality and reliability of the information. This lack of transparency significantly undermines the reader's ability to critically evaluate the story.