The judicial branch has erupted since the Trump admin took office. It’s only getting worse.
Because the Trump admin was just hit with another lawsuit with Supreme Court potential.
Trump’s DOE Slashes University Funding, Hit With Lawsuit
The Department of Energy (DOE) finds itself at the center of a heated legal battle after announcing a new policy on April 11 that caps indirect research funding costs at 15%. This decision has prompted a coalition of prominent universities and higher education associations to file a lawsuit, arguing the move threatens the very foundation of scientific progress in America. The suit, led by institutions like Cornell, Brown, and the University of Michigan, alongside groups such as the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the American Council on Education (ACE), claims the policy is both unlawful and potentially catastrophic for research.
The DOE’s policy targets indirect costs—funds allocated for administrative tasks, facility maintenance, and other non-research expenses. By limiting these to 15%, the department aims to redirect resources toward actual scientific work. According to the DOE, this shift could save taxpayers $405 million annually. “The purpose of Department of Energy funding to colleges and universities is to support scientific research – not foot the bill for administrative costs and facility upgrades,” the agency stated in its announcement. It’s a stance that aligns with the Trump administration’s broader push for fiscal efficiency and accountability in federal spending.
However, the plaintiffs see things differently. “If DOE’s policy is allowed to stand, it will devastate scientific research at America’s universities and badly undermine our Nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation,” the lawsuit argues. The universities contend that slashing indirect funding jeopardizes critical projects, including advancements in nuclear technology, cybersecurity, cancer treatments, and rural electrical grid improvements. These are not trivial pursuits, and the stakes, they argue, are nothing less than national security and public health.
The lawsuit doesn’t mince words, calling the DOE’s decision “flagrantly unlawful” and accusing the department of overstepping its authority. The plaintiffs point out that indirect costs cover essential expenses like building maintenance, equipment depreciation, and administrative salaries—items that, while not directly tied to lab work, are vital to sustaining research environments. For some universities, these funds are substantial. The University of Illinois, for instance, receives up to 58.6% of its research grants as indirect funding, while the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) estimates a $16 million loss under the new cap.
The DOE, for its part, has chosen to remain tight-lipped on the litigation. A spokesman declined to comment, stating only that the department “does not comment on ongoing litigation.” This restraint is typical of government agencies facing legal challenges, but it leaves the public with little insight into how the DOE plans to defend its position. What is clear is that the Trump administration views the policy as a necessary correction to bloated university budgets—a perspective that resonates with those who believe federal dollars should prioritize tangible results over bureaucratic overhead.
Critics of the policy, including the AAU, ACE, and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), argue that the cuts will ripple across more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide. “These actions are part of a continuing and dangerous effort to erode federal support for university-based research,” the groups said in a joint statement. They warn that the cap could stifle innovation in energy, physical sciences, and engineering—fields where the U.S. has long held a competitive edge. The statement paints a grim picture of diminished global influence and stalled technological progress.
This isn’t the first time such a policy has sparked controversy. In February, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) faced similar backlash after capping its indirect funding at 15%. Universities like Harvard, which has secured indirect funding rates as high as 69%, cried foul, arguing that such cuts undermine negotiated agreements. A federal judge ultimately blocked the NIH’s policy, citing procedural missteps—a precedent that the plaintiffs in the DOE case likely hope to emulate.
The Trump administration has a history of taking aim at research funding structures. In 2017, it proposed capping NIH indirect costs at 10%, a move that drew fierce opposition from academia. While that effort didn’t fully materialize, it signaled a consistent philosophy: federal dollars should fuel discovery, not bureaucracy. Supporters of this approach argue that universities have grown too reliant on indirect funding to pad budgets, sometimes at the expense of actual research.
Yet the universities’ concerns are not without merit. Research institutions operate in complex ecosystems where indirect costs support everything from lab safety to administrative oversight. Cutting these funds could force universities to scale back projects or seek private dollars, potentially skewing research priorities toward corporate interests. The lawsuit emphasizes that the DOE’s one-size-fits-all cap ignores the diverse needs of institutions, particularly those with aging infrastructure or rural campuses.
The legal battle also raises questions about fairness. Some universities negotiate higher indirect rates to account for unique circumstances, like costly urban real estate or specialized facilities. A blanket 15% cap could disproportionately harm these institutions, creating an uneven playing field. MIT’s projected $16 million loss, for example, underscores the financial stakes for top-tier research hubs that drive innovation in fields like artificial intelligence and renewable energy.
On the flip side, the DOE’s defenders argue that taxpayers deserve transparency and efficiency. Why, they ask, should public funds subsidize administrative salaries or campus upgrades when the goal is scientific advancement? The $405 million in projected savings could, in theory, be redirected to new research grants or energy initiatives that benefit the broader public. It’s a compelling case for those who see government spending as a trust to be managed wisely.
A victory for the universities could preserve the status quo, ensuring that indirect funding continues to support the intricate machinery of academic research. A win for the DOE, however, might embolden further reforms, potentially reshaping how federal dollars flow to campuses. Either way, the debate exposes a deeper tension between fiscal responsibility and the pursuit of knowledge.
For now, the Trump administration appears committed to its course, framing the policy as a common-sense fix to a broken system. Critics, meanwhile, see it as a reckless gamble with America’s scientific future. As the courts prepare to weigh in, both sides are digging in, each convinced that their vision holds the key to progress. The nation watches, caught between the promise of efficiency and the peril of unintended consequences.
The Conservative Column will update you on any further developments in this litigation.
