. A recent report showed that Stanford has roughly one administrator for every student—an unflattering statistic that calls into question higher ed’s priorities. But administrators have proliferated in part because of government requirements that won’t disappear with a funding cap. Universities receiving grants, for instance, must comply with important but costly regulations to protect the safety of human subjects as well as data privacy.
On the other side of the balance sheet, cutting university funding affects more than academics. Research institutions can be local economic engines, creating jobs and driving innovation. The University of Alabama, the state’s largest employer, received $334 million in NIH funds in 2024 alone. Capping indirect costs at 15% would cost it around $70 million a year, shrinking its economic footprint.
There’s a better solution than a blanket cap. Universities could instead commit to addressing administrative bloat and shoring up research integrity—both reasonable points that academics themselves have flagged. Given the choice, many researchers would rather see more money flow to actual research than administration. And adopting replication policies for research findings, already standard in many top academic journals, would bolster integrity.
Indirect cost rates of 70% are likely a thing of the past, but smart maneuvering could give universities a win, hand Republicans a victory, and keep vital research on solid footing.