The Trump administration has announced plans to reduce billions of dollars in overhead funding for biomedical research grants. This move, aimed at cutting costs, has raised concerns among scientists who warn it could hinder progress in critical medical discoveries.

In a statement released on Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) revealed it would reduce funding for “indirect costs” associated with biomedical research, including expenses for lab buildings, utilities, and equipment. The NIH emphasized that its priority is to direct more funds toward actual scientific research rather than administrative expenses.

“We want the United States to lead the world in medical research,” the NIH said. “Therefore, it’s crucial to allocate as much funding as possible directly to the research itself, rather than overhead.”

The NIH expects the cuts, effective Monday, to save around $4 billion (£3.2 billion). They will cap the percentage of grants allocated for indirect research costs at 15 percent—half the current rate of 30 percent.

Elon Musk, leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a cost-cutting group authorized by Trump, has criticized some universities for exceeding this 30 percent rate. “Can you believe that universities with billions in endowments were using 60% of research funds for overhead?” Musk wrote on X. “It’s a huge waste!”

However, many researchers argue that these cuts will have serious consequences for biomedical research. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) warned that reducing funding for indirect costs will “diminish the nation’s research capacity,” slowing progress and depriving patients of new treatments, diagnostics, and preventative care.

Dr. Anusha Kalbasi, a radiation oncologist at Stanford University, stressed the importance of grant funding for maintaining lab infrastructure. “These grants help us keep the lights on, ensure safety in our labs, and support the staff that allows us to focus on science,” she said. “Cutting this funding would hurt even institutions with large endowments.”

The American Council on Education (ACE) also expressed concern, saying that funding for indirect costs is vital for maintaining state-of-the-art labs and staying competitive in global biomedical research.

ACE President Ted Mitchell noted that some labs had already begun shutting down due to the news. He also predicted that universities would challenge the cuts in court.

The proposal to cap indirect costs was part of Project 2025, a conservative policy list created by the Heritage Foundation. The plan suggests that Congress should limit how much universities can receive for indirect research costs, aligning them with the lowest rates accepted by private research organizations.