The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) research budget is under threat due to proposed cuts by the Trump administration. The 55% cut to the NSF overall, with a 75% reduction to research support in my area, would decimate ocean discovery and study. A more subtle but equally dire cut is already underway – funding for indirect costs that enable universities and institutions to host research.
Indirect costs, often referred to as “overhead,” cover essential expenses such as laboratory maintenance, equipment operation, safety compliance, administrative support, and regulatory processes. These costs facilitate science by allowing researchers like myself to focus on discovery. Without them, our work would crumble, and new discoveries would cease.
The Trump administration’s policy capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% would inflict staggering cuts to research support systems, collapsing three-quarters of existing infrastructure and crippling scientific progress. This move ignores the actual negotiated costs of research, such as my institution’s 56.5% rate, and would undermine breakthroughs and life-changing advances.
Critics argue that this policy frames indirect costs as excessive “overhead” unrelated to core research. Officials claim it’s a cost-saving measure to redirect funds toward prioritized fields like AI and biotechnology. However, federal judges have blocked similar caps at other agencies, labeling them as “arbitrary and capricious.”
The NSF plays a vital role in supporting the US scientific enterprise, which pays exceptional dividends. Chaotic and punitive cuts risk irreparable harm to it. As we face an uncertain future, it’s essential to remind our elected officials that research funding is crucial for advancing knowledge and driving innovation.
David L. Valentine is a professor of marine microbiology and geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara.
Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-06-24/national-science-foundation-overhead-research-funding