In Durham, North Carolina, Duke University is grappling with the looming threat of significant financial setbacks due to proposed cuts from the Trump administration, which target funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This private institution within the Research Triangle is bracing for a severe reduction in grants, echoing the concerns of many research universities across the United States.
Duke stands to incur substantial losses, having previously secured $580 million in NIH grants and contracts in the last fiscal year, placing it 11th among research institutions nationwide. While a court challenge has temporarily stalled these cuts, universities everywhere are preparing for potential repercussions by freezing hiring, scaling back research endeavors, and drafting contingency plans in anticipation of funding withdrawals.
Historically, the federal government and educational institutions have collaborated on funding arrangements, where the government supplements research grants with additional funding covering operational expenses. At Duke, the current indirect costs rate, which encompasses utilities and laboratory upkeep, stands at roughly 61%. However, the Trump administration has proposed capping this rate at a mere 15%, a dramatic reduction from what most universities usually receive.
The potential reduction in indirect costs is not the only issue. Funding for new grants has drastically slowed since the NIH postponed grant application reviews in January. As a result, Duke experienced a significant drop in NIH grant notices, plummeting from 166 in the early months of 2024 to just 64 so far in 2025, according to the university.
The School of Medicine at Duke, which receives the majority of the university’s NIH funding, is already feeling the effects. Planned expansion projects have been put on hold, fewer Ph.D. students are being accepted, and researchers are assessing the viability of their projects moving forward.
The Trump administration has labeled indirect costs as “administrative bloat,” arguing that cuts could save over $4 billion annually and redirect funds towards scientific research. White House spokesperson Kush Desai emphasized the administration’s commitment to reducing government inefficiencies while prioritizing the needs of the public.
Support from NIH funding has long enabled universities to sustain scientific research. Donald McDonnell, a Duke pharmacology and cancer biology professor, estimates his laboratory has received up to $40 million in NIH funding over three decades, contributing to FDA-approved cancer treatments. Maintaining essential lab equipment and staff would become challenging if indirect cost rates dropped to 15%, McDonnell explained.
Duke’s overall research budget last year totaled $1.33 billion, with $863 million sourced from federal funding. Without NIH support, researchers would need to seek funding from private entities and philanthropists, which typically provide significantly less financial support, according to Geeta Swamy, the executive vice dean of the School of Medicine.
The cap on indirect costs poses additional concerns for incoming professor Nanthia Suthana, who specializes in neurosurgery and biomedical engineering. Her research requires elaborate facilities to study brain activity and explore treatments for neurological conditions. The construction of her new lab is underway, but funding uncertainties could force her to scale down her plans.
Moreover, Duke’s medical school is admitting fewer Ph.D. students for the upcoming semester, down from around 130 last year to a target of 100 or fewer. This contraction could lead to smaller class sizes and a reduced pathway into medical research careers, as noted by Beth Sullivan, who manages the school’s biomedical Ph.D. programs.
Among the students affected is third-year doctoral candidate Caleb McIver, who had been pursuing an NIH diversity supplement to support minority student training. With such initiatives being phased out, McIver is now seeking other funding routes despite the added pressures.
In response to these uncertainties, Duke has also shelved plans for a new research building and is reevaluating smaller projects. The university faces challenges accommodating its workforce within existing facilities, with potential widespread layoffs looming if indirect cost rates drop significantly.
Previously focused on recruiting top scientific talent, Vice Dean Colin Duckett now finds himself in a crisis management role, striving to steer Duke through potential financial turbulence.