Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon

Edward H. Levi Hall, which houses many of the University’s administrative offices.

University President Paul Alivisatos emailed faculty on the morning of February 11 to explain why he authorized UChicago’s lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the previous day. The agencies’ Friday decision to slash funding for “indirect” costs of biomedical research, Alivisatos wrote, would have “far-ranging adverse impacts” on the school. 

“These matters stand to affect our institution substantially, and I have a duty to act in support of our core interests,” Alivisatos wrote.

Indirect costs of research include administrative functions and maintenance expenses for buildings, utilities, and equipment for researchers and their labs. When the NIH awards research grants to a scientist at a university, the agency includes additional funding for indirect costs at a rate negotiated between HHS and the school. 

On February 7, the NIH released a directive stating that indirect cost funding would be reduced to 15 cents per dollar nationwide, effective Monday, February 10. Prior to the directive’s issuance, the NIH funded UChicago’s indirect costs at significantly higher rates, with some on-campus research funded at a rate as high as 64 cents per dollar of direct grant funding.

In an update on its “2025 Federal Administration Actions and Updates” page that day, the University wrote, “We are working with our internal and external partners to understand the impact of and response to this change in policy.”

On February 10, two additional lawsuits filed against the NIH—one brought by 22 states and another brought by five Boston and New York area medical organizations—resulted in temporary restraining orders against the implementation of a funding cut.

UChicago, alongside 12 other universities and three university associations, brought the third lawsuit, which had not resulted in a court order at time of publication. 

In justifying the University’s decision to sue, Alivisatos warned that cutting indirect cost funding threatened research. 

“The precipitous timing of this move would immediately damage the ability of our faculty, students, and staff (and those of other academic institutions and medical centers across the nation) to engage in health-related fundamental research and to discover life-saving therapies,” Alivisatos wrote. “For many, indirect costs may conjure images of administrative waste, but the truth is: this is a mechanism through which federal grants support essentials like state-of-the-art lab facilities and cybersecurity to protect data privacy.”

Alivisatos also emphasized the University’s continued commitment to freedom of expression and inquiry.

“This is a place where we are committed to open debate, to rigor and to excellence, and where we recognize that diversity of viewpoint and experience enriches our ability to seek truths,” Alivisatos wrote. 

“Realizing these values is a constant and good struggle, and academic freedom and freedom of inquiry and expression are the fundamental principles that make them possible. The work of the members of this community is important. For these reasons, since the University’s founding, this community has been committed to upholding those ideals–and will remain steadfast to honoring them.”

The University has not released a public statement on the lawsuit or the NIH’s rate cutting. 

The University has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Although only 13 universities are plaintiffs in UChicago’s lawsuit, a number of other major schools, including Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, filed supporting declarations in court and issued public statements of support. All three schools and UChicago are members of the Association of American Universities, one of the other plaintiffs in the suit. 

Classics and history professor Clifford Ando, who raised the alarm on the University’s budget crisis in 2023, told the Maroon that the University’s decision to sue was both the right choice and a warning sign.

“I applaud the coordinated action by the University and its partners in litigation,” Ando wrote in an email. 

“At the same time, I think it’s clear that the courts alone cannot save research universities.  Universities need also to heed the extraordinary loss of esteem they have suffered in public opinion, which afflicts research institutions far more than any other type of university. There’s no cost to the executive or any legislator for attacking an opponent that their voters despise.”

This is a developing story.

Anushree Vashist contributed reporting.