There Are Many Victims of Trump’s NIH Cuts. DEI Isn’t One.

“A sane government would never do this,” tweeted former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey S. Flier in response to a new Trump administration policy slashing billions of dollars in research funding.

And though sanity is a word few might use to describe an administration hell-bent on upending as many political and economic norms as possible, the White House’s policy still stands out in a tsunami of executive directives for its stunning self-sabotage: It mistakes bread-and-butter medical research for DEI wokeness, sets fire to the research budgets of public institutions across the country, and fails to offset its damage with any constructive contribution to higher education.

The new policy, which a federal court temporarily paused this week, reduces the percentage of National Institutes of Health research funding that can be spent on overhead costs — such as lab equipment, building maintenance, and utilities expenses — to 15 percent.

The impacts will be devastating. Harvard currently spends 69 percent of its NIH research grants on overhead charges and stands to lose north of $100 million under the new rules. Across the country, where the average overhead expense rate has historically fluctuated between 27 and 28 percent — nearly twice the NIH’s new proposal — billions of dollars in funds are in jeopardy.

The administration justifies these cuts by arguing bloated elite institutions funnel research funding into “woke” pursuits: “President Trump is doing away with Liberal DEI Deans’ slush fund,” tweeted Katie Miller, who oversees communications at President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that medical research typically has little to do with DEI — cancer and infectious disease research generally receive more NIH funding than any other discipline. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a less political or controversial use of funds than support for the computers and electricity bills in medical research labs.

Second, it’s not just the “liberal” deans who will see substantial budget cuts. In addition to tarring medical research labs as woke DEI hotbeds, the White House insidiously insinuates these budget cuts primarily target Harvard and its wealthy peers. Trump himself specifically referenced Harvard’s endowment when defending the controversial policy.

Ignoring the complicated economics of Harvard’s endowment (the size of which, incidentally, Trump underestimated by three orders of magnitude in a concerning display of ignorance), this logic conceals the wide-ranging impact these budget cuts will wreak on schools across the country — regardless of their wealth.

While elite schools Harvard and Duke risk losing some $100 million, some public universities — like the University of Michigan and the University of Pittsburgh — are projected to lose even more. Universities in Republican states are projected to reap large losses too: The University of Florida will lose some $49.4 million, the University of Alabama at Birmingham about $45.1 million, and the Texas public school system more than a whopping $100 million.

The severity of these cuts varies depending on the complex interaction of numerous factors — including levels of research spending, research disciplines, and costs of living — not merely on the depth of a university’s coffers or the extent of its perceived wokeness. Although elite schools will tend to see more losses (a product of the fact that richer schools currently house more research), the NIH’s directive is a tool so blunt it harms institutions of all geographies, political affiliations, and endowment sizes.

This reality is not just significant because it undercuts the White House’s policy justification; it also betrays Trump’s complete insincerity about acting on conservative visions for higher education.

For decades — and especially over the past year and a half — conservative thinkers have turned against our nation’s top universities. The trend is undoubtedly related to a representation issue: Student bodies at Harvard and peer institutions have long skewed progressive, and faculty representation is only more disproportionate.

But part of the conservative backlash against Harvard has a deeper, more populist explanation. Harvard’s elitism and the privilege it confers upon graduates is a convenient scapegoat for today’s generation of populist politicians and pundits. Their jealousy is exacerbated by Harvard’s $50 billion endowment and disproportionately wealthy student body.

Against this backdrop, conservative activists have begun articulating an egalitarian vision for higher education that, at least in theory, spreads resources across the country more equitably.

Steve Bannon recently called for exactly that, demanding steps to reform elite institutions and reinstate “meritocracy.” Trump’s election campaign included a promise to tax university endowments and invest the revenue in an “American Academy” — a free online university open to all citizens — leveling the playing field of higher education.

Although Republican proposals to mend higher ed are certainly fanciful and misguided — and in many instances alarmingly reckless — they at least promise some theoretical improvements in educational access. Reevaluating how federal funds are disbursed to different schools, promoting competition in higher education, and prioritizing public education responds to a real populist desire for education reform.

As Trump’s latest order makes clear, this desire remains unanswered: The administration’s research funding cuts are not offset by any improvement to America’s education system. Worse, they actively hurt smaller schools that conservatives have ostensibly championed as alternatives to the Ivy League.

While Trump denies his voters the platform he was elected upon, he skips an opportunity to truly wrestle with education policy, wreaking real havoc under the guise of reform.

Harvard and a hostile Washington have been preparing for ideological war. If Trump isn’t careful, the entire American higher education system — “woke” or not — risks being torn apart in the crossfire.

Jacob M. Miller ’25, a former Crimson Editorial chair, is a double concentrator in Mathematics and Economics in Lowell House.