Since U.S. President Donald Trump came into office in January, funding has become more uncertain across several sectors, including energy and research. Following recent Department of Energy (DoE) funding cuts, several universities and research institutions are now fighting back.
In April, the DoE announced a new policy action aimed at stopping inefficient spending by colleges and universities across the United States. The agency said it would continue to expand American innovation and scientific research. A new policy memorandum stated that the DoE would limit financial support of “indirect costs” of DoE research funding to 15 percent. This policy change was expected to support annual savings of $405 million. The DoE said the policy aligned with Trump’s commitment to bring greater transparency and efficiency to federal government spending.
“The purpose of Department of Energy funding to colleges and universities is to support scientific research – not foot the bill for administrative costs and facility upgrades,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated of the move. “With President Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring every dollar of taxpayer funding is being used efficiently to support research and innovation – saving millions for the American people.”
The DoE provides more than $2.5 billion a year to over 300 colleges and universities to support its research activities. Part of the financing, often over 30 percent, contributes to indirect costs, including facilities and administration costs, according to the agency. DoE data suggest that these costs are higher than the rate of other for-profit, non-profit, and state and local government grant awardees, and the agency aims to address the issue.
Following the announcement, a group of universities, which included Brown University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts to stop the DoE cuts. The plaintiffs argued that the funding reduction would “devastate scientific research at America’s universities” and “undermine” the country’s reputation as a global leader in innovation. The lawsuit states that “The pace of scientific discoveries in the national interest will be slowed... Progress on a safe and effective nuclear deterrent, novel energy sources, and cures for debilitating and life-threatening illness will be obstructed. America’s rivals will celebrate, even as science and industry in the United States suffer.”
The suit suggested that the policy change was unlawful and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Other institutions involved in the legal action are Cornell University, the University of Illinois, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Princeton University, the University of Rochester, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.
The group suggests that the funding reduction would make the U.S. less competitive at a time when Trump is attempting to solidify the country’s position as a global superpower. “It would be, quite simply, a self-inflicted wound and a gift to competitors and potential adversaries such as China,” it said. The group also emphasised the negative effect the move would have on U.S. economic opportunities, the workforce pipeline, and families’ prosperity.
Later in April, a federal judge decided to temporarily block the government’s research funding cuts to universities. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order blocking the DoE from implementing the new policy. The National Institutes of Health has been battling against similar cuts in indirect research costs. In March, a federal judge in Boston blocked the government from going forward with the cuts, a decision that the administration is appealing.
Several U.S. research institutions have complained about significant funding cuts in recent months, under the new Trump administration. In February, Trump halted the first National Nature Assessment (NNA), which had been in the works since 2022 and was nearing completion. Around 150 authors contributed to the report, which assessed the status, observed trends, and future projections of U.S. lands, waters, wildlife, biodiversity and ecosystems.
Trump has repeatedly made clear that he intends to reduce national spending on renewable energy projects as he focuses his attention on expanding the country’s fossil fuel production. In March, the DoE cancelled two awards to the non-profit green energy think tank RMI in Colorado. One was for almost $5.3 million to retrofit low-income multifamily buildings in Massachusetts and California to help reduce energy use and emissions, while the other was aimed at assessing business models for electric vehicle carsharing in U.S. cities. The projects were just two on a list of around 300 clean energy projects under review.
Many of the funding cuts seem to be concentrated in states that did not vote for Trump in the presidential election, such as California. The DoE is expected to halt funding for hundreds of projects supporting climate-friendly initiatives, such as solar power, heat pumps, battery storage, and renewable fuels. The attack on university research and green energy funding could slow the progress of the U.S. green transition and ultimately make the country far less competitive at an international level across numerous industries.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com
- Oil Set For Weekly Loss on OPEC+ Supply Rumors
- China and EU Navigate Trade Tensions and Sanction Issues
- Trump Tariffs Shock European Auto Industry
