Daniel Aharoni

Federal Grantmaking Gets a Christofascist Glow-Up Read my zero star review of the new Executive Order

For a very "direct" response to the new Executive Order, see

open.substack.com/pub/rasmusse...

1/3

Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the process of Federal

Well, this is a huge Executive Order power grab...

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

1/3

Please join the chorus of voices, including my own, in support of the talented, hardworking and dedicated scientists and staff at NIH. They serve their country by deploying their training and skills to improve the health and quality of life of all Americans 🙏 🇺🇸

76 notices of grant opportunities have been unpublished by the NIH. It’s likely all the grants funded under each of these mechanisms will be terminated. Look at what will be lost, eg:

Addressing the Impact of Structural Racism and Discrimination on Minority Health and Health Disparities

I recently spoke at a Congressional briefing with a military veteran from our PTSD clinical trial on the life-changing impact of the NIH Brain Initiative. Watch here👇

braininitiative.nih.gov/news-events/...

The BRAIN Initiative is now facing a 20% cut on top of the 40% last yr…

So it is the case that all NIH study sections have been indefinitely postponed, right? Everyone I have heard from has had their proposal's study section canceled.

Wouldn't be surprised if Trump plans to pause committee meetings until Congress agrees to include indirects cuts in the next budget.

Sign the Petition Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)

Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap initiated by Tom Maniatis. Please amplify
Sign the Petition: chng.it/kK2HMP5pGk
"Share with Leadership & Faculty. Reach out to professional societies, biotech and pharma leaders, and philanthropic organizations to raise awareness and mobilize support."

Well, this is deeply concerning. At least they aren’t slow-rolling their attempt at bringing down American democracy.

9/ Our voices, our labor, our funds, our actions matter; and it’s time we use them.

8/ Faculty potentially have a power we’ve never fully recognized. It’s time to work across all 50 states and make our collective pain—and our dissent—felt. We cannot stand by while our future is dismantled, our trainees are hurt, and our research is undermined.

7/ Our ability to do our jobs—funding research, training future scientists, teaching students—is under attack. This isn’t just about budgets; it’s about the core values of higher education.

6/ The proposed changes cut deep into positions that faculty nationwide hold dear. Waiting for courts to resolve these issues or for sluggish, misaligned university administrations to act is not an option.

5/ In essence, we aren’t just a workforce—we’re part of the financial backbone of the institutions we serve.

4/ Consider our unique position as faculty:
• We provide much of the labor in higher ed.
• We generate critical funds (via grant indirects) that sustain universities. These funds reach much further than just funding the operational costs around our research.
• We are extremely difficult to replace.

3/ The brutal cut to DEI and change to acceptable grant proposal language is particularly troubling. It comes from the same playbook that is behind the indirect cuts. Removing DEI isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate effort to erase the inclusive framework that drives academic excellence.

2/ Research is inherently progressive. These changes strike at the core values that most faculty live and work by, undermining the very foundation of academic inquiry and innovation.

1/ We need to stop deluding ourselves and start focusing. The administration’s recent NIH indirect cost cuts and near-elimination of DEI in research aren’t isolated moves—they’re a coordinated attack on higher education and research.

5/ In essence, we aren’t just a workforce—we’re part of the financial backbone of the institutions we serve.

4/ Consider our unique position as faculty:
• We provide much of the labor in higher ed.
• We generate critical funds (via grant indirects) that sustain universities. These funds reach much further than just funding the operational costs around our research.
• We are extremely difficult to replace.

3/ The brutal cut to DEI and acceptable grant language) is particularly troubling. It comes from the same playbook that is behind the indirect cuts. Removing DEI isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate effort to erase the inclusive framework that drives academic excellence.

2/ Research is inherently progressive. These changes strike at the core values that most faculty live and work by, undermining the very foundation of academic inquiry and innovation.

This is what amounts to an ILLEGAL & indiscriminate funding cut for research centers everywhere. It will mean shuttering labs across the country, layoffs in red & blue states, and derailing lifesaving research on everything from cancer to opioid addiction.

We all need to speak out to save lives.

The only reason I can see for this being implemented with no warning or phase-in period is specifically to cripple higher education.

Cap indirect costs at universities. Currently, the federal government pays a portion of the overhead expenses associated with university-based research. Known as “indirect costs,” these reimbursements cross-subsidize leftist agendas and the research of billion-dollar organizations such as Google and the Ford Foundation. Universities also use this influx of cash to pay for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) e!orts. To correct course, l Congress should cap the indirect cost rate paid to universities so that it does not exceed the lowest rate a university accepts from a private organization to fund research e"orts. This marketbased reform would help reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.

7. This order did not come out of nowhere. It was a core component of Lindsey Burke's Dept. of Education chapter in the Project 2025 report.

(Private foundations typically pay 10-15% overhead rates, and the logic of this comparison is made explicit in today's Supplemental Guidance from NIH.)

I don't even know what to say. This would be a huge change on it's own, but it happening so quickly and without warning will be crippling to most research institutes in the US.

Shouldn't have taken me this long to switch over but happy to be here now!

Bye bye X | Hello Bluesky!