A recent article in the Deseret News highlighted that the University of Utah could be in danger of losing $100+ million annually due to the Trump Administration's grant policies.
In reality, as discussed to some degree in the article, the policies and budget being pursued by the Trump Administration are far worse than that.
Although it's a bit ambiguous what the Deseret News editor's based the $100 million figure on, it appears it is the proposed reduction of indirect cost rates applied to grants from current levels (which vary by institution but are typically in the 45–60% range with some lower and higher rates) to 15%. At the University of Utah, the current rate is 54%, which is applied to most grant expenditures except for a few things such as permanent equipment over $5000, tuition, and participant support. Indirect cost rates are negotiated between institutions and federal agencies and are meant to cover administrative overhead, facilities costs, etc. For example, I need access to staff to administer my grants and building space for staff and students. Those costs are not explicitly included in my grants, but are part of the indirect costs.
The Trump Administration has proposed to cut indirect costs to a rate for all institutions of 15%. Although many faculty (including me) grumble about the size or growth of indirect costs, the reality is that they are a necessary component of any grant. A 15% rate is far too low and would not recoup many of the implicit costs of doing research at most institutions.
As discussed in the article, an alternative is being proposed, which is called the FAIR model and provides more explicit accounting of the indirect costs. One of the lead developers of this effort is Kelvin Droegemeier, who is not only former White House Office of Science and Technology policy director, but also a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois. It's unclear if this will gain traction.
In addition, the $100 million loss emphasized in the headline actually sugarcoats what the Trump Administration is purusing. The President's budget cuts the National Science Foundation by 55% and the National Institutes of Health 40%. It also cuts NASA, NOAA, DOE, and EPA. It is a vicious attack of science pursued or funded by government agencies.
Thus, the decline in indirect costs, is just the tip of the iceberg. Under the President's budget, the U's federal funding would decline precipitously, perhaps by about 50%.
But it gets worse than that. Federal funding supports graduate students and graduate student tuition. Without that support, some will not continue in graduate school. This will result in a decline in student credit hours and tuition. These are indirect effects that will have very real impacts students and the University of Utah, as well as the development of a STEM workforce.
In theory, congress ultimately passes the budget, although it has failed to do this in full for a very, very long time, relying instead on a patchwork of bills and continuing resolutions. The last I saw, cuts in appropriations committees in the Senate and House for the NSF, for example, were $16M and $2B, respectively, which are smaller than proposed by the Trump Administration, but in the case of the House, are still massive.
Ultimately, the U and its students have a lot to lose, but really we all do given the return on investments in science for advances in medicine, health, technology, and economic development.