Members Warn 15% Indirect‑cost Cap Could Erode Smaller Institutions’ Research‑security Capacity

Members of the Science, Space, and Technology subcommittee warned that a proposed or discussed 15% cap on indirect costs could sharply reduce reimbursement for administrative and infrastructure expenses that support research‑security compliance, cybersecurity, and oversight at smaller institutions.

Representative Rivas said the CHIPS and Science Act requires institutions receiving funds under the law to implement compliance systems and that caps on indirect costs would make it harder for smaller colleges to maintain those systems. "The reality is that this drastic reduction in indirect costs reimbursements will result in more than $800,000,000 in cuts for the state of California..." Rivas said, identifying potential impacts on teaching hospitals and the life‑science workforce.

Agency witnesses said they are aware of the challenge and described steps to help smaller recipients. Dr. Rebecca Kaiser pointed to direct awards and secure awards targeted to colleges, and to the NSF Secure Center ( Secure Center and secure analytics ) as resources. Dr. Patricia Valdez (NIH) said NIH intends to provide guidance and tools, and that the Secure Center could help smaller institutions adopt standardized approaches.

Why it matters: Indirect costs fund administrative, compliance and security functions that are often essential for meeting federal disclosure and monitoring obligations. Reductions could force institutions to reallocate funds away from compliance, increasing implementation risk.

What’s next: Agencies told the committee they plan to target programming and technical assistance to smaller institutions and to pursue interagency harmonization of requirements to limit duplicative burdens.

Ending: Members urged continued oversight and follow‑up to ensure smaller institutions retain capacity to comply with research‑security mandates.