Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing – The White House
Protecting The American People Against Invasion – The White House
Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families – The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the education, well-being, and future success of America’s most prized resource, her young citizens, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. Parents want and deserve the best education for their children. But too many children do not thrive in their assigned, government-run K-12 school. According to this year’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 70 percent of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72 percent were below proficient in math. Moreover, geographically based school assignments exacerbate the cost of housing in districts with preferred schools, straining the finances of millions of American families sacrificing for their children’s futures.
When our public education system fails such a large segment of society, it hinders our national competitiveness and devastates families and communities. For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs, allowing families — rather than the government — to choose the best educational setting for their children. These States have highlighted the most promising avenue for education reform: educational choice for families and competition for residentially assigned, government-run public schools. The growing body of rigorous research demonstrates that well-designed education-freedom programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of my Administration to support parents in choosing and directing the upbringing and education of their children.
Sec. 3. Guidance on Supporting State-based K-12 Educational Choice. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education shall issue guidance regarding how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives.
Sec. 4. Encouraging Education Freedom through Discretionary Grant Programs. (a) The Secretary of Education shall include education freedom as a priority in discretionary grant programs, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall review their respective discretionary grant programs and each submit a plan to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, that identifies, evaluates, and makes recommendations regarding using relevant discretionary grant programs to expand education freedom for America’s families and teachers.
Sec. 5. Expanding Opportunities for Low-Income, Working Families. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue guidance regarding whether and how States receiving block grants for families and children from the Department, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDGB), can use them to expand educational choice and support families who choose educational alternatives to governmental entities, including private and faith-based options.
Sec. 6. Helping Military Families. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall review any available mechanisms under which military-connected families may use funds from the Department of Defense to attend schools of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms and the steps that would be necessary to implement them beginning in the 2025-26 school year.
Sec. 7. Helping Children Eligible for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Schools. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall review any available mechanisms under which families of students eligible to attend BIE schools may use their Federal funding for educational options of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms and the steps that would be necessary to implement them for the 2025-26 school year. The Secretary shall report on the current performance of BIE schools and identify educational options in nearby areas.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence – The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States has long been at the forefront of artificial intelligence (AI) innovation, driven by the strength of our free markets, world-class research institutions, and entrepreneurial spirit. To maintain this leadership, we must develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas. With the right Government policies, we can solidify our position as the global leader in AI and secure a brighter future for all Americans.
This order revokes certain existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation, clearing a path for the United States to act decisively to retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.
Sec. 3. Definition. For the purposes of this order, “artificial intelligence” or “AI” has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).
Sec. 4. Developing an Artificial Intelligence Action Plan. (a) Within 180 days of this order, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director), and the heads of such executive departments and agencies (agencies) as the APST and APNSA deem relevant, shall develop and submit to the President an action plan to achieve the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.
Sec. 5. Implementation of Order Revocation. (a) The APST, the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the APNSA shall immediately review, in coordination with the heads of all agencies as they deem relevant, all policies, directives, regulations, orders, and other actions taken pursuant to the revoked Executive Order 14110 of October 30, 2023 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence). The APST, the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the APNSA shall, in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies, identify any actions taken pursuant to Executive Order 14110 that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth in section 2 of this order. For any such agency actions identified, the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, suspend, revise, or rescind such actions, or propose suspending, revising, or rescinding such actions. If in any case such suspension, revision, or rescission cannot be finalized immediately, the APST and the heads of agencies shall promptly take steps to provide all available exemptions authorized by any such orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, until such action can be finalized.
(b) Within 60 days of this order, the OMB Director, in coordination with the APST, shall revise OMB Memoranda M-24-10 and M-24-18 as necessary to make them consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 23, 2025.
Key Dates
February 7, 2025
Related Announcements
None
Issued by
Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health (OD)
Purpose
Purpose
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards a large number of grants providing substantial federal funding for research purposes. These grants include significant payments for “indirect costs,” defined as “facilities” and “administration.” 45 CFR 75.414(a). The “facilities” category is “defined as depreciation on buildings, equipment and capital improvements, interest on debt associated with certain buildings, equipment and capital improvements, and operations and maintenance expenses.” Id. And the “administration” category is defined as “general administration and general expenses such as the director’s office, accounting, personnel, and all other types of expenditures not listed specifically under one of the subcategories of ‘Facilities”’ (including cross allocations from other pools, where applicable). Id.
In issuing grants, NIH generally uses the indirect cost rate negotiated by an “agency with cognizance for F&A/indirect cost rate (and other special rate) negotiation.” Grants Policy Statement at IIA-68; see 45 C.F.R. 75.414(c)(1). NIH may, however, use “a rate different from the negotiated rate for either a class of Federal awards or a single Federal award.” 45 C.F.R. 75.414(c)(1). NIH may deviate from the negotiated rate both for future grant awards and, in the case of grants to institutions of higher education (“IHEs”), for existing grant awards. See 45 CFR Appendix III to Part 75, § C.7.a; see 45 C.F.R. 75.414(c)(1).
In deviating from the negotiated indirect cost rate, NIH must “implement, and make publicly available, the policies, procedures, and general decision-making criteria that their programs will follow to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates.” 45 C.F.R § 75.414(c)(3).
In accordance with 45 CFR 75 and its accompanying appendices, this Guidance implements and makes publicly available NIH’s updated policy deviating from the negotiated indirect cost rate for new grant awards and existing grant awards, effective as of the date of this Guidance’s issuance. Pursuant to this Supplemental Guidance, there will be a standard indirect rate of 15% across all NIH grants for indirect costs in lieu of a separately negotiated rate for indirect costs in every grant.
Providing Indirect Cost Rates that Comport with Market Rates
NIH’s mission is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems” in order to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. In furtherance of this mission, NIH spent more than $35 Billion in Fiscal Year 2023 on almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[1] Of this funding, approximately $26 billion went to direct costs for research, while $9 billion was allocated to overhead through NIH’s indirect cost rate.
Although cognizant that grant recipients, particularly “new or inexperienced organizations,” use grant funds to cover indirect costs like overhead, see 89 FR 30046–30093, NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life. Indirect costs are, by their very nature, “not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted” and are therefore difficult for NIH to oversee. See Grants Policy Statement at I-20. Yet the average indirect cost rate reported by NIH has averaged between 27% and 28% over time.[2] And many organizations are much higher—charging indirect rates of over 50% and in some cases over 60%.
Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations. For example, a recent study found that the most common rate of indirect rate reimbursement by foundations was 0%, meaning many foundations do not fund indirect costs whatsoever. In addition, many of the nation’s largest funders of research—such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—have a maximum indirect rate of 15%. And in the case of the Gates Foundation, the maximum indirect costs rate is 10% for institutions of higher education.
A sample list of foundations that provide indirect cost funding and their respective maximum indirect rate is below:[3]
| Maximum Indirect Cost Rate | Organizations |
10% |
|
12% |
|
15% |
|
Indeed, one recent analysis examined what level of indirect expenses research institutions were willing to accept from funders of research. Of 72 universities in the sample, 67 universities were willing to accept research grants that had 0% indirect cost coverage. One university (Harvard University) required 15% indirect cost coverage, while a second (California Institute of Technology) required 20% indirect cost coverage. Only three universities in the sample refused to accept indirect cost rates lower than their federal indirect rate. These universities were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Michigan, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead. NIH is accordingly imposing a standard indirect cost rate on all grants of 15% pursuant to its 45 C.F.R. 75.414(c) authority. We note in doing so that this rate is 50% higher than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate provided in 45 C.F.R. 75.414(f) for NIH grants. We have elected to impose a higher standard indirect cost rate to reflect, among other things, both (1) the private sector indirect cost rates noted above, and (2) the de minimis cost rate of 15% in 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f) used for IHEs and nonprofits receiving grants from other agencies.
NIH Implementation
For any new grant issued, and for all existing grants to IHEs retroactive to the date of issuance of this Supplemental Guidance, award recipients are subject to a 15 percent indirect cost rate. This rate will allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission. This policy shall be applied to all current grants for go forward expenses from February 10, 2025 forward as well as for all new grants issued. We will not be applying this cap retroactively back to the initial date of issuance of current grants to IHEs, although we believe we would have the authority to do so under 45 CFR 75.414(c).
[1] NIH, Budget (Oct. 3, 2024), https://www.nih.gov/ABOUT-NIH/WHAT-WE-DO/BUDGET.
[2] NIH, Fiscal Year 2021 Overview Supplementary Tables at 87, https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY21/br/5-SupplementaryTables.pdf.
[3] See Bill & Melinda Gates Found., Indirect Cost Policy (Feb. 2017), https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/Indirect_Cost_Policy.pdf; Smith Richardson Found., Strategy and Policy Fellows Program, https://www.srf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2021-SPFP-Application-Requirements-and-Proposal-Template.pdf; Gordon & Betty Moore Found., Moore Inventor Fellows: 2024-2025 FAQ, https://www.moore.org/docs/default-source/moore-inventor-fellows/moore-inventor-fellows-faq.pdf; Robert Wood Johnson Found., Policies for Action:Grants FAQs, https://anr.rwjf.org/templates/external/P4A_FAQS.pdf; Carnegie Corp. of New York, Grantee FAQs, https://www.carnegie.org/grants/grantee-faqs/#:~:text=What%20is%20your%20indirect%20cost,think%20tanks%2C%20and%20government%20entities; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Application Instructions, https://chanzuckerberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CZI_Imaging_Scientists_2_Detailed_Instructions.pdf; John Templeton Found., Grant FAQ, https://www.templeton.org/grants/grant-faq;The Packard Found., Fostering Equitable Grantmaking through Indirect Cost Coverage, https://www.packard.org/insights/perspective/fostering-equitable-grantmaking-through-indirect-cost-coverage/; The Rockefeller Found., Guidance: Preparing a Project Grant Budget for the Rockefeller Foundation, https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/The-Rockefeller-Foundation-Project-Budget-Guidance-v2024.pdf.
Inquiries
Please direct all inquiries to:
NIH Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration (OPERA)
Division of Grants Policy
and Human Services (HHS)
No comments:
Post a Comment