Uncertainty the sentiment at February Faculty Meeting amidst turmoil in D.C.
Leaders of MIT’s administration shared several dramatic changes to research and budgetary policy.
VIVIAN HIR—THE TECH
On Feb. 19, the Institute held its second monthly faculty meeting of 2025. Throughout the 90-minute meeting, President Kornbluth and other administrators emphasized the unprecedented threat of the Trump administration’s recent funding cuts to MIT’s research and education missions.
MIT’s overarching strategy
At the start, a faculty member read a poem by Anne Stevenson called “Living in America,” which opens: “‘Living in America,’ / the intelligent people at Harvard say, / ’is the price you pay for living in New England.’” Around the room, faculty laughed nervously. These themes — anxiety, political tension, sardonic humor, and vague alienation from the rest of the country — would characterize the meeting as a whole.
After announcements of Cynthia Barnhart’s retirement from her position as provost and Professor of Biological Engineering William “Bill” Thilly’s recent passing, President Kornbluth addressed the “financial challenges facing the Institute,” stating that “probably all of us feel some concern about how things will play out.” She outlined MIT’s strategy for the upcoming months, given that “the Republican leadership sees this election as a pretty strong repudiation of elites.” Public perceptions of top universities’ inaccessibility due to high sticker prices, along with campus unrest centering on the Israel/Palestine conflict, have enhanced this negative view of elite universities.
Throughout her talk, Kornbluth emphasized MIT’s research mission, the Institute's contribution to national progress, and the faculty’s responsibility to support these goals. She believes that over the next 12 to 18 months, MIT’s key priorities will be to enhance its reputation as an “exceptional institution,” stop or decrease the loss of federal funding, preserve its academic freedom, and continue to pursue research and education priorities. Noting that these points will sometimes come into conflict, she proposed three approaches to the new administration: “engagement where possible, opposition where necessary, and adaptation where sensible.”
On the engagement front, she believes that the Trump administration will support some of MIT’s research interests, including its AI, quantum science, manufacturing, and educational initiatives. She plans to hold monthly MIT President meetings in Washington, DC, where she will engage with Congress, agency leaders, and the White House with a focus on MIT’s value to American competitiveness, security, and health.
To MIT’s leadership, “necessary opposition” seems to mean legal action. In particular, Kornbluth highlighted the Association of American Universities’ Feb. 10 suit challenging the Trump administration’s new 15% cap on Facilities and Administrative reimbursements, also known as indirect costs, for National Institutes of Health grants. As of Mar. 2, these cuts have been blocked by Angel Kelley, U.S. District Court Judge for Massachusetts. Kornbluth underscored the necessity of taking a public stand whenever MIT encounters “things we believe are fundamentally antithetical to our mission.”
For most of the meeting, Kornbluth addressed potential areas of “adaptation.” In regards to the Trump administration’s hostile stance towards Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, she noted that the Institute may have to assess their programs aimed at “attracting a supportive and diverse community.” Notably, this assessment seems to already be underway: as previously reported by The Tech, multiple MIT institutions and departments have removed references to DEI on their webpages. Kornbluth also singled out biosecurity and research compliance as possible realms for assessment.
Kornbluth finished her speech by outlining some broad messaging themes. She stressed MIT’s role as a major economic and innovative driver in American life. In addition, she argued that taxes on MIT’s endowment amounted to taxes on research and student aid. Contrary to Republicans’ view of higher education as dominated by “elites,” Kornbluth said that, in reality, “MIT is the university that people want: merit-based and affordable, grounded in innovation and entrepreneurship, and driven to excellence — all with a mission of service… We are a place that tackles our problems and seeks excellence in everything we do.”
Research impacts
After Kornbluth’s presentation, Vice President for Research Ian Waitz explained the potential impacts on MIT’s research enterprise. First, he noted that all areas of research may face funding reductions, although climate change and renewable energy research will likely be the most affected. Agencies across the board, from the National Science Foundation to the Department of Energy and Department of Defense, have recently begun conducting keyword searches on their contracts and grants to provide guidance on new research policies. Flagged words include commonly used terms that do not have inherently political meanings, such as “implicit bias,” “gender,” and “trauma.”
Waitz emphasized to faculty the importance of a unified approach that involves administrators, given that MIT currently has over 2,000 federal contracting grants, instructing them to reach out over email if they have questions. Other “compliance” requirements include Trump’s first-term “Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Policy,” which mandates that agencies must attempt to address research security in disclosures and digital identifiers.
Waitz stated that although F&A costs are “indirect,” capping them at 15% will greatly impact MIT’s ability to support all campus research. As detailed in his recent letter to the faculty, of MIT’s $879 million in sponsored research funding during the 2024 fiscal year, $660 million were direct costs and $219 million were indirect; in total, indirect costs amount to about 30% of MIT’s research costs. These amounts were complemented by co-investments from MIT. When accounting for inflation, the 15% growth in overall research funding over the past 11 years is primarily due to growth in MIT’s internal investments in research. This internal investment provides for key areas including faculty salaries, support for graduate students, and tuition subsidies.
What might change?
An issue arises: what happens if MIT no longer has access to the same level of internal funding? Since Republicans have proposed to increase the tax on universities’ endowments from 1.4% to 21%, this hypothetical may become reality. As Provost Barnhart explained, this tax encompasses realized capital gains, investment income, and the net of investment expenses.
In the best-case scenario in which the policy does not change, but in which MIT saw a 10% decrease in campus research activity, the Institute would lose $34 million annually. In the worst-case scenario, with a 15% cap on indirect funding from all sponsors and a 21% endowment tax, the Institute would incur a $658 million loss per year. Responding to a faculty member’s question regarding how these numbers compare to the 2008 financial crisis, a member of the Office of the VP for Finance stated that the worst-case scenario losses would be significantly higher than those during the recession.
Barnhart proceeded to explain the specifics of the Institute’s financial planning in response to both existing and possible cuts. First, the administration has notified all units that funding will be cut by 5% across the board. In addition, through a “rebalancing” process, 10% of the payout in professorships will be redistributed to central funding. Moreover, the administration plans to eliminate “unintended subsidies” — cuts on the 55% tuition subsidy for research assistants, if they receive other support.
The Institute will also implement a hiring freeze, which will not affect faculty, graduate students, funded postdoctoral fellows, essential employees, or tenure decisions. Finally, MIT plans to reduce pay-as-you-go capital by halving the Committee for Renovation and Space Planning budget, which provides capital for large facilities renewal projects, among others.
After a question from Professor of Materials Science and Engineering W. Craig Carter, Barnhart stated that overall cuts would lie between 0 and 10% for chairs, and 5% for the general institute budget. Barnhart emphasized that the Institute’s triage may change given the changing situation from Washington.
Faculty pushback
The administration’s presentation evidently did not satisfy several members of faculty, who lined up or “raised” their Zoom hands to clarify facts, disagree with strategies, or simply take the opportunity to give a small speech about their concerns.
Professors Yossi Sheffi, director of the Center for Transportation Logistics, and Retsef Levi of Management brought up the possible opportunities at play in the new administration. Sheffi emphasized that MIT could use this moment to decrease its reliance on federal funding, while Levi believes that the Institute should “use tech to revamp and modernize.” Meanwhile, Professor of Physics Or Hen said that MIT could take this opportunity to use artificial intelligence for cost reduction or to change their funding mechanism to work more directly with national laboratories.
Faculty members also expressed interest in changing MIT’s reputation for the outside world. Hen stated that decreasing MIT’s tuition could send a “message to society” and compel smaller universities to also lower costs. Kornbluth pushed back, claiming that MIT’s sticker price only applied to students whose families could comfortably afford the tuition. More broadly, Professor of Biological Engineering Alan Jasanoff asked about “what [MIT] can do to fundamentally change how we message” to the American public. To that point, Professor of History and Senior Associate Dean of Open Learning Christopher Capozzola asked faculty to consider creating programming for Open Learning.
Impacts on student life and learning
The proposed changes, along with any future announcements from the federal government, will have wide-reaching implications for the entire Institute. For undergraduates, these consequences may not be obvious. While the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) provides certain research positions, its funding is relatively inconsequential, according to several administrators.
On the other hand, teaching will likely be significantly affected. Professor Michel Goemans, the Course 18 department head, told The Tech that many undergraduate Course 18 classes are taught by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows. As the department already has the highest student-faculty ratio in the School of Science, any hiring freezes could drastically reduce its teaching capacity for core classes such as 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, or 18.06. Other departments, especially those that strongly depend on teaching assistants, could face similar challenges.
In addition, as several faculty members brought up, the Trump administration’s policies are not and will not be limited to scientific research. Compliance issues regarding the use of race in areas including admissions, hiring, or discipline may result in a loss in funding from the Department of Education.
Finally, international students may be impacted by President Trump’s recent actions. As Professor Michel DeGraff of Linguistics noted, under a new executive order, non-citizen students whose activity is regarded as antisemitic or in support of violence may face deportation. President Kornbluth agreed that this question was important, but said that MIT has not received any direct communication on the topic.
Sloan Professor Ezra Zuckerman Sivan also highlighted the changes to visa policy. In response, Kornbluth stated that MIT will advocate strongly for visas and the flow of international talent to the Institute: “We’re weighing in as heavily as we can.”
Future directions
As of Mar. 6, 15 days since the faculty meeting, universities across the country have taken dramatic steps to address both immediate and potential challenges to funding. MIT will continue to assess the situation and will hold the next Institute Faculty Meeting on Mar. 19. In addition, as announced by President Kornbluth on Mar. 4, the Institute has created a webpage dedicated to its response to government activity.
If federal funding changes have affected your research, please contact The Tech by filling out our online survey or emailing tt-news-editors@mit.edu.