Missouri universities and research organizations will need to cut about $100 million from administrative costs for research funded last year by the National Institutes of Health or replace the money from other sources if President Donald Trump’s attempt to reduce indirect costs is successful.

There were 1,553 grants worth $901 million issued by the NIH to Missouri institutions during the most recent federal fiscal year. The recipients reported spending as much as 30% of their grant on indirect costs to support their research.

The grants allow research into medical problems, such as pandemic preparedness or the control of infections acquired in hospitals. They also cover agriculture and veterinary research, like the Swine Resource Center at the University of Missouri, and public health problems such as how policies on E-cigarettes impact youth tobacco use.

A federal judge on Monday evening issued a temporary restraining order blocking the cuts in response to a lawsuit joined by 22 states, not including Missouri. The order covered all federal funding cuts made since Trump took office Jan. 20.

Donald Trump’s ‘catastrophic’ NIH funding cut temporarily blocked by federal judge

By far the biggest recipient of NIH grants was Washington University in St. Louis, which received 1,192 grants totaling $732 million, followed by the 162 grants worth almost $70 to the University of Missouri’s Columbia campus.

Both universities spend well above the 15% cap on indirect costs set as the goal for NIH research under the new policy.
Other significant recipients of NIH grants in Missouri include St. Louis University, which received 63 worth $25.8 million; Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, which landed 26 grants worth $9.7 million; and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, which received 19 grants worth $5.1 million in the most recent fiscal year.

Washington University reported it will have about $189 million in indirect costs for its grants, or about 26% of the total. The University of Missouri reported its indirect costs will be about $21 million, or 30% of the amount awarded.

In a message to the Washington University campus, Chancellor Andrew Martin said the campus administration is reviewing the new rule, which will “have a significant impact on institutions like WashU” and is working to get the new rule reversed.

“We’re mobilized on multiple fronts,” Martin wrote. “Our leadership team is closely reviewing the policy, and our government relations team is engaging with congressional representatives and others to ensure that they understand the consequences of these cuts and are encouraged to act to address this threat to research and its many benefits to society.”

To get indirect costs below 15% for the grants awarded in fiscal 2024, Washington University would have to cut about $80 million in administrative expenses or find it from other sources.

At the University of Missouri, indirect costs exceed the new threshold by about $10 million for the Columbia campus. There are a handful of grants for the other three campuses — University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla — that would add about $1.7 million to that amount.

The university system administration was unable to say Monday whether it would cut costs — likely resulting in job losses — or cover the shortfall from other resources.

NIH funding supports research in agriculture, biomedical sciences and advanced technologies at the university, according to a statement issued by University of Missouri spokesman Christopher Ave.

The change in indirect funding “would mean significant annual reductions in funding for our vital NIH-sponsored research that saves lives, creates jobs, enhances national security and improves quality of life for people in every part of our state and across the nation,” Ave said. Like Washington University, the UM System is working to get the decision reversed, the statement said.

“Our leadership is communicating with key stakeholders in government, the private sector, other universities and other communities,” Ave said.. “Leaders of our campuses have directed faculty and staff working on NIH and other federal grants to continue their important research and to keep submitting NIH proposals as well as other federal agency grants as we further assess the situation.”

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

A confrontational legislative hearing Monday — with a witness calling a state senator a fascist and lawmakers battling over whether the state should put a bounty on undocumented immigrants — set the tone for this year’s debate on immigration and the state’s role in border security.

The most aggressive approach, in a bill filed by state Sen. David Gregory, would award a $1,000 bounty for tips that result in the arrest of a person present in the United States without authorization. Gregory, a Republican from Chesterfield, wants to authorize bounty hunters, usually employed by bail bond businesses to catch absconders, to track down people identified in tips.

And if the tip proves accurate, the person arrested would be charged with “trespass by an illegal alien,” and subject to life in prison without parole if federal immigration authorities declined to take custody.

“This bill seeks to create an ICE program at the state level,” Gregory told the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee. “That’s essentially all it does. This is an ICE program inside the state of Missouri.”

State Sen. Barbara Washington, a Kansas City Democrat, said it encourages people to make reports based on skin color or English proficiency.

“Don’t tell me it is not going to happen because it is happening now,” Washington said.

Gregory’s bill — and another heard Monday from state Sen. Jill Carter, a Joplin Republican — are among several introduced by Republicans this session seeking to make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to remain in the state.

Carter’s bill would also create new crimes based on immigration status. For simply being undocumented, a person could be charged with “improper entry” and could be punished by a fine of up to $10,000 and removal to a U.S. port of entry for deportation

The crime of “aggravated illegal presence” would be a felony applying to undocumented people who violated any other Missouri law. The penalty would be increased if the violation was a felony law.

Immigration and border security have been a major issue for the GOP nationally, helping get President Donald Trump elected to a new term. Trump promised mass deportations, and roundups began almost immediately after he took office.

There were 956 arrests on Sunday, the BBC reported. Colombia, which initially refused to accept incoming flights of people being deported, relented after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of 25% on all imports from the South American country.

Federal courts have blocked attempts in Iowa, Texas and Georgia to make it a crime to be in those states if a person is in the U.S. illegally.

During Monday’s hearing, immigrants — with legal status and without — said the bills filed this year represent an escalation of oppression.

“It is inhumane to say people should be hunted like a sport,” said Aura Velasquez, who has been a citizen for five years. “It would turn neighbors against neighbors and friends against each other.”

Immigration advocates argued that a community already fearful about having documentation to remain in the U.S. revoked would become more fearful.

“This bill fosters a climate of fear, where people feel unsafe engaging in even the most basic activities beyond going to work or school,” said Gabriella Cepeda, representing the Hispanic Law Students Association at St. Louis University. “They are terrified of being profiled or targeted life in prison for simply existing in the state without documentation. It is not just extreme, it’s cruel and unusual punishment.”

The handful of supporters, representing law enforcement and a conservative Jewish group, said the state must protect itself from human trafficking and drug trafficking associated with lax border security.

“This legislation would simply give law enforcement another tool in the tool box to assist our federal partners,” Lewis County Sheriff David Parish said.

Last summer, a Missouri House interim committee studied the issue of crime associated with illegal immigration. The report, published Jan. 7, drew no conclusions and reported that many of the witnesses said they feared problems associated with border communities reaching Missouri.

The report did not estimate the number of undocumented immigrants in Missouri but said studies show a substantial economic impact.

Undocumented immigrants paid approximately $113 million in state taxes in 2022 but cannot use the public benefits those taxes support like Medicaid. Their economic activity supports 160,000 jobs and $19 billion in total economic activity, providing “real economic stability that benefits all Missourians,” the committee report stated.

Washington peppered Gregory and Carter with questions about whether the state should trade that economic support for a state free of undocumented immigrants.

“We have 77,000 illegal immigrants that we have here in Missouri,” Gregory said.

“So they should all be subject to this, because you’re saying that we should arrest them just because they’re here?” Washington asked.

“Yes,” Gregory replied.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

A Republican state representative thinks Missouri should follow the example set by the GOP nationally and allow people convicted of felonies to be candidates for office.

State Rep. Michael Davis of Belton prefiled a bill for the 2025 legislative session that he has named the “Donald J. Trump Election Qualification Act.” The bill would repeal the state’s ban on felons seeking office and allow it “if otherwise qualified.”

“I think it’ll draw some attention, which so far it has,” Davis said in an interview with The Independent.

Davis, who will be starting his third term in the House in January, said he has tried to lift the restriction, first enacted in 2015, in the past. A bill he filed two years ago to remove the barrier to office was referred to a committee but didn’t receive a hearing.

Talking with people opposed to his bill can be awkward, he said.

“Having conversations now, when I bring up the topic, a lot of them are squeamish about the idea of having felons in office, but then, if they’re Republican, I remind them that they probably voted for one,” Davis said.

Trump was convicted May 30 in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016. Sentencing was postponed in September until after the election and postponed again, this time indefinitely, after he won.

Because Missouri law cannot modify the qualifications for federal office, people with felony convictions can file for U.S. Senate and House of Representatives seats but not for state or local office.

Putting Trump’s name in the bill is a way of reminding his colleagues of that difference, Davis said.

“A lot of people don’t don’t think about the fact that Donald Trump, if he met all the other requirements, if he was a Missouri resident, he could not run for state representative or state Senate,” Davis said. “He would be precluded from running for these offices, but was able to be re-elected president of the United States. So I think that at least causes people to start thinking about the issue a little more than they might otherwise.”

The state law was upheld in June in a Missouri Supreme Court decision barring a candidate with a felony conviction from running for county commission. In a St. Charles County legislative race this year, a judge dismissed a challenge based on the law because the candidate seeking to have an opponent removed from the ballot could not provide proof of a guilty plea.

Voters can distinguish between prior acts that disqualify someone from a position of trust and those that do not, Davis said.

“If it’s someone who has a felony conviction that would be unappealing to most voters, they will not elect that individual,” Davis said. “But someone who maybe made some sort of financial indiscretion or had drug possession or some of the smaller crimes that are still felony convictions, I think the public is able to discern that, and they did that with the president.”

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and X.