The public’s reaction to Presidents Trump’s proposed budget has been incendiary—but for good reason: Federal science programs such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) all would see cuts of 18 percent or more. However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are voicing opposition.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research office would see a 52 percent budget reduction, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy would be completely eliminated.

While some research can be viewed through a partisan lens—for example, climate science—lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against the cuts to the NIH. Representative Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the NIH, told the New York Times he took considerable pride in Congress’s regular increases in funding, resulting in doubling the research institute’s budget from 1998 to 2003.

With cuts totaling $5.8 billion, the Trump administration believes much of the savings can come from reducing federal payments to research institutions reimbursing them for indirect costs. Indirect costs include utilities, internet service, data storage, construction and upkeep of laboratories­—everything that’s not the research itself, taking up about 30 percent of grant money distributed by the NIH.

Unfortunately, those indirect costs are very real for the universities and health institutes and could force them to cut research, according to Landon S. King, MD, executive vice dean at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Follow the link below to learn about the proposed budget’s deleterious effects on research: