Judge Halts Trump Administration's NIH Research Funding Cuts

A federal judge has issued a temporary halt to the Trump administration's controversial plan to overhaul how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds biomedical research. The decision effectively puts on hold a proposal that would significantly reduce research funding allocated by the federal government.

The legal challenge was spearheaded by 22 state attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against the plan on Monday. The lawsuit names both the NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services as defendants, arguing that the announced changes to indirect cost rates would have "immediate and devastating" consequences for research institutions across the country.

A Slash to Indirect Funding

On Friday, the NIH unveiled a new policy limiting indirect funding for research projects to 15%. This represents a dramatic reduction from the previously negotiated rates, which varied depending on the institution. Previously, institutions had the flexibility to negotiate indirect cost rates with the government, allowing for a more tailored approach to funding.

The new policy took effect immediately for all new NIH grants and any new expenses associated with existing grants. This swift implementation has raised concerns among researchers and academic institutions about the potential disruption to ongoing projects and future research endeavors.

Legal Battle and Concerns over Due Process

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, alleges that the NIH violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and implement new regulations. Furthermore, it claims that the administration disregarded the will of Congress, which has included a provision since 2018 aimed at preventing changes to indirect cost rates.

U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley granted the attorneys general's request for a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the agencies from taking any steps to enforce the new policy. A hearing is scheduled for February 21st to further address the legal arguments presented by both sides.

Widespread Impact on Research Infrastructure

The lawsuit paints a dire picture of the potential consequences if the new policy remains in effect. It asserts that the changes will lead to layoffs, suspensions of clinical trials, disruptions to ongoing research programs, and even laboratory closures.

“NIH’s extraordinary attempt to disrupt all existing and future grants not only poses an immediate threat to the nation’s research infrastructure, but will also have a long-lasting impact on its research capabilities and its ability to provide life-saving breakthroughs in scientific research,” the lawsuit states.

Scientists Sound Alarm

The proposed cuts to indirect costs have been met with widespread condemnation from the scientific community. Researchers have described the changes as “draconian” and warn that they will almost certainly impede research efforts in various fields, including disease research and basic science.

“This is going to have a bad effect on research. If you don’t want research to happen, you can accomplish it this way,” said Michael Eisen, a professor and biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Many scientists argue that limiting indirect costs would shift the burden of funding research away from the federal government and onto universities and individual research institutions, which may not have the financial resources to adequately support these endeavors.

Financial Strain on Universities

The University of California system has expressed its deep concern over the potential impact of the NIH’s changes. They highlighted that NIH is the largest funder of their research, providing $2.6 billion during the last academic year.

“This imprudent action will result in immediate broad reductions of personnel and services, including impacts on education, training, delivery of care to patients, basic research, and clinical trials,” said Theresa Maldonado, the University of California system’s vice president for research and innovation. “It will be disruptive for a prolonged period, permanently damaging time-sensitive work in both basic and clinical research.”

Contrasting Perspectives on Indirect Costs

While critics argue that limiting indirect costs is detrimental to research, proponents suggest that these costs have become excessive and unsustainable.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Katie Miller, an appointee to the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, stated: “President Trump is doing away with Liberal DEI Deans’ slush fund. This cuts just Harvard’s outrageous price gouging by ~$250M/year.” This perspective frames indirect costs as wasteful spending that needs to be addressed.