Judge Upholds Temporary Halt to Significant NIH Research Funding Reductions
BOSTON — On Friday, a federal judge prolonged a temporary halt to significant cuts in medical research funding initiated by the Trump administration. Scientists have warned that these cuts could endanger patients and hinder the development of vital new treatments.
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court had previously issued a temporary restraining order earlier in the month. This action came in response to separate lawsuits filed by 22 states, along with organizations representing universities, hospitals, and research institutions across the country.
The contested policy from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would redirect hundreds of millions of dollars from research groups. This funding is used to cover indirect expenses related to studies on various diseases, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. The affected research spans from clinical trials of innovative therapies to foundational laboratory work.
During Friday’s hearing, Judge Kelley, a Biden appointee, stated that the temporary block would remain in effect while she considers a more permanent ruling.
The states and research organizations argue that the funding reductions are unlawful, citing bipartisan congressional actions during Trump’s presidency that specifically forbade such cuts.
Attorneys argued in a court filing that the NIH is “in open defiance” of congressional mandates, adding, “Yet here we are again.”
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the NIH cut during a Senate budget debate. She stated that it “violates bipartisan appropriations law,” emphasizing her role in drafting the original provision with Republican support.
In court, Brian Lea, representing the Trump administration, asserted the “broad discretion power of the executive branch” regarding fund allocation.
The administration also contends that Kelley’s courtroom is not the appropriate venue for breach of contract claims. They further argue that the states and researchers have not demonstrated that the cuts would result in “irreparable injury.”
The NIH, the primary source of funding for biomedical research, awarded approximately $35 billion in grants to research groups last year. This funding is divided into “direct” costs, which cover researcher salaries and lab supplies, and “indirect” costs, which encompass administrative and facility expenses necessary to support the research.
The Trump administration previously labeled these indirect expenses as “overhead.” However, universities and hospitals maintain that they are crucial, covering essential items like electricity for sophisticated equipment, hazardous waste disposal, safety compliance personnel, and janitorial services.
The resources required vary depending on the project. For example, labs working with dangerous viruses need more extensive safety measures than simpler experiments. Currently, the amount of indirect costs for each grant is negotiated with the NIH, with some being small and others accounting for 50% or more of the total grant.
Under the proposed policy, indirect costs would be immediately capped at 15% for both existing and new grants. The NIH estimates that this change would save the agency $4 billion annually.
A motion filed earlier in the week provided numerous examples of potential harm in various states. This included the possible termination of clinical trials at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, potentially leaving “a population of patients with no viable alternative.”
Officials from Johns Hopkins University stated that the cut could lead to the end or significant reduction of research projects, including some of the 600 NIH-funded studies available to Hopkins patients.
University president Ron Daniels and Hopkins Medicine CEO Theodore DeWeese conveyed to employees that “The care, treatments and medical breakthroughs provided to them and their families are not ‘overhead.’”
Attorneys also claimed that the cuts would negatively impact state economies. The University of Florida would need to reduce “critical research staffing” by about 45 positions. Additionally, the construction of a new research facility in Detroit, projected to create nearly 500 jobs, could be paused or even abandoned, they wrote.
The lawsuit asserts that “Implementing this 15% cap will mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless lifesaving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives.”
—Neergaard reported from Washington.