Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Major Cuts to NIH Research Funding: What It Means for Science and Health

A federal judge in Boston has decided to continue blocking major cuts to medical research funding put forward by the Trump administration. These cuts could harm patients and slow down important medical discoveries.

The judge, Angel Kelley, first issued this temporary restraining order earlier this month after 22 states, along with various organizations from universities and hospitals, filed lawsuits against the cuts.

The proposed changes from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would take away hundreds of millions of dollars that help cover indirect costs related to crucial research. This indirectly supports projects focused on serious illnesses like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. These costs include everything from clinical trials to basic laboratory work, which pave the way for future breakthroughs.

During a hearing, Judge Kelley confirmed she would keep the temporary block while she considers a longer-term decision.

The states and research groups argue that these cuts are against the law. They cite bipartisan efforts from Congress that during Trump’s first term worked to prevent such actions.

Senator Patty Murray from Washington expressed her frustration during a Senate debate, asserting that these cuts violate agreements that lawmakers had previously established and worked together to pass.

Trump’s attorney, Brian Lea, defended the administration, claiming that allocating funds is within the executive branch’s authority. He also argued that the courts are not the right place to dispute these financial decisions and said that the plaintiffs have not proven that these cuts will cause significant harm.

The NIH is a primary source of funding for biomedical research, handing out around $35 billion in grants last year. This funding is split into direct costs, which cover things like salaries and supplies, and indirect costs that pay for administrative and facility expenses. The administration referred to these indirect expenses as mere “overhead,” but many in the research community view them as vital. They often cover essential needs, such as electricity for lab equipment and safety compliance staff.

Under the new policy, indirect costs would be limited to 15%, a significant cut from prior amounts that sometimes reached over 50%. This change could save NIH an estimated $4 billion each year.

Reports from various states indicate the immediate adverse effects of these cuts. For example, the University of Wisconsin in Madison could have to halt clinical trials, leaving patients without effective treatment options. At Johns Hopkins University, officials expressed serious concerns that ongoing research projects, including 600 NIH-funded studies, might cease or be drastically reduced.

Moreover, the cuts could negatively affect local economies. The University of Florida might need to dismiss around 45 staff members, and a new research facility in Detroit, which would have created nearly 500 jobs, could be delayed or scrapped completely.

In summary, attorney claims highlight that implementing this cap would abruptly withdraw hundreds of millions in funding already allocated to support thousands of researchers and ongoing vital health initiatives.