Judge Blocks Trump from Cutting NIH Research

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Boston halted the Trump administration’s plan to impose significant cuts to federal research grant funding, a move that universities and Democratic-led states warned would result in layoffs, lab closures, and disruptions to critical scientific and medical studies. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued a nationwide injunction in response to a lawsuit filed by 22 Democratic state attorneys general, medical associations, and universities, who argued that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had acted unlawfully in proposing the cuts.

Judge Kelley, appointed by President Joe Biden, emphasized that the policy would impact thousands of ongoing grants, affecting billions of dollars in funding across all 50 states. She described the administration’s approach as a "sudden, unilateral change" that disregarded the consequences for active research and clinical trials. The cuts, she noted, posed an "imminent risk" of halting life-saving studies, disrupting medical advancements, and forcing research facilities to shut down, all while jeopardizing patient care.

The judge initially blocked the NIH from implementing the cuts on February 10, pending further legal arguments, and later extended the order while considering whether to issue a permanent injunction. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat who spearheaded the legal challenge, hailed the decision as a "major victory for research institutions nationwide."

The Trump administration, which is expected to appeal the ruling, maintains that it acted within its authority. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, declined to comment on the case.

The proposed cuts are part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to reduce federal spending, shrink the government workforce, and overhaul key aspects of the federal government since Trump returned to office on January 20. The controversy stems from the NIH’s February 7 announcement that it would drastically reduce reimbursement rates for "indirect costs" associated with research projects, such as lab space, equipment, and faculty salaries.

The lawsuits were filed by Democratic-led states, medical organizations, and universities, including the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities. They argued that the cuts would disproportionately harm institutions without large endowments, leading to widespread layoffs, lab closures, and stalled clinical trials. The NIH had pointed out that elite institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins charge over 60% for indirect costs despite their substantial endowments, but many other universities lack such financial resources.

The Trump administration proposed capping the reimbursement rate for indirect costs at 15%, down from the current average of 27% to 28%, claiming it would save the government $4 billion annually. However, during a February 21 court hearing, a Justice Department lawyer clarified that the funds would not be saved but redirected to support new research grants.

In fiscal year 2023, the NIH allocated over 35 billion in grants to researchers at more than 2,500 institutions, with approximately 9 billion covering overhead and indirect costs. Judge Kelley ruled that the NIH’s sweeping cuts violated federal law, particularly provisions in funding legislation passed by Congress since 2018 that were designed to prevent such across-the-board reductions. She also found that the 15% cap failed to meet regulatory requirements and lacked sufficient justification from the administration.