Federal Judge Overrules Trump’s Medical Research Funds Cap

livewell
March 7, 2025
Noah Bennett

A federal judge on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction to block the Trump administration’s plan to cut medical research funding, a decision hailed by scientists and research institutions as a critical step in safeguarding scientific progress and clinical trials.

The Change in Policy and the Hype

The controversial National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy would have significantly reduced funding allocated to research groups for so-called indirect expenses, potentially endangering essential studies on diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease.

The policy change, proposed by the Trump administration, aimed to cap indirect costs at a flat rate of 15%, a sharp reduction from the current negotiated rates that often exceed 50%. The administration justified this move as a cost-saving measure projected to save $4 billion annually.

But Scientists and Research Institutions:

Argued that these indirect costs are indispensable, covering essential infrastructure expenses like electricity, hazardous waste disposal, compliance with safety protocols, and janitorial services that support laboratory research.

Legal Challenge and Preliminary Injunction

The policy faced immediate legal challenges from 22 states and numerous organizations representing universities, hospitals, and research institutions. These plaintiffs contended that the NIH funding cuts would cause “irreparable harm,” slowing medical progress, costing jobs, and jeopardizing patient health.

U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston initially imposed a temporary block on the cuts last month. On Wednesday, she expanded this measure by granting a preliminary injunction, effectively putting the policy on hold while the lawsuits progress.

The ruling is seen as a major victory for medical research advocates who fear the funding restrictions would cripple innovation and limit life-saving discoveries.

Dr. David J. Skorton, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges and one of the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. “These unlawful cuts would slow medical progress and cost lives,” he said in a statement. “NIH-funded research benefits every person and community in America.”

Impact of NIH Funding Cuts

The NIH, which is the primary funder of biomedical research in the U.S., awarded approximately $35 billion in grants last year. These grants are divided into direct costs, which fund researchers’ salaries and lab supplies, and indirect costs, which cover administrative and facility expenses necessary for conducting research.

Under the existing policy, indirect cost rates are negotiated individually with institutions, ensuring that research facilities receive adequate support. For instance, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate would receive an additional $50,000 for a $100,000 research grant.

The Proposal

The proposed cap of 15% would have significantly reduced these allocations, threatening research sustainability. Critics of the administration’s policy argued that the term “overhead” misrepresents the true nature of indirect costs.

Universities and hospitals stressed that without adequate funding for infrastructure and operational expenses, groundbreaking medical research would be severely hindered.

Future Implications

The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, has not yet responded to the ruling or indicated whether it will appeal the decision. While the preliminary injunction temporarily halts the implementation of the scientific research funding cap, the outcome will depend on the resolution of ongoing litigation.

Medical researchers and institutions across the country have expressed relief following the judge’s decision. Many believe that preserving current federal grant funding structures is essential to maintaining the U.S.’s leadership in medical innovation.

The Federal Ruling

Underscores the importance of government support in facilitating scientific discoveries that improve public health and save lives. As legal proceedings continue, research institutions remain hopeful that the courts will ultimately rule in favor of maintaining medical research grants for indirect expenses.

With billions of dollars at stake, the outcome of this case will have lasting implications for the future of medical research and patient care in the United States.