Judge Blocks Trump’s NIH Grant Cuts for Research Institutions
A US judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Trump’s NIH grant cuts to sharply reduce federal grant funding for universities, medical centres, and research institutions. The ruling halts cuts proposed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that would have lowered reimbursement rates for research-related costs.
The decision was made by US District Judge Angel Kelley, who granted the injunction in response to a lawsuit brought by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states. The cuts were set to take effect the same day but will now be paused until further court hearings. Judge Kelley scheduled the next hearing for 21 February.
Lawsuit Challenges Cuts to Indirect Costs
The lawsuit, led by attorneys general from Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan, argued that the NIH cuts violated federal law. The cuts targeted indirect costs—expenses not directly related to research projects, such as laboratory space, faculty salaries, equipment, and infrastructure.
On Friday, the Trump administration announced it would cap reimbursement for these indirect costs at 15%, down from an average of 27% to 28%. The state attorneys general claimed this change would result in layoffs, laboratory closures, and significant research disruptions.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a video posted on X (formerly Twitter) that “the president does not have the power to unilaterally defund life-saving medical and scientific research.”
Broader Impact on Research Funding
The NIH, which falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services, spends over $35 billion annually on grants for more than 2,500 research institutions. In 2023, about $9 billion of that amount covered indirect costs.
The NIH argued that the new policy would save $4 billion annually. It noted that some institutions—such as Harvard University, Yale University, and Johns Hopkins University—had charged indirect cost rates exceeding 60%. The agency pointed out that these schools have multibillion-dollar endowments.
However, the state attorneys general argued that the cuts violated legislation passed by Congress since 2018, which prohibits such changes without proper authorisation. The lawsuit also accused the NIH of exceeding its authority by applying the cuts retroactively and bypassing required rulemaking procedures.
Harvard University criticised the cuts in a statement, saying they would “slash funding and cut research activity” at nearly every major research university in the US. Yale University did not comment, while Johns Hopkins University offered no immediate response.
A separate lawsuit was also filed on Monday by several medical trade groups, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, seeking to block the NIH’s cuts.
with inputs from Reuters
