A wave of unease swept over the scientific community in the wake of the NIH’s announcement to drastically slash indirect funds—grant money critical to supporting research infrastructure, according to researchers—and is estimated to remove billions of funding coming from the NIH. The new policy intended to replace previously negotiated rates with an average of 30, some cases up to 50 percent, down to just 15 percent for new and existing grants.
The backlash was swift. Researchers voiced overwhelming concern, and legal action quickly followed. Three lawsuits were filed: one by attorneys general representing 22 states, and two more on behalf of public and private universities and hospitals. In an amicus curiae brief, they argued that the NIH’s unilateral cuts are "arbitrary and capricious," threatening essential funds for “live-saving medical and scientific research.”
However, this This is not the first attempt by the Trump administration to slash NIH funding to research institutions. In 2017, Congress unequivocally rejected a proposal to cap indirect costs at a steeper cut on 10 percent.
Now, with the latest attempt reigniting old concerns, researchers fear the consequences could be far more severe. The sudden cuts risk destabilizing the entire research ecosystem—stalling projects and clinical trials, eliminating jobs, weakening institutional support, and discouraging the next generation of scientists.
In response to the outcry and lawsuits, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), blocking the policy from taking effect nationwide on February 10. Shortly after this halt, in a February 14 court filing, the NIH asserted that the NIH’s total grant spending will remain constant. Instead, the new policy “simply reallocates that grant spending away from indirect costs and toward the direct funding of research.”
A joint statement issued hours ahead of the hearing remarked, “Today, we urge the Court to continue to block these funding cuts as we keep fighting this reckless abuse of power.” Judge Angel Kelley, who issued a halt on this policy, convened in a court hearing today (February 21). Lawyers from the plaintiffs challenging this policy and the Trump administration voiced their arguments to decide whether the TRO will be extended.
After a two-hour hearing, Judge Kelley ruled to extend the TRO until she makes a final decision on whether to issue an injunction on the proposed change.
Update: On March 5, Judge Angel Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that prevents the NIH from implementing a 15 percent cap on indirect funds.
