A federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s plan to slash billions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a move that would significantly impact scientific research and the institutions that rely on these grants. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, prevents the NIH from implementing new rate changes that would drastically reduce funding for research programs at universities and institutions across the United States.
At the heart of the dispute are proposed cuts to indirect costs—expenses that support the operational side of research, such as facility maintenance, utilities, and faculty payroll. Under the new policy, these costs would be capped at just 15%, down from up to 70% in some cases. This dramatic reduction, according to experts, could cause serious disruptions in research projects, leading to job cuts, program closures, and potentially jeopardizing critical medical research.
The policy change was met with immediate legal action, with attorneys general from 22 states suing to block the plan. The lawsuit argues that the cuts would have “catastrophic financial consequences,” particularly for the 412,000 jobs supported by NIH funding, and could harm public health. The NIH itself estimates that the cap could save the agency over $4 billion annually, though critics argue that these savings come at the expense of the U.S. research ecosystem.
Universities such as Harvard and Stanford, major recipients of NIH funding, expressed deep concern, warning that these cuts could slow the development of new treatments and hinder the training of future scientific leaders. The impact is not confined to elite institutions; states like Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas, all of which receive substantial NIH funding, could face significant setbacks in their research efforts.
The ruling by Judge Kelley blocks the implementation of the policy for now, and a hearing has been scheduled for February 21 to determine the next steps. As the legal battle continues, the scientific community remains on edge, fearing that cuts to NIH funding could undermine the U.S.’s standing as a global leader in biomedical research and innovation.
This ongoing dispute highlights the delicate balance between federal budgetary goals and the critical need for sustained investment in science and public health.
