On February 10, 2025, a U.S. judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from cutting federal medical research funding. The ruling came after a coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to cap indirect funding for research projects at 15%.
Key Points of the Lawsuit
Legal Action by 22 States
Attorneys general from 22 states, led by Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The legal action targets the Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Every state with a Democratic attorney general has joined the lawsuit, highlighting the widespread opposition to the policy.
NIH’s Proposed Policy Change
The NIH announced a reduction in indirect funding for research projects, lowering it from an average of 27-28% to just 15%. Indirect costs include critical expenses such as facilities, administration, equipment, maintenance, utilities, and support personnel. The proposed cutback would significantly reduce the financial backing available to research institutions across the country.
Legal Allegations Against the Policy
The coalition of states argues that the NIH’s policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and ignores Congressional intent. The attorneys general claim that the cuts will cause job losses, halt research initiatives, and disrupt ongoing programs, thereby threatening the nation’s research infrastructure and its ability to produce life-saving medical advancements.
University and Academic Concerns
Major university systems, including the University of California, have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, noting that the NIH is their largest research funder. University leaders warn that the funding cap could lead to annual budget reductions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Public health law expert Lawrence O. Gostin of Georgetown University emphasized that smaller institutions, especially historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), would struggle to absorb these losses and might be forced to curtail their medical research efforts.
Judge’s Ruling and Next Steps
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley ruled in favor of the 22 states, blocking the NIH from implementing the funding cap in those jurisdictions. A hearing is scheduled for later in February to further review the petition and consider whether the injunction should be extended.
Broader Implications
This legal battle carries significant implications for the future of federally funded research in the U.S. While the Trump administration defends the policy as a means of improving budget efficiency, critics argue that the move undermines critical scientific advancements and disproportionately affects vulnerable research institutions.
With further hearings on the horizon, the fate of the NIH’s funding cap remains uncertain. However, for now, research institutions in the 22 suing states can continue their work without immediate financial disruption.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is based on online sources and is subject to verification. Readers are encouraged to cross-check details, as the author and publisher assume no responsibility for inaccuracies or actions taken based on this content.