A federal judge in Boston has once again halted the significant cuts to medical research funding proposed by the Trump administration, which many experts warn could pose serious risks to patients and hinder vital studies. The new policy from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) intends to reduce hundreds of millions of dollars for research on critical diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. This cut would impact areas ranging from clinical trials of innovative treatments to fundamental laboratory research that supports scientific breakthroughs.
These proposed cuts have led to lawsuits filed by a coalition of 22 states along with organizations representing universities, hospitals, and research facilities across the country. The plaintiffs argue that these reductions could lead to “irreparable harm” to medical research and patient care.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the cuts, and during a court session on Friday, she extended this order while she deliberates a request for a more permanent injunction. Judge Kelley, appointed by President Biden, is expected to face potential appeals, regardless of her final decision, as the stakes are high for the future of medical research funding in the United States, according to Lawrence Gostin, a public health law authority at Georgetown University.
The states and research institutions assert that these cuts are illegal and violate bipartisan congressional legislation enacted during Trump’s first term, which prohibits such funding reductions. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, emphasized the legal ramifications during a Senate budget discussion, stating, “It violates bipartisan appropriations law. I should know; I helped author that provision.”
In defense of the cuts, an attorney representing the Trump administration, Brian Lea, argued that the executive branch possesses broad discretion in allocating funds and maintained that the government has adhered to applicable regulations. He also contended that the research organizations have failed to show that the cuts would inflict irreparable damage.
However, attorney John Bueker, advocating for the research entities, countered that the proposed funding reductions would endanger numerous clinical trials and possibly force universities to cease patient enrollment in critical studies. He highlighted the importance of clinical trials as a possible last resort for many patients.
The NIH is the leading source of funding for biomedical research, disbursing approximately $35 billion in grants last year. These funds encompass both “direct” costs—which cover researcher salaries and laboratory supplies—and “indirect” costs, which encompass necessary administrative and infrastructure expenses. The Trump administration has labeled indirect expenses as mere “overhead,” but institutions argue these funds are vital for essential operations like powering advanced equipment and adhering to safety standards.
The new policy threatens to cap indirect costs at 15%, a significant reduction from the current negotiated rates that often exceed this threshold. This cap is projected to save the NIH around $4 billion per year. Critics argue that such limitations would severely stunt research efforts. Devon Cimini, a grants administrator at Florida State University, likened the situation to expecting a business to sell a $15 product for only $10, cautioning that the cap would drastically curtail research activities.
Research organizations provided the court with numerous examples of immediate adverse effects across states with differing political affiliations. Institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, expressed concerns about the fate of critically ill patients who may lose access to essential clinical trials. Additionally, Bueker mentioned the possibility that the University of Washington might have to euthanize research animals at its primate center due to lack of funding.
This issue also raises concerns regarding job security, with the University of Florida facing the potential layoff of 45 employees and the risk of losing approximately 500 new jobs tied to the construction of a research facility in Detroit.
