Abdelrahman
A federal judge in Massachusetts has intervened to halt the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, just hours after California, along with 21 other states governed by Democrats, filed a lawsuit to challenge the decision. The states contend that slashing NIH funding would adversely impact countless Americans who rely on groundbreaking medical advancements in areas like cancer and diabetes.
In her decision to issue a temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley indicated her agreement with the lawsuit’s claims, asserting that drastic funding reductions could inflict irreversible damage on medical research at institutions such as the University of California and California State University.
The lawsuit warns that a potential loss of $4 billion in NIH support would lead to significant consequences, including job layoffs, halted clinical trials, disruptions in ongoing research, and even laboratory closures.
This ruling specifically applies to the 22 states involved in the lawsuit, which includes Arizona, Michigan, New York, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Notably, no states with Republican leadership have joined the legal challenge. While Kelley’s ruling is not final, it remains effective as the case progresses through the court system.
Michael Drake, President of the University of California, expressed grave concerns regarding the cuts, calling them a “devastating blow” and affirming the university’s readiness to fight against them.
Although the University of California and California State University are not direct plaintiffs in the lawsuit, UC officials have voiced their support for the legal action and are willing to support any additional lawsuits initiated by research organizations.
The recent NIH policy changes, disclosed late Friday, propose significantly reducing indirect funding, which covers essential overhead costs of research grants. This adjustment would see the cap on indirect costs drop to 15%, a stark decrease from the 57% and 64% received by many projects at UCLA and UC San Francisco, respectively.
The lawsuit contends that these funding cuts violate federal regulations established in a 2018 appropriations act, which prohibits the NIH from making unilateral deviations from negotiated overhead rates. California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that the Trump administration is “violating the law” with its plans to undermine essential funding that supports the development of innovative medical treatments.
A representative from the NIH directed media inquiries to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
The NIH allocates over $35 billion annually for various medical research initiatives, targeting critical issues such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, and trauma-related studies. California institutions are among the largest recipients of these NIH grants, with UC receiving more than half of the state’s NIH allocations. Other prominent recipients include Stanford, Caltech, USC, and the California State University system.
Looking ahead, Bonta emphasized California’s role as a leader in biomedical research and pledged to defend the progress made by scientists and medical professionals against any threats from the administration’s proposed funding cuts.
### Impact on Medical Research Funding
Starting Monday, the proposed NIH cuts involve a reduction in indirect funding, impacting both existing and new research grants. The NIH, through social media, has suggested that universities with substantial endowments are misusing taxpayer money on excessive overhead.
In educational correspondence, UC’s Provost Katherine S. Newman explained that indirect funding supports vital operations such as the safety of participants in clinical trials and the maintenance of necessary infrastructure, which cannot be directly attributed to specific projects.
The lawsuit echoes these assertions, highlighting the need for universities to maintain facilities, comply with diverse regulatory requirements, and support administrative activities that are vital for conducting research.
The potential funding changes pose significant risks to several California institutions, including the University of California, which received $2.6 billion in NIH funding last year alone. Other institutions like Stanford and USC are also voicing concerns about the negative impact these cuts could have on their ongoing research efforts.
As the situation develops, university leaders are stressing the critical need for federal grant funding, which they argue is essential for advancing research that addresses urgent societal challenges, from healthcare to cybersecurity.
