This week, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s plan to cut $4 billion in medical research funding. Scientists and universities argued that these cuts would jeopardize critical studies on diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. “There is no fundamental biomedical research in this country without the NIH,” Dr Theodore Iwashyna, a pulmonologist and researcher at Johns Hopkins University, said.In 2023, the National Institutes of Health allocated $35 billion to more than 2,500 institutions. That funding is split between “direct costs,” such as researchers’ salaries and supplies and “indirect costs,” to reimburse other expenses supporting the work, such as electricity, maintenance and janitorial staff, and safety and ethics oversight. The Trump administration wants to cap those rates at 15%. The administration estimates it would save the government $4 billion a year. Lawsuits filed by a group of 22 states plus organizations representing universities, hospitals and research institutions nationwide sued to stop the cuts, saying they would cause “irreparable harm.””We’re on the cusp of a bunch of transformational breakthroughs,” Iwashyna said. “We’re going to offer people the possibility of being able to breathe and be able to run with their kids, run with their grandkids. Whereas otherwise, right now, we’re condemning them if we cut off this research to a death by suffocation.”Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to lead the NIH, acknowledged concerns about the funding cuts during his confirmation hearing. “I think this is one of these issues that to me is an indicator of distrust that some have of universities and scientific process,” Bhattacharya said.Under prior policy, the government negotiated indirect cost rates with institutions. As an example, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate would get another $50,000 to cover indirect expenses for a $100,000 project. The Trump administration has also said indirect costs are harder to track.”I want to make sure the money goes to research,” Bhattacharya said.The Trump administration had dismissed indirect costs as “overhead,” but universities argue that indirect costs are essential for sustaining research. “If nobody’s paying to keep the lights on, the computers on, keep the floors clean, keep things safe, then I can’t do that other research,” Iwashyna said. NIH grants divided between researchers in every state in 2023 supported more than 412,000 jobs and $92 billion in new economic activity, according to a yearly report from United for Medical Research that often is cited as Congress sets the agency’s budget.The Trump administration has yet to announce whether it will appeal the federal judge’s ruling. The Department of Health and Human Services says it does not comment on pending litigation.
This week, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s plan to cut $4 billion in medical research funding. Scientists and universities argued that these cuts would jeopardize critical studies on diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease.
“There is no fundamental biomedical research in this country without the NIH,” Dr Theodore Iwashyna, a pulmonologist and researcher at Johns Hopkins University, said.
Advertisement
In 2023, the National Institutes of Health allocated $35 billion to more than 2,500 institutions. That funding is split between “direct costs,” such as researchers’ salaries and supplies and “indirect costs,” to reimburse other expenses supporting the work, such as electricity, maintenance and janitorial staff, and safety and ethics oversight. The Trump administration wants to cap those rates at 15%. The administration estimates it would save the government $4 billion a year.
Lawsuits filed by a group of 22 states plus organizations representing universities, hospitals and research institutions nationwide sued to stop the cuts, saying they would cause “irreparable harm.”
“We’re on the cusp of a bunch of transformational breakthroughs,” Iwashyna said. “We’re going to offer people the possibility of being able to breathe and be able to run with their kids, run with their grandkids. Whereas otherwise, right now, we’re condemning them if we cut off this research to a death by suffocation.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to lead the NIH, acknowledged concerns about the funding cuts during his confirmation hearing.
“I think this is one of these issues that to me is an indicator of distrust that some have of universities and scientific process,” Bhattacharya said.
Under prior policy, the government negotiated indirect cost rates with institutions. As an example, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate would get another $50,000 to cover indirect expenses for a $100,000 project. The Trump administration has also said indirect costs are harder to track.
“I want to make sure the money goes to research,” Bhattacharya said.
The Trump administration had dismissed indirect costs as “overhead,” but universities argue that indirect costs are essential for sustaining research.
“If nobody’s paying to keep the lights on, the computers on, keep the floors clean, keep things safe, then I can’t do that other research,” Iwashyna said.
NIH grants divided between researchers in every state in 2023 supported more than 412,000 jobs and $92 billion in new economic activity, according to a yearly report from United for Medical Research that often is cited as Congress sets the agency’s budget.
The Trump administration has yet to announce whether it will appeal the federal judge’s ruling. The Department of Health and Human Services says it does not comment on pending litigation.
