Federal Judge Angel Kelley has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to slash billions of dollars in medical research funding. The ruling came on February 10 after The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the American Council on Education (ACE) filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s recent move to slash funding for life-saving medical research through National Institues of Health.

The Trump administration had announced plans to cap “indirect cost” reimbursements for NIH grants at 15%, down from the current average of 27-28%. 

Universities and research institutions, which rely on indirect cost reimbursements to cover essential overhead expenses, face a significant financial gap. For example, institutions with historically higher reimbursement rates (e.g., 50-70%) will see their overhead funding slashed by as much as 75% or more, creating a $4 billion annual shortfall across the system.

Indirect costs include critical expenses such as lab maintenance, utilities, compliance with federal regulations, and administrative support. With reduced funding, institutions will need to divert resources from other areas or cut back on research activities.

Ultimately, institutions may prioritize industry-sponsored trials over NIH-funded studies due to higher overhead payments from private sponsors. This shift could reduce the number of investigator-initiated or public health-focused trials.

The university associations argue that the proposed cuts would have an immediate and dire impact on critical biomedical and health research nationwide. They assert that F&A costs represent the real and necessary expenses associated with conducting groundbreaking research, which has led to significant medical breakthroughs over the past decades.

This research has led to some significant advancements:

1. Development of CRISPR gene-editing technique, which has potential applications in making chemotherapy less toxic and curing blood disorders. The FDA has approved CRISPR therapies for treating sickle cell disease in patients 12 and older.
2. Creation of mRNA vaccines, which were crucial in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. This technology, developed over two decades, allowed for the rapid production of vaccines that prevented approximately 27 million infections, 1.6 million hospitalizations, and 235,000 deaths.
3. Advancements in human genome sequencing, which has led to more affordable and accessible DNA analysis. This progress could potentially make DNA information a routine part of medical care, enabling personalized treatments and unlocking cures for debilitating diseases.
4. Significant progress in cancer research through The Cancer Genome Atlas project, which has expanded to study more than 20 types of cancer, affecting over 10 million Americans.
5. Development of treatments for Ebola virus and gene therapy that reverses rare immune disorders.
6. Creation of a bionic pancreas to treat type 1 diabetes and genetic tests that improve blood thinner dosing.
7. Advances in HIV research, including antibody combinations that suppress the virus and progress towards developing vaccines.

“A cut to F&A (Facilities and Administrative) for NIH grants is a cut to the medical research that helps countless American families whose loved ones face incurable diseases or untreatable debilitating conditions,” the organizations said in a joint statement.

According to the associations, the proposed funding reduction would not only harm research universities’ ability to pursue new and more effective treatments for diseases like cancer, heart disease, and dementia, but would also undermine the essential training of the next generation of biomedical and health science researchers. They warn that the loss of this American workforce pipeline would be a blow to the U.S. economy, American science and innovation, patients and their families, and the nation’s position as a global leader in medical research.

The APLU, AAU, and ACE contend that the administration’s actions run afoul of longstanding regulatory frameworks governing federal grants and foundational principles of administrative law. They believe that judicial relief is both justified and urgently needed to prevent what they describe as an “ill-conceived and self-defeating” action that would harm both American patients and the nation as a whole.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who co-led the lawsuit, stated, “We will not allow the Trump Administration to unlawfully undermine our economy, hamstring our competitiveness, or play politics with our public health.”

Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also criticized the move, stating that it violated the appropriations law passed last March.