BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks White House from Slashing NIH Funding
On the same day—Monday, Feb. 10—that a group of 22 state attorneys general filed suit in federal court to stop President Donald Trump from cutting off funding from the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services for medical and health research, a federal district judge granted a temporary restraining order, blocking the White House’s plan.
CBS News’s Alexander Tin wrote on Monday evening that “The ruling by District Judge Angel Kelley, who was nominated by President Biden in 2021, halts the policy pending further court arguments from states and the Trump administration. A hearing is scheduled for Friday, Feb. 21.” And he referenced the statement of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Mitchell, in helping to lead the lawsuit on Feb. 10. "We will not allow the Trump Administration to unlawfully undermine our economy, hamstring our competitiveness, or play politics with our public health," Campell had said.
Tin noted that “The pause is limited to research institutions in the states that joined the lawsuit. Those include California, New York and North Carolina, which together with Massachusetts rank among the top five recipients of NIH grant funding by state. Hospitals and universities criticized the move, first announced Friday by the Trump administration, which the National Institutes of Health said would save the federal government more than $4 billion a year,” he noted.
And the Washington Post’s Susan Svrluga wrote on Monday evening that “Judge Angel Kelley, in federal district court in Massachusetts, ordered the National Institutes of Health not to implement a funding change the agency had announced Friday night, which would dramatically reduce funding to universities and other research organizations for indirect costs related to research. University leaders announced Monday that they were also suing to halt the cuts, with a lawsuit that has the potential to be more far-reaching because the organizations filing it have nationwide reach,” she wrote.
Further Svrluga wrote, “The White House said the funding change would reduce unnecessary administrative costs, not biomedical research funding. NIH said the directive would save $4 billion annually. But university leaders and scientists countered that the agency’s action would abruptly disrupt ongoing research, jeopardizing clinical trials, labs and scientists’ jobs. Twenty-two Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health on Monday, charging that the action is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. In their complaint, the attorneys general said the impact would be immediate and result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of research and laboratory closures. It sought the temporary restraining order only in the 22 states that brought the action, Andrea Joy Campbell, the attorney general of Massachusetts, said in a news conference Monday. The cuts affect everyone in the country, but only Democratic attorneys general stepped up, she said.”
And, Svrluga wrote, “Later Monday, three higher education associations representing colleges and universities nationally — the Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the American Council on Education, also sued in federal district court in Massachusetts.”
As Jon Asplund had written in Crain’s Chicago Business on Monday morning, “A group of 22 attorneys general have filed suit to try to stop the Trump administration's cuts to medical and public health research funds from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The lawsuit, filed this morning in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, is co-led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Massachusetts' Andrea Campbell and Michigan's Dana Nessel.”
As Asplund noted, “On Feb. 7, the Trump administration announced it would cap "indirect costs" of medical and public health research at 15%, effective today, Campbell said in a press conference. The cap would affect everything from how university buildings, equipment and scientists that are indirectly related to specific NIH-funded research project are paid for. During this morning's conference, Nessel announced that a judge in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island had already approved, "a few minutes ago" a temporary restraining order that would apply to the NIH funding cuts.”
Meanwhile, Reuters’ Nate Raymond reported on Monday morning that “The lawsuit, which accuses the NIH of exceeding its authority and of violating federal law, is being led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan.
The Trump administration on Friday said it was capping the rate it would reimburse those indirect costs at 15 percent, down from an average of about 27 to 28 percent. The NIH policy is one piece of Trump's wide-ranging actions since returning to the presidency on January 20 aimed at slashing certain federal spending and dismantling parts of the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, had no immediate comment. The NIH said it spent, opens new tab more than $35 billion in the 2023 fiscal year on grants awarded to researchers at more than 2,500 institutions. About $9 billion of that money went to covering overhead and an institution's indirect costs, the NIH said.”
Further, Raymond wrote, “The NIH in a post on social media on Friday said the change would save the federal government $4 billion annually. It said that three schools that had charged more than 60 percent - Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University - possessed multi-billion dollar endowments.”
This is a developing story. Healthcare Innovation will provide updates as new developments emerge.
