Federal Judge to Hear Arguments on NIH Research Cost Cuts
In a pivotal court hearing set for this Friday, a federal judge will deliberate on three separate lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s decision to significantly reduce the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for overhead costs incurred by universities and research institutions. The legal battle ensued following the NIH’s announcement on February 7th of its plan to cap indirect costs at a 15% rate, prompting a swift response from concerned parties.
The lawsuits, filed in quick succession after the NIH’s declaration, led to a temporary restraining order being issued by a judge, effectively halting the implementation of the cost-cutting measure nationwide. Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court in Boston will preside over the hearing, where attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the Trump administration will present their arguments on whether to maintain the stay on the cap while the cases unfold.
Indirect costs, also referred to as facilities and administrative costs, encompass a range of expenses related to research activities, including utilities, rent, and shared lab equipment. The proposed reduction in NIH funding could potentially slash billions of dollars from research grants, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the scientific community.
Hannah Bornstein, a legal expert closely monitoring the case, emphasized the significance of the lawsuits filed in response to the NIH’s directive. “You can see the gravity of that pronouncement based on how quickly, and the scope of the lawsuits that were filed basically within the 48, 60 hours of that guidance being issued,” Bornstein remarked.
The Trump administration, in its defense against the lawsuits, contends that the district court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the matter and suggests that the case should be brought before the Court of Federal Claims. Additionally, they assert that the NIH’s actions align with existing regulations and that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm if the restraining order is lifted.
Conversely, the plaintiffs argue that the implementation of the indirect cost cap deviates from NIH guidelines and contradicts congressional legislation aimed at safeguarding research-related expenditures. They warn of dire consequences if the 15% cap is allowed to proceed, citing the potential for “irreparable harm.”
The legal battle has attracted a diverse array of litigants, including the attorneys general of 22 states, prominent medical and academic associations, and individual universities. The collective effort to challenge the NIH’s cost-cutting measures underscores the widespread concern within the research community.
In a show of solidarity, researchers from various states, including those that supported President Trump in the election, have voiced their apprehension over the potential ramifications of the proposed funding reductions. A joint letter signed by over 1,000 individuals within 48 hours highlights the critical role of biomedical research in advancing scientific innovation and public health.
As the court hearing approaches, experts like Heather Pierce and Hannah Bornstein are closely monitoring the proceedings for clues on the judge’s stance. While the immediate focus is on the current legal battle, concerns persist about the future implications of ongoing negotiations regarding indirect cost rates.
“These lawsuits are one piece of the puzzle,” Bornstein noted. “These rates by and large, they’re negotiated on an annual basis. So what’s going to happen when the 2026 indirect cost rate negotiations come up?”
In the realm of scientific research, the outcome of Friday’s hearing may set a precedent for how funding decisions impact the trajectory of innovation and discovery. The stakes are high, and the repercussions of this legal battle could reverberate throughout the scientific community for years to come. Jonathan Wosen contributed reporting to this article.
