Biden-Nominated Federal Judge Blocks Trump's NIH Research Funding Cuts

A federal judge has extended a hold on the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s attempt to enforce a policy that would cap indirect costs for grant funding at a flat rate of 15%. This decision blocks the policy from taking effect, as legal battles surrounding it continue.

Last month, the NIH announced its intention to impose the 15% indirect cost rate, citing the need to prioritize funds for direct scientific research over administrative expenses. The agency stated, "The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead." The plan was presented under the agency's regulatory authority.

However, the policy faced immediate legal challenges, prompting U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley to issue a temporary restraining order in February. On Wednesday, she escalated that decision by granting a nationwide preliminary injunction, effectively halting the NIH's plan for the time being. In her ruling, Kelley highlighted the "imminent risk of halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering research facilities, without regard for current patient care."

The court's decision followed extensive proceedings, including oral arguments and the review of amicus briefs submitted by interested parties. The ruling underscores the high stakes of this policy, particularly for states, universities, and research institutions that depend on NIH funding to sustain critical projects.

Judge Kelley, who was nominated to her current position by President Joe Biden in 2021, received bipartisan support during her Senate confirmation. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, and Susan Collins joined Democrats to confirm her appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The NIH’s funding policy has been a contentious issue, particularly as it intersects with broader debates over research funding priorities. Former President Donald Trump had previously drawn criticism for cutting billions in overhead costs from NIH research grants, sparking backlash from scientists and research advocates. The current legal challenge reflects ongoing tensions between federal agencies and the research community over how best to allocate public funds for scientific advancement.

As the court deliberates on the future of the NIH policy, the decision has put a temporary pause on a measure that could have wide-ranging implications for the medical research landscape.