Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's NIH Funding Cuts, Calling Them "Catastrophic" for Medical Research
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's NIH Funding Cuts, Calling Them "Catastrophic" for Medical Research A federal judge in Boston has halted the National Institutes of Health's attempt to cap i
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's NIH Funding Cuts, Calling Them "Catastrophic" for Medical Research
A federal judge in Boston has halted the National Institutes of Health's attempt to cap indirect research costs at 15%, dealing a significant blow to the Trump administration's push to overhaul how the government funds biomedical research.
U.S. District Judge William G. Young issued a preliminary injunction on Monday blocking the NIH policy, which would have slashed billions in funding that universities and hospitals rely on for overhead expenses like lab maintenance, utilities, and administrative staff. The policy, announced in February, applied retroactively to existing grants and prompted swift legal challenges from a coalition of states and research institutions. Young found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the NIH exceeded its statutory authority under federal law governing grant conditions.
The ruling preserves the status quo while litigation continues, meaning current negotiated indirect cost rates remain in effect. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is one of several challenges to the administration's aggressive cost-cutting across federal agencies. Research universities had warned that the 15% cap would force layoffs and shutter laboratories, particularly at institutions with higher negotiated overhead rates.
"The NIH's action would have been catastrophic for medical research across the country," Young wrote in his opinion, according to court records. The judge's order prevents the agency from implementing the rate change while the case proceeds.
What to watch: The government is expected to appeal to the First Circuit, and the underlying litigation will determine whether the NIH can unilaterally rewrite indirect cost rates that have been negotiated individually with thousands of institutions for decades. The outcome could reshape the financial landscape of American biomedical research for years to come.
Primary sources: U.S. Department of Justice | NIH Grants & Funding
FedKite Wire
Keep Reading
D.C. Federal Judge Issues Opinion in Long-Running NACDL Records Fight With Bureau of Prisons
D.C. Federal Judge Issues Opinion in Long-Running NACDL Records Fight With Bureau of Prisons Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and

Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone: When a Tribe's Sovereignty Met a County's Subpoena
The 2003 Supreme Court decision that tested the boundaries of tribal sovereign immunity against state investigative power — argued by John D. Kirby.

Qualified Immunity: The Refinement That Never Happened — and Why It Still Matters
Three decades ago, a Cornell law student proposed a functional test for qualified immunity. The Supreme Court still hasn't adopted it. The lower courts are starting to.