A federal judge in Boston has issued a temporary order blocking a significant policy change by the Trump administration affecting National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding across 22 states. The policy sought to cap indirect costs—payments made to research facilities for administrative expenses and facility maintenance—at 15%. This decision would have slashed funding by $100 million for leading research institutions, with some facilities traditionally receiving upwards of 50% extra per grant to cover these overhead costs. Senators have raised alarms over the potential impacts on biomedical research, emphasizing the critical nature of these funds.
Sen. Susan Collins, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, voiced strong opposition to the policy, describing it as "poorly conceived." The 2024 government-funding law clearly prohibits the executive branch from altering NIH indirect costs, further complicating the implementation of this policy change. Collins highlighted the potential devastation to biomedical research, asserting:
"There is no investment that pays greater dividends to American families than our investment in biomedical research."
— Sen. Susan Collins
Sen. Bill Cassidy, chairing the committee overseeing NIH, echoed these concerns, particularly focusing on the adverse effects anticipated in Louisiana. He conveyed local researchers' worries to HHS Secretary-nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pledged to re-evaluate the initiative once confirmed. Cassidy remarked:
"One thing I’ve heard loud and clear from my people in Louisiana is that Louisiana will suffer from these cuts."
— Sen. Bill Cassidy
"And research that benefits people in Louisiana may not be done."
— Sen. Bill Cassidy
Massachusetts, home to several leading medical institutions, also faces significant impacts if the policy proceeds. Sen. Ed Markey has characterized the policy as a direct attack on the state’s vital research sector. Meanwhile, Sen. Katie Britt from Alabama expressed her commitment to collaborating with RFK Jr. on a more measured approach, advocating for "smart, targeted" solutions to address funding concerns.
The temporary court order provides a reprieve for now, but the ongoing legal battle underscores the broader debate over funding priorities for U.S. biomedical innovation. The implications of reduced NIH support extend beyond individual states, threatening national progress in medical research and innovation.
