A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to federal grant funding for research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) had announced plans to cap reimbursements for indirect costs—expenses related to laboratory space, equipment, and infrastructure—at 15%, down from an average of about 27% to 28%. This reduction aimed to save the government $4 billion annually.
The proposed cuts prompted lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general and groups representing medical schools and universities. They argued that the reductions would lead to layoffs, lab closures, and a curtailment of scientific and medical studies. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, agreed to block the cuts, stating that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that the balance of hardships tipped in their favor.
The NIH’s decision to cap indirect cost reimbursements at 15% was part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to reduce federal spending and downsize the federal workforce. The NIH had noted that in fiscal year 2023, it spent over $35 billion on grants awarded to researchers at more than 2,500 institutions, with about $9 billion covering overhead and institutions’ indirect costs.
Universities and research institutions rely on indirect cost reimbursements to support infrastructure and administrative functions necessary for conducting research. The proposed cuts raised concerns about the potential impact on ongoing and future research projects, including those related to critical health issues such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
The legal battle over the NIH funding cuts underscores the tension between federal budgetary constraints and the need to support scientific research that contributes to public health advancements. The injunction ensures that, for now, research institutions will continue to receive funding at previous levels, allowing them to maintain operations and continue their work without immediate financial disruption.
Conservatives are arguing that the ruling prioritizes bureaucratic spending over fiscal responsibility. Cutting indirect costs would have reduced waste while keeping essential research funded. Conservatives remain frustrated as taxpayers continue to foot the bill for inflated overhead costs instead of real medical advancements.
