A federal court has made permanent a ruling against the Donald Trump administration’s efforts to slash funding from the National Institutes of Health for medical research programs.
Newsweek has contacted the National Institutes of Health for comment via email outside of regular office hours.
Why It Matters
NIH, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, is the largest public funding source of biomedical research in the world. Since January, the Trump administration has sought to cut back on research funding as part of its efforts to cut government spending, which has left many scientists scrambling to figure out how to continue their work.
The federal court’s ruling marks an initial victory for a coalition of academic institutions, that had argued that ongoing research was threatened. An appeal is highly likely.
What To Know
In a ruling on Friday, Judge Angel Kelley, of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, barred the Trump administration from limiting funding from the National Institutes of Health that supports research at universities and academic medical centers, restoring billions of dollars in grant money.
Judge Kelley had previously issued a temporary ban, arguing that the Trump’s administration’s policy was unnecessarily reckless and would inflict serious harm on important medical research, but the new ruling makes the ban permanent. Unusually, the ruling came at the government’s own request—officials asked the court to finalize the temporary decision so they could move forward with an appeal of the ban.
Nonetheless, the decision is an early victory for a wide range of medical research institutions, which had estimated that the lost funding amounted to nearly $4 billion.
Trump’s proposal would have limited NIH support for “indirect costs” to 15 percent of grant amounts. This can include building maintenance, utilities, and support for administrative staff. Historically, NIH grants could cover up to 50 percent of these costs, according to The New York Times. Trump officials argued the change would free up more money to directly support research activities, such as paying scientists and buying lab equipment, instead of covering institutional overhead.
But critics did not buy the president’s argument. They said the changes would actually shift the financial burden to research institutions, likely forcing them to lay off staff and cut back on projects.
The NIH has already begun cutting grants. At the beginning of the month, dozens of grants to study how to prevent new HIV infections and expand access to care were terminated, according to The Guardian. Some of the terminated HIV-related studies aimed to improve access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an antiviral drug that is highly successful at preventing new HIV infections. But inequities remain in accessing those drugs and sustaining a daily treatment, so much of the research has focused on improving access in communities that have higher rates of infections, including trans women and Black men.
A termination letter, seen by The Guardian and dated March 20, suggested that this may have been one of the reasons the grants were cut, with the letter saying that “so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) studies are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics, which harms the health of Americans.”
Earlier on Friday, a coalition of 16 states sued the Trump administration over the withholding of grants that cover the direct costs medical research.
What People Are Saying
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement on Friday: “Once again, the Trump administration is putting politics before public health and risking lives and livelihoods in the process. Millions of Americans depend on our nation’s research institutions for treatments and cures to the diseases that devastate families every day.”
What Happens Next
An appeal of Judge Kelley’s ruling is likely. It is unclear when this will happen.
Read the full article here
