On Monday, nearly two dozen states took legal action against the Trump administration, filing a lawsuit over cuts to public health research funding. The lawsuit, spearheaded by 22 Democratic attorneys general, alleges that the proposed cuts will result in the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to supporting tens of thousands of researchers and other workers. This move is expected to halt numerous life-saving health research projects and cutting-edge technology initiatives.
The complaint further argues that the impact of cutting funding will not be limited to the public sector but will also have ripple effects into the private sector. The states involved in the lawsuit are seeking a temporary restraining order to pause the proposed cuts, adding to the growing number of legal challenges against President Donald Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government.
At the center of the dispute is a plan to cap funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for indirect cost rates at 15%, down from an average of over 27%. Some research institutions, such as Harvard, currently have rates exceeding 60%. The NIH estimates that implementing this policy would result in annual savings of more than $4 billion.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/78ace/78acee67dd0538b78e3c7d05b692a62d69b5d157" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a4583/a4583db4bf9ed1bee5079de1956df6713eb8b070" alt=""
Indirect cost rates are designed to cover various overhead expenses, including facility costs, regulatory compliance, and administrative support, necessary to support research activities. The lawsuit warns that if the administration's plans to cut these rates proceed, it could lead to a significant slowdown in cutting-edge research aimed at curing and treating human diseases.
The US Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of the NIH, has defended its authority to implement these changes. The White House also supported the new policy, stating that redirecting funds away from administrative expenses would free up more resources for legitimate scientific research.
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the future of public health research funding in the United States.