Federal judge halts Trump administration cuts to NIH research payments in 22 states Attorneys general sought court order to halt 15% cap on research overhead costs U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, where 22 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to temporarily block a major NIH policy change on indirect research costs.JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images
By Jonathan Wosen and Angus Chen Feb. 10, 2025 Attorneys general representing 22 states sued the Trump administration on Monday, asking a federal judge to temporarily block a major policy change by the National Institutes of Health that would substantially limit payments for research overhead to universities, medical centers, and other grant recipients. Within hours, a federal judge in Boston, Angel Kelley, issued a temporary order halting the controversial policy within those 22 states. The pause is to remain until otherwise ordered by the court. A hearing was set for Feb. 21. Two more lawsuits were filed later on Monday, on behalf of public and private universities and hospitals, seeking to block implementation of the NIH policy nationwide. All three were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the attorneys general lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that NIH’s abrupt decision to set a 15% cap on payments for indirect costs — administrative and facility costs linked to research — would cause major harm to institution budgets, jeopardizing basic operations and medical research. “The effects of the Rate Change Notice will be immediate and devastating,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit. “This agency action will result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory programs.” The attorneys general argue that the NIH’s new policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how federal agencies implement new regulations, because the policy is “arbitrary and capricious.” Further reading Go deeper: NIH indirect cost research cuts Here’s an explainer on how Trump NIH research cuts actually work, and here’s why someone experienced in research grant writing hates talking about NIH indirect costs. Top research institutions expect to see $100 million reductions in NIH research funding. The NIH runs the world’s best genetic databases. Scientists worry about future access. Indirect costs are not a luxury, and NIH research cuts threaten U.S. biomedical innovation. To Sen. Ed Markey, they represent an attack on Massachusetts, home to some of the world’s leading medical institutions. In addition, the plaintiffs wrote that the policy — which was announced Friday and went into effect Monday morning — ignores certain congressional powers by retroactively modifying existing contracts that set the indirect cost rate between the federal government and research institutions. “No such power was conveyed by Congress here. Indeed, Congress has explicitly limited the NIH’s authority to modify indirect cost rates retroactively,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit asked the court to declare the policy illegal and issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing federal agencies from implementing the policy in the 22 states. Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin filed the suit against NIH and its parent agency, the Department for Health and Human Services. All are Democrats, but President Trump won five of these states in the 2024 election. In a press conference, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the Democratic AGs welcomed collaboration from their Republican counterparts in other states. “This NIH funding affects everyone regardless of political affiliation,” she said. A second lawsuit was filed Monday afternoon by associations representing the nation’s medical, pharmacy, and public health schools, as well as Boston and New York-area hospitals, joined to sue the NIH, HHS, and the acting heads of both agencies. Shortly after, a third lawsuit was filed, this one by organizations representing private and public universities, the University of California system, and 12 private universities. All three suits rest on similar legal arguments. But unlike the case filed by the attorneys general, these additional lawsuits seek to block the NIH policy from taking effect nationwide. Also on Monday, Maine Sen. Susan Collins became the first Republican lawmaker to speak out forcefully against the new policy. Her opposition is significant because she chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I oppose the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH,” she said in a statement, adding she had heard from numerous Maine research institutions that the cuts “would be devastating” and stop vital research and cost jobs. She said that appropriations legislation “prohibits the use of funds to modify NIH indirect costs” and that she had spoken Monday morning with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s nominee to lead HHS, and that he had promised to “re-examine this initiative” as soon as he is confirmed. Since the sweeping policy change was announced Friday afternoon, clinicians, scientists, and academic administrators have warned the move could have catastrophic consequences for biomedical research. A STAT examination of publicly available financial records and internal emails showed that some top universities and medical centers stand to lose $100 million or more a year if the policy is implemented — including prestigious institutions in conservative states that voted for President Trump. Related Story Amid shakeup in U.S. science, researchers express alarm over integrity of key genetic databases The new cases add to a growing list of legal challenges to Trump administration actions during the first three weeks of his second term, including a freeze on federal spending that was later rescinded and an effort to incentive federal employees to resign. The NIH, the nation’s premier funder of biomedical research, sparked bedlam in the nation’s scientific community when it announced that it would slash support for indirect costs. These are expenses that can’t easily be tied to a single project, such as the cost of keeping the lights on in a lab or heating and maintenance fees. They also include the salaries of administrative staff and others involved in preparing grants. The federal government typically negotiates the rate at which it will support the indirect costs of each grantee institution after a monthslong process that includes a detailed review of audited financial documents. NIH then uses that negotiated percentage to tack on to each grant additional support for overhead. Indirect cost rates generally vary from 15% to 75%, with big-name institutions often supported at higher rates, in part because they have expensive, specialized equipment used across projects and larger administrative structures (though there has been a cap on administrative costs since the 1990s). The NIH announced that it would do away with the current system and set indirect cost rates to 15% for all new and current grants. “The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the agency said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.” The move would save the government $4 billion a year, according to a post from NIH on X. It is unclear, however, whether those savings would be funneled into additional support for direct research costs, which include scientist salaries and the costs of lab supplies used to complete a particular project. Since the announcement, many researchers have argued that, despite their name, indirect costs are vital to science. And while scientists and university administrators acknowledged that looking for ways to make the current system more efficient isn’t inherently unreasonable, they warned that a sudden 15% limit could lead to layoffs and reduced research output across institutions. The attorneys general referenced that impact in the lawsuit, arguing that the stop in research would harm the health of their states’ citizens. “Effectively halting research to cure and treat human disease will directly impact the well-being of the Plaintiff states’ citizens, who are the beneficiaries of research creating treatments, such as modern gene editing, vaccines such as flu vaccines, and cures for diseases like cancer, infectious diseases, and addiction,” they said. There were signs that the new policy would face legal challenges from nearly the moment it was announced. Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, noted in a newsletter over the weekend that federal regulations contain language allowing NIH to reimburse indirect costs for individual grants or classes of grants at rates that differ from those negotiated with the institution. But he argued that congressional provisions prevent the agency from implementing major changes. Bagenstos, who was general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration, added that the NIH’s announcement was sudden and poorly explained, further opening it to legal challenge. Since Trump’s return to the White House, many researchers have raised concerns over the administration’s disruption of grant reviews and executive orders that ended federal support for programs that support diversity, equity, and inclusion. But at an institutional level, major universities have mostly been quiet and reluctant to directly oppose the administration. Now that Trump is going after the fiscal lifeblood of these institutions, however, that seems to be changing. This story has been updated to include the federal judge’s temporary restraining order and the filing of additional lawsuits by universities and hospitals.
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, where 22 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to temporarily block a major NIH policy change on indirect research costs.JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images
By Jonathan Wosen and Angus Chen Feb. 10, 2025 Attorneys general representing 22 states sued the Trump administration on Monday, asking a federal judge to temporarily block a major policy change by the National Institutes of Health that would substantially limit payments for research overhead to universities, medical centers, and other grant recipients. Within hours, a federal judge in Boston, Angel Kelley, issued a temporary order halting the controversial policy within those 22 states. The pause is to remain until otherwise ordered by the court. A hearing was set for Feb. 21. Two more lawsuits were filed later on Monday, on behalf of public and private universities and hospitals, seeking to block implementation of the NIH policy nationwide. All three were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the attorneys general lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that NIH’s abrupt decision to set a 15% cap on payments for indirect costs — administrative and facility costs linked to research — would cause major harm to institution budgets, jeopardizing basic operations and medical research. “The effects of the Rate Change Notice will be immediate and devastating,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit. “This agency action will result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory programs.” The attorneys general argue that the NIH’s new policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how federal agencies implement new regulations, because the policy is “arbitrary and capricious.” Further reading Go deeper: NIH indirect cost research cuts Here’s an explainer on how Trump NIH research cuts actually work, and here’s why someone experienced in research grant writing hates talking about NIH indirect costs. Top research institutions expect to see $100 million reductions in NIH research funding. The NIH runs the world’s best genetic databases. Scientists worry about future access. Indirect costs are not a luxury, and NIH research cuts threaten U.S. biomedical innovation. To Sen. Ed Markey, they represent an attack on Massachusetts, home to some of the world’s leading medical institutions.
In addition, the plaintiffs wrote that the policy — which was announced Friday and went into effect Monday morning — ignores certain congressional powers by retroactively modifying existing contracts that set the indirect cost rate between the federal government and research institutions. “No such power was conveyed by Congress here. Indeed, Congress has explicitly limited the NIH’s authority to modify indirect cost rates retroactively,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit asked the court to declare the policy illegal and issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing federal agencies from implementing the policy in the 22 states. Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin filed the suit against NIH and its parent agency, the Department for Health and Human Services. All are Democrats, but President Trump won five of these states in the 2024 election. In a press conference, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the Democratic AGs welcomed collaboration from their Republican counterparts in other states. “This NIH funding affects everyone regardless of political affiliation,” she said. A second lawsuit was filed Monday afternoon by associations representing the nation’s medical, pharmacy, and public health schools, as well as Boston and New York-area hospitals, joined to sue the NIH, HHS, and the acting heads of both agencies. Shortly after, a third lawsuit was filed, this one by organizations representing private and public universities, the University of California system, and 12 private universities. All three suits rest on similar legal arguments. But unlike the case filed by the attorneys general, these additional lawsuits seek to block the NIH policy from taking effect nationwide. Also on Monday, Maine Sen. Susan Collins became the first Republican lawmaker to speak out forcefully against the new policy. Her opposition is significant because she chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I oppose the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH,” she said in a statement, adding she had heard from numerous Maine research institutions that the cuts “would be devastating” and stop vital research and cost jobs. She said that appropriations legislation “prohibits the use of funds to modify NIH indirect costs” and that she had spoken Monday morning with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s nominee to lead HHS, and that he had promised to “re-examine this initiative” as soon as he is confirmed. Since the sweeping policy change was announced Friday afternoon, clinicians, scientists, and academic administrators have warned the move could have catastrophic consequences for biomedical research. A STAT examination of publicly available financial records and internal emails showed that some top universities and medical centers stand to lose $100 million or more a year if the policy is implemented — including prestigious institutions in conservative states that voted for President Trump. Related Story
Amid shakeup in U.S. science, researchers express alarm over integrity of key genetic databases The new cases add to a growing list of legal challenges to Trump administration actions during the first three weeks of his second term, including a freeze on federal spending that was later rescinded and an effort to incentive federal employees to resign. The NIH, the nation’s premier funder of biomedical research, sparked bedlam in the nation’s scientific community when it announced that it would slash support for indirect costs. These are expenses that can’t easily be tied to a single project, such as the cost of keeping the lights on in a lab or heating and maintenance fees. They also include the salaries of administrative staff and others involved in preparing grants. The federal government typically negotiates the rate at which it will support the indirect costs of each grantee institution after a monthslong process that includes a detailed review of audited financial documents. NIH then uses that negotiated percentage to tack on to each grant additional support for overhead. Indirect cost rates generally vary from 15% to 75%, with big-name institutions often supported at higher rates, in part because they have expensive, specialized equipment used across projects and larger administrative structures (though there has been a cap on administrative costs since the 1990s). The NIH announced that it would do away with the current system and set indirect cost rates to 15% for all new and current grants. “The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the agency said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.” The move would save the government $4 billion a year, according to a post from NIH on X. It is unclear, however, whether those savings would be funneled into additional support for direct research costs, which include scientist salaries and the costs of lab supplies used to complete a particular project. Since the announcement, many researchers have argued that, despite their name, indirect costs are vital to science. And while scientists and university administrators acknowledged that looking for ways to make the current system more efficient isn’t inherently unreasonable, they warned that a sudden 15% limit could lead to layoffs and reduced research output across institutions. The attorneys general referenced that impact in the lawsuit, arguing that the stop in research would harm the health of their states’ citizens. “Effectively halting research to cure and treat human disease will directly impact the well-being of the Plaintiff states’ citizens, who are the beneficiaries of research creating treatments, such as modern gene editing, vaccines such as flu vaccines, and cures for diseases like cancer, infectious diseases, and addiction,” they said. There were signs that the new policy would face legal challenges from nearly the moment it was announced. Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, noted in a newsletter over the weekend that federal regulations contain language allowing NIH to reimburse indirect costs for individual grants or classes of grants at rates that differ from those negotiated with the institution. But he argued that congressional provisions prevent the agency from implementing major changes. Bagenstos, who was general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration, added that the NIH’s announcement was sudden and poorly explained, further opening it to legal challenge. Since Trump’s return to the White House, many researchers have raised concerns over the administration’s disruption of grant reviews and executive orders that ended federal support for programs that support diversity, equity, and inclusion. But at an institutional level, major universities have mostly been quiet and reluctant to directly oppose the administration. Now that Trump is going after the fiscal lifeblood of these institutions, however, that seems to be changing. This story has been updated to include the federal judge’s temporary restraining order and the filing of additional lawsuits by universities and hospitals.
没仔细找22个州的列表。但文章说是因为这22个州因这个政令告trump administration了，在审理过程中，政策执行暂停。
都已经叫停了，NIH有什么理由不发钱？ NIH既不敢违抗EO更不敢违抗法庭order。NIH官员可不蠢，他们当然知道改rate不对，他们也只能遵从EO发个公告，hoping会有人来告。