Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's NIH Funding Cuts Amid Legal Challenges
A federal judge temporarily halts the Trump administration's cuts to NIH funding for indirect costs, following lawsuits from state attorneys general and universities.
Subscribe to unlock this story
We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $5/month, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!
Get Started
While some experts hail the decision to cap indirect costs as a necessary step toward more efficient funding of research, critics warn that it threatens to undermine vital public health initiatives and hinder scientific progress.
Scientists expect major 'medical breakthroughs' despite Trump's cap on NIH research funding
FOX News·3M·Mostly ReliableThis source is generally reliable but sometimes includes opinion, propaganda, or minor inaccuracies.Leans RightThis outlet slightly leans right.
The decision to cut funding for indirect costs not only threatens the essential operating budgets of research institutions but also risks the very foundations of American innovation in medical research.
Boston Globe·3M·ReliableThis source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.Leans LeftThis outlet slightly leans left.
The Trump administration's attempt to slash funding for NIH grants under the pretext of reducing indirect costs appears to be a blatant move to appease billionaire supporters while risking critical medical research that has historically benefited countless Americans.
Judge blocks Trump from cutting billions in medical research funding
The Guardian·3M·ReliableThis source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.Leans LeftThis outlet slightly leans left.
Summary
The NIH's decision to cut funding for indirect costs, now capped at 15%, has faced backlash, including a temporary legal block by a federal judge after lawsuits from 22 states and universities. Critics argue this funding is essential for medical research infrastructure, while some support the cuts for potential reallocations to direct research costs. The ruling emphasizes the ongoing tensions surrounding federal scientific funding and its implications for U.S. medical research.
Perspectives
No center-leaning sources available for this story.