Federal Judge Blocks NIH Funding Cuts Amid Controversy Over Transgender Research Grants
A federal judge halted NIH funding cuts, arguing they would endanger medical research, as part of a wider debate on animal research funding and spending transparency.
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 StartedAlready subscribed? Sign in
Overview
A federal judge has barred the Trump administration's proposed cuts to medical research funding that could jeopardize projects on critical health issues. A group of states and institutions filed lawsuits claiming the funding reductions could cause severe harm. Simultaneously, the Department of Government Efficiency canceled several NIH grants for studies involving transgender-related animal experiments, raising further scrutiny on federal spending priorities. The situations highlight ongoing tensions regarding research funding, transparency, and the implications of policy changes on public health and scientific advancements.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Get both sides in 5 minutes with our daily newsletter.
Analysis
- A federal judge has intervened to block cuts to medical research funding proposed by the Trump administration, which could severely impact research on critical health issues like Alzheimer's and cancer.
- Lawsuits by states and research organizations claim the proposed funding cuts would cause irreparable harm to medical research and patient care.
- The new NIH policy, which caps indirect costs, is seen by many in the scientific community as a threat to essential funding for biomedical research operations.
Articles (7)
Center (1)
No highlight available for this article.
Associated Press·4M·FAQ
The NIH funding cuts involved reducing the indirect cost rate from 50% or higher at many institutions to a flat 15%, which would have saved the NIH about $4 billion annually. These cuts were intended to cover administrative and facility expenses necessary for research.
The plaintiffs included a group of 22 states, university associations, and research advocacy groups such as the Association of American Medical Colleges.
The funding cuts would have endangered medical research by curtailing studies on critical health issues like Alzheimer's, cancer, and heart disease, potentially leading to irreparable harm and slowing medical progress.
The case is ongoing, with the federal judge's preliminary injunction blocking the funding cuts until further court orders. The government can choose to appeal the decision or drop the proposed rate change.
History
- This story does not have any previous versions.