{"id":2024,"date":"2025-02-12T11:41:10","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T11:41:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/retirednurseblog.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/12\/judge-halts-trump-administration-cuts-to-public-health-research-in-some-states\/"},"modified":"2025-02-12T11:41:10","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T11:41:10","slug":"judge-halts-trump-administration-cuts-to-public-health-research-in-some-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/retirednurseblog.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/12\/judge-halts-trump-administration-cuts-to-public-health-research-in-some-states\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge halts Trump administration cuts to public health research in some states"},"content":{"rendered":"

A federal judge on Monday paused cuts that the Trump administration had made to funding for public health research, issuing a temporary restraining order that applies only in the 22 Democratic-led states that brought a lawsuit challenging the reduction in funding. <\/p>\n

US District Judge Angel Kelley ordered more briefing in the case, with a hearing scheduled for February 21. <\/p>\n

The Democratic attorneys general of 22 states alleged in the lawsuit filed Monday that the newly announced cuts \u201cwill mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless life-saving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives.\u201d <\/p>\n

\u201cNot only that, but the sudden cut of funding will have ripple effects into the private sector as it disrupts numerous partnerships with private institutions,\u201d said the lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts\u2019 federal court. <\/p>\n

The complaint added to the pile of quick-moving court proceedings challenging President Donald Trump\u2019s aggressive reshaping of the federal government. <\/p>\n

Under the challenged plan, funding from the National Institutes of Health known as indirect cost rates would be capped at 15 percent, from an average of more than 27 percent. Some research institutions, including Harvard, have rates higher than 60%, according to the NIH, which said in a post on X last week that the policy would save more than $4 billion a year. <\/p>\n

Those rates are aimed at covering the various overhead costs \u2013 like facility costs, regulatory compliance and administrative support \u2013 that research institutions must account for to support their research. If the administration\u2019s plans to cut those rates are not halted, the \u201ccutting edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,\u201d the lawsuit said. <\/p>\n

\u201cThis is an attempt to eliminate funding that supports medical and public health innovation at every research institution in the country,\u201d Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at a news conference Monday. \u201cThe administration\u2019s recent directive would abruptly cap indirect costs at 15%, significantly less than what is required to conduct advanced medical research. The administration knows that.\u201d <\/p>\n

Campbell noted that the Trump administration had proposed similar cuts in 2017, \u201cand the Republican-controlled Congress at the time passed a law demanding continued stable funding for medical research. That law is still in effect, whether the president believes it or not.\u201d <\/p>\n

The attorneys general bringing the case said they expected private research institutions to bring their own lawsuit challenging the administration\u2019s plans, as the states\u2019 lawsuit would cover public research institutions. <\/p>\n

\n