ISTANBUL

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding after 22 states sued, warning the cuts would harm hospitals, universities, and critical medical research.

The Monday ruling by District Judge Angel Kelley, who was appointed by then-US President Joe Biden, halts the cuts until further court hearings. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21.

The pause on the cuts only applies to institutions in the 22 states that joined the lawsuit, including California, New York and North Carolina – among the top five recipients of NIH grants.

The court battle over the funding changes is expected to continue in the coming weeks. 

Controversial cuts, effect on medical research

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell criticized the cuts in a statement. "We will not allow the Trump Administration to unlawfully undermine our economy, hamstring our competitiveness, or play politics with our public health,” she said.

The policy, announced last Friday by the Trump administration, aims to cap NIH "indirect costs" – such as facility maintenance and administration – reimbursements at 15%, down from 27-28%, claiming the move would save more than $4 billion annually.

Critics warned it threatens research on cancer, diabetes and heart disease.The Association of American Medical Colleges said: “Make no mistake. This announcement will mean less research. Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out."

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, known as a Republican moderate, said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to oversee the NIH, may reconsider the cuts if confirmed. "He has promised that as soon as he is confirmed, he will re-examine this initiative," she said.

Joe Grogan, former White House domestic policy council director, defended the cuts, saying on X: "We tried this in (Trump’s) term 1 and NIH LOBBIED AGAINST Trump’s policies and got Congress to block it."

Despite the administration’s justification that the cuts align NIH reimbursements with those of nonprofit foundations, research institutions argue that indirect costs are crucial for maintaining facilities, security, and utilities essential to medical studies.

Several groups have urged Congress to intervene, warning otherwise that vital medical research may be crippled.