The court battle will resume on February 21, 2025, focusing on the argument that these funding cuts jeopardize patient care and delay medical advancements.

Senator Patty Murray criticized the NIH cuts as illegal during a Senate budget debate, emphasizing her role in creating bipartisan laws against such funding reductions.

A federal judge has extended a temporary block on significant cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) medical research funding proposed by the Trump administration.

The proposed changes would cap indirect costs at 15%, potentially saving the NIH $4 billion annually, but critics argue this would severely impact crucial operational expenses for research facilities.

They also contend that implementing the 15% cap could eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars already allocated for research, leading to job losses and halting vital health research initiatives.

This decision follows a restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in February 2025, prompted by lawsuits from 22 states and various research organizations.

Researchers nationwide are concerned that the cap could lead to over $4 billion in cuts to research grants, threatening jobs and future medical innovations.

Experts, including researcher Josh Rosenthal, express concern that private or philanthropic funding cannot compensate for the loss of federal support, which could harm entire research communities.

Attorney generals argue that the policy is arbitrary and lacks a rational basis, failing to consider the actual indirect costs incurred by grant recipients.

University leaders warn that the Trump administration's policy change signifies a substantial shift in funding policy with potential repercussions for federally funded research.

The cuts could lead to the cessation of clinical trials at institutions like the University of Wisconsin and significant reductions in research activities at Johns Hopkins University, directly affecting patient care.

The NIH's announcement of the policy was unexpected, allowing no time for institutions to adjust to potential budget reductions, which many see as a disregard for Congress's previous prohibitions on such limits.