A federal judge on Monday temporarily prevented National Institutes of Health from reducing research funding in 22 states earlier a day, arguing that the plan would launch studies on cancer, Alzheimer’s treatments and cards, order of other diseases.
Financing cuts, announced late on Friday, had to come into force on Monday. However, the Attorney General of Massachusetts and 21 other states have sued. They argued that the Trump administration plan to reduce $ 4 billion in general costs-known as “indirect costs”-dismissed a 79-year law governing the way in which administrative services determine and manage regulations.
“Without relief from NIH’s action, the peaks of these institutions for the treatment and treatment of human disease will be stopped,” the treatment said.
By Monday night, the relief had been granted. Judge Angel Kelley of the US District Court on the Massachusetts region issued a temporary restraint order by asking the 22 states to submit a status report in 24 hours again every two weeks to confirm the regular disbursement of funds. The judge set a hearing on February 21.
The deposit is the last in a series of lawsuits that challenge President Trump’s policies. Also, on Monday, a federal judge at Rhodes Island ordered Trump’s administration to “immediately restore” trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, including NIH, which had been frozen under a sweeping directive. Last month.
The mandate leaves out -of -laws that have not been involved in the lawsuit, which will still face funding cuts. They include some states receiving generous research awards, including Pennsylvania, which receives about $ 2.7 billion in NIH funds and Alabama, which receives about $ 500 million in agencies. Georgia and Missouri were also not part of the treatment and each draws about $ 1 billion in medical study grants.
At Capitol Hill on Monday, cuts have objected to a prominent Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, who also announced her support to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mr Trump’s choice for Health Secretary. Ms Collins, chairman of the Senate Credit Committee, said she had called on Mr Kennedy to record her strong opposition to “arbitrary cuts” and that she promised to “review this initiative” if confirmed.
Scientists, medical researchers and public health officials have been feeling under siege since Mr Trump became president. In addition to freezing the grant dollars and the delay in general expenses, the administration has prevented the centers of control and preventing diseases from the publication of scientific information on the threat of bird flu in humans.
The lawsuit filed on Monday concerned a change announced on Friday by NIH, with the type used by the government to determine the share of the grants that can proceed with the general costs. These expenses include lighting, heating and maintenance of buildings, as well as the maintenance of sophisticated equipment that is overly expensive for any workshop to buy on its own.
The plan will cost the University of California system hundreds of millions a year, Dr. Michael V. Drake said.
“A cut of this size is nothing less than devastating to countless Americans depending on UC’s scientific advances to save lives and improve health care,” Dr. Drake said in a statement on Monday. “This is not only an attack on science, but on America’s health. We have to resist this harmful, wrong action.”
State officials are also concerned that cuts could harm their economies and cost thousands of jobs. Massachusetts boasts that it is the “country’s medical research chapter”, said Democrats of State State, Andrea Joy Campbell, said in a statement in a statement, adding: “We will not allow the Trump government to undermine our economy illegally, Hamstring our competitiveness or our policy with our public health.
NIH has been awarding $ 4.5 billion to research capital in Massachusetts in recent years, including pancreatic cancer research, hypertension and severe asthma. The organization also sent about $ 5 billion to New York. The cut is expected to cost the state about $ 850 million, the lawsuit said.
Last year, NIH said $ 9 billion of $ 35 billion – or about 26 % – of the grant dollars distributed went to general expenses or indirect expenses. Some academic institutions devote 50 percent or more of the grant dollars to such expenses. But the new policy would cover these “indirect funds” at 15 %, saving $ 4 billion, the administration said.
The reduction in indirect funds was the aim of Project 2025, a set of political rights from the Heritage Foundation as a plan for a second Trump administration. The project report said that the cuts “would help reduce the federal subsidy of the left age”.
Administration officials and their allies received the indirect cost as a taxable container in elite universities whose large donations could easily cover these expenses.
“President Trump removes the liberal Dei Deans fund,” Katie Miller, a member of the effort led by Elon Musk to reduce the magnitude of the federal government, wrote on Friday in social media. “This only cuts Harvard’s outrageous price by ~ $ 250m/ year.”
However, Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health expert at the University of Georgetown, said that many smaller academic institutions, including historical black colleges and universities, had no extra funds to cover these expenses Medical research if the 15, the lid rate remained intact.
A NIH spokesman reported questions to his parental service, the Ministry of Health and Human Services, which is also called the defendant in the treatment. The department refused to comment, citing the pending differences.
This is not the first time a Trump administration has moved to reduce funds. In 2017, during Mr Trump’s first term, a similar proposal would have reduced general payments to 10 % of the prize, according to Monday’s lawsuit. The effort retreated.
Congress then acted to “prevent” a future endeavor and passed a budget bill that banned the change in fees from the levels negotiated between federal officials and any research institution, according to the lawsuit.
The trial claims that the administration cannot make indiscriminate changes to the action taken by Congress. He also said that the announcement that announces the change of interest rate violated the administrative law in many ways.
The proposed changes have violated universities, which had already finalized the budgets, assuming that the funds would reach. The changes were announced on Friday and were to come into force on Monday.
“There is nothing close to such discreet money floating around anywhere,” said Jeremy Berg, former director of the NIH department who supervised the general medical research. “The only thing that could do a university is to do less research and start staff and school. And it would be devastating.”
The biggest result of the cuts would hit the University of California, which the lawsuit reported $ 2 billion in NIH research capital for many universities and cancer centers. The chapters have supported innovative research there, including the invention of gene treatment and the first radiation for cancer, according to treatment.
While the lawsuits against Trump’s administration tend to dominate democratic states, this case also has positions that have recently favored Mr Trump in the elections.
They include North Carolina, which receives about $ 3.7 billion in the funding of NIH survey awarded to schools such as the Duke, the University of North Carolina and the Wake Forest.
Michigan, a presidential swing that Mr Trump brought in November, also sued, citing a possible loss of $ 181 million in funding at the University of Michigan. The trial said the university has 425 NIH funded tests focused on various diseases, “including 161 tests aimed at saving lives”.
