California sues Trump administration over NIH funding cuts

Catch up quick: Last week, the NIH announced it would dramatically cut the rate it pays for universities' administration and overhead costs to 15% starting Monday.

• The new policy requires 85% of grant funding to go to direct research costs. It applies to new and existing grant applications.
• Those reimbursements cover expenses like lab space, data processing, safety measures, and paying staff, per the Association of American Universities.

The latest: The coalition of attorneys general filed the lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts naming as defendants the administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the NIH.

• These cuts could lead to "the suspension of lifesaving and life-extending clinical trials, disruption of research programs, staffing cuts, and laboratory closures," California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
• A federal judge on Monday evening temporarily blocked the NIH's action, asked for proof funds were still being disbursed and set a hearing for Feb. 21.

Between the lines: The NIH is the largest funder of UC research (about $2.6 billion in the last academic year), and this proposed policy would cut hundreds of millions of dollars annually, per the university.

• The financial partnership has enabled "life-saving treatments for cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, and strokes, and new technologies and industries that translate into hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs," the UC president's office said in a statement Monday supporting the lawsuit.

What they're saying: "A cut this size is nothing short of catastrophic for countless Americans who depend on UC's scientific advances to save lives and improve health care," UC President Dr. Michael V. Drake said in a statement.

• The proposed slashes will "threaten American lives, disrupt time-sensitive life-saving research, and cripple our innovative knowledge-based economy," Theresa Maldonado, UC vice president for research and innovation, said in a statement.
• They will cause immediate reductions of personnel and services that will impact education, patient care and clinical trials, she said.
• A Cal State University spokesperson said the "drastic reduction in reimbursement for previously agreed upon administrative costs will leave the CSU's 23 universities with millions in unfunded expenses, jeopardizing critical research and support systems needed for program success."

The other side: "The United States should have the best medical research in the world," the NIH stated in its announcement Friday. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."

By the numbers: The NIH spent $35 billion in fiscal 2023 on grants across 2,500 universities, per the agency.

• Nearly one-quarter, or $9 billion, went to overhead costs.
• Over time, reimbursements have averaged between 27% and 28%, with some receiving more than 50%.

Zoom in: UC San Diego is one of the top recipients of NIH money in California, with more than $560 million in fiscal year 2024, mostly supporting the medical school.

• UC San Francisco and Stanford received the highest amounts, at about $815 million and $613 million, respectively.
• Several other local institutions — Scripps Research Institute, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute and San Diego State University — together received hundreds of millions in NIH funding.

The intrigue: The reductions fulfill a long-sought conservative goal included in the Project 2025 blueprint, which says the reimbursements "cross-subsidize leftist agendas" and that universities use the funds to pay for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, Axios' Adriel Bettelheim writes.

Axios Boston's Steph Solis contributed to this story.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to include information about the judge's decision blocking the NIH's decision.