A group of attorneys general from 22 states has launched a legal battle against the Trump administration.
They are asking a federal court to intervene and temporarily block a new policy that would limit funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for universities, healthcare organizations, and researchers.
Concerns Over Medical Research Funding
This lawsuit argues that the proposed changes could drastically undermine essential medical research efforts aimed at finding treatments and cures for various diseases.
The state officials maintain that these funding restrictions could stall progress in critical areas such as gene editing, vaccine development—in particular, vaccines for influenza—and treatments for serious conditions like cancer and addiction, which have a direct impact on the populations in their states.
According to reports from STAT, a federal judge in Boston has already issued a temporary restraining order.
This order prevents the enforcement of the new policy in the 22 states while the case is being litigated.
The moratorium is expected to stay in place until the court provides further guidance, with a hearing scheduled for February 21.
Impacts on Ongoing Medical Research
Those involved in the lawsuit argue that a sudden cut in NIH funding poses significant risks to ongoing medical research initiatives.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin expressed alarm over the administration’s move, characterizing it as a direct threat to public health funding.
He emphasized that New Jersey has historically been at the forefront of medical innovation, contributing significantly to health advancements that have saved countless lives.
Platkin reiterated the coalition’s determination to fight against what he described as a “reckless and illegal action” until the necessary funding is restored.
On a recent Friday, the NIH announced significant limitations.
Indirect program and research costs would now be capped at just 15% of the total grant funding, a drastic reduction that could severely impact many institutions that depend on a higher percentage to cover their operational expenses.
In comments made to WHYY, Platkin warned that these funding cuts could jeopardize crucial clinical trials focused on conditions such as HIV/AIDS, genetic disorders, cardiovascular diseases, and other serious health challenges.
He explained that feedback from various institutions highlighted the suddenness of this policy shift, which lacked any prior warning and violated established legal procedures, causing undue harm to those involved.
Political Backlash and Reaction
Platkin further criticized the administration for appearing aware of the legal ramifications of its decisions yet being indifferent to the adverse effects on individuals struggling with serious health issues.
He deemed this conduct unacceptable and called for it to be addressed.
Meanwhile, Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, has emerged as the first major conservative voice to oppose these funding cuts.
In her capacity as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she condemned the policy, labeling it poorly thought-out.
She pointed out that the arbitrary cap on indirect costs undermines existing agreements between NIH and grant recipients.
Collins also acknowledged the grave concerns expressed by researchers in Maine, who fear that these funding reductions could lead to job losses and hinder the progress of promising medical projects.
Source: Legalreader