The Trump administration abruptly defunded a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant focused on training clinicians to identify and address intimate partner violence among pregnant women, citing the project’s categorization as a “DEI” initiative. This two-year project aimed to create a vital training program for healthcare professionals, a crucial step given that homicide by an abusive partner is the leading cause of death for pregnant and postpartum women. The termination, which bypassed standard suspension procedures, effectively eliminated a program designed to combat a significant public health crisis. The researchers argue this decision harms not only crucial research but also disproportionately affects underrepresented investigators studying these issues, resulting in long-term negative consequences for the field.
Read More
A federal judge issued a temporary injunction halting the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) plan to drastically cut medical research grant funding, following a lawsuit from 22 states. This action, pending further legal arguments, temporarily prevents the implementation of a 15% cap on indirect costs—a significant reduction from the current average of 27-28%— impacting research institutions in the plaintiff states. The NIH claims the cuts, opposed by numerous research institutions and organizations, would save over $4 billion annually. The Senate’s upcoming confirmation vote on President Trump’s nominee to head the NIH may affect the policy’s future.
Read More
Twenty-two state attorneys general are challenging a Trump administration policy that slashes National Institutes of Health funding for indirect research costs to 15%, impacting crucial medical research. This lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts, argues the cuts will severely harm research institutions and impede medical innovation. The policy has drawn bipartisan criticism, with Senator Susan Collins citing the arbitrary nature of the cuts and their potential to halt vital research. Despite legislative prohibitions against the funding modification, the administration is moving forward with the policy, prompting the legal challenge.
Read More
The Trump administration’s new policy capping indirect costs for NIH research grants at 15% violates a congressional provision, annually included since 2018, explicitly prohibiting such changes. This action jeopardizes billions in funding for crucial research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. The policy illegally cuts funding for shared research costs, including lab equipment and staff, essential for maintaining the U.S.’s global research leadership. This unlawful action is expected to be challenged in court.
Read More
Numerous scientific meetings across federal agencies, including the NIH and HHS, were abruptly canceled, raising concerns about potential disruptions to research funding and public health communications. The cancellations, possibly linked to a Trump administration communications freeze, impacted grant review processes crucial for the NIH’s $40 billion budget. Delays in grant funding could negatively affect research labs and their personnel. Uncertainty surrounding the duration of the pause adds to the stress, particularly given discussions about significant NIH overhauls.
Read More
President-elect Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, plans to link billions in federal research grants to universities’ adherence to his definition of “academic freedom,” potentially punishing institutions deemed insufficiently conservative. This initiative, reportedly inspired by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s rankings, aims to combat what Bhattacharya sees as academic conformity. He also proposes funding replication studies to address scientific fraud, creating a new journal with open peer review, and potentially limiting grant funding for specific journals and pausing certain virus research. Critics express concern that this approach could jeopardize crucial medical research funding.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker