February 26, 2025
Legal battles regarding the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze federal funding and cut indirect cost payments from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are currently unfolding in the court system. As a result, cancer research is facing significant disruptions.
“[C]ancer centers have struggled to fund new discovery projects in precision therapy, quality of life, and artificial intelligence for diseases such as prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain tumors,” the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) wrote in a statement.6 “Innovative statewide cancer clinical trial programs, such as one in North Carolina, are now on hold.”
“Cancer research is stalling — labs are in limbo, grants are frozen, and the development of life-saving treatments is delayed,” agreed Olivier Elemento, PhD, director of the Englander Institute for Precision Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York.
“Basic research, the foundation of every major cancer breakthrough, is being undercut, risking long-term setbacks that will slow scientific progress for years,” he added. “These disruptions don’t just affect individual research programs; they put the United States’ long-standing leadership in biomedical research at risk. If funding instability continues, top scientists may seek more reliable support abroad, collaborations could falter, and the US could cede its position as the global leader in medical innovation, with consequences that will be felt for decades.”
Two judges temporarily blocked this action on January 28 and 31, respectively, and the Trump administration rescinded the memo.5 However, on January 29, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that the move was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s [executive orders] on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”7
On February 6, NBC News reported that some health clinics and non-profit organizations largely serving rural and low-income patients were still being affected by the funding freeze, and some even had to close down.8 On February 10, ProPublica reported that the Trump administration was still withholding federal funding in violation of court orders.9
On February 9, Vice President JD Vance had written on X that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”10 The next day, US District Court Judge John McConnell found that the Trump administration had “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.”5 The judge ordered the administration to abide by the previous restraining order and “immediately restore frozen funding.”5,11
On February 11, Leavitt said in a press briefing that the White House will “comply with the law in the courts” but would also “continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump’s policies can be enacted.”12 On February 12, the New York Times reported that many groups that were promised federal aid still had not received funds.13
On February 14, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the administration’s request for an appeal of Judge McConnell’s ruling.5 On February 21, the judge heard arguments related to a request to place a longer block on the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze, but no decision has been announced yet.14
“The national economic impact of continued disruptions in the important work of NIH would be catastrophic,” the AACR wrote in its statement.6
The AACR cited a report suggesting that NIH research funding generated $92.89 billion in new economic activity nationwide in fiscal year 2023—or $2.46 of economic activity for every $1 of research funding.6,17 The report, “NIH’s Role in Sustaining the U.S. Economy,” also suggested that the $37.81 billion NIH awarded to researchers in fiscal year 2023 supported 412,041 jobs.
Another way in which the Trump administration is threatening NIH funding is by attempting to cap indirect cost payments.3,4 On February 7, the NIH announced that it would cap indirect cost payments for new and existing research grants at 15%. The agency said this move will save more than $4 billion per year, but representatives from US universities have said the change will hinder their ability to conduct important research.
Three separate lawsuits aiming to prevent the NIH from capping indirect costs were filed by 22 state attorney generals, the Association of American Universities and other entities, and the Association of American Medical Colleges and other entities.5,18-20
On February 10, District Judge Angel Kelley issued a temporary, nationwide restraining order blocking the policy.5,21 On February 21, the judge extended the temporary block on the policy.22
The “attempted dramatic cut to NIH indirect cost reimbursements threatens to cripple research institutions by stripping essential funding for labs, infrastructure, and core scientific support,” Dr Elemento said. “While currently on hold due to a judicial ruling, the cuts may still happen, forcing institutions to scale back, delaying projects, reducing staff, and ultimately slowing the pace of innovation.”
“All of us are sincerely hoping that judges or other administrators step in to return facilities and administrative costs (“F&A costs,” also known as indirect costs) to NIH-funded research,” an oncologist who asked to remain anonymous told Cancer Therapy Advisor. “Government-funded grants are the core mechanism where we can study important clinical questions in oncology without relying on pharmaceutical funding, which, of course, can come with inherent conflicts of interest. F&A costs are critical to running such research.”
“I’ve seen media coverage focus on F&A costs to ‘keep the lights on in the building,’ but it’s so much more than that,” the oncologist added. “Our regulatory coordinators are essential to ensuring that clinical trials are run safely, protocols are implemented correctly, and all necessary government oversight is carried out flawlessly. I won’t mince my words: cutting support to our regulatory coordinators (whose effort is built into F&A costs) will jeopardize patient safety for our ongoing clinical trials. Going forward, future clinical trials — especially those funded by the NIH without emphasis on any one pharmaceutical company — will be slower to activate and less likely to be able to benefit patients as a result.”
Disclosures: Dr Elemento receives funding from the NIH and is on the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Cancer Institute.
References:
Temporary pause of agency grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget via Washington Post. Issued January 27, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Clancy E, Smith J. Trump’s restrictions on health agencies prompt concerns about cancer research. Cancer Therapy Advisor. Updated January 29, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Supplemental guidance to the 2024 NIH grants policy statement: Indirect cost rates. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Released February 7, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Smith J. NIH cuts indirect cost payments: “Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out.” Cancer Therapy Advisor. Updated February 10, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Litigation Tracker: Legal challenges to Trump administration actions. Just Security. Accessed February 26, 2025.
AACR statement and call to action regarding the administration’s recent actions affecting NIH and the American people. American Association for Cancer Research. Published February 18, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Statement from Karoline Leavitt posted on X (formerly Twitter). Posted January 29, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Pettypiece S, Harris B. Health clinics face cuts, and closures as Trump’s funding fight ripples outside of Washington. NBC News. Published February 6, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Jake Pearson, Anjeanette Damon. The courts blocked Trump’s federal funding freeze. Agencies are withholding money anyway. Published February 10, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Statement from JD Vance posted on X (formerly Twitter). Posted February 9, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
State of NY, et al v. Trump via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
White House Press Briefing 2/11/2025. The Union Herald via Youtube. Posted February 11, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Fahrenthold DA, LaFraniere S, Nehamas N, Davenport C. Many groups promised federal aid still have no funds and no answers. New York Times. Published February 12, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Casey M. Federal judge considering a request to further block Trump administration from freezing funds. Associated Press. Published February 21, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Jewett C, Rosenbluth T. N.I.H. research grants lag $1 billion behind last year’s. New York Times. Updated February 18, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS). US Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed February 26, 2025.
NIH’s role in sustaining the U.S. economy. United for Medical Research. Published March 2024. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Association of American Universities v. Department of Health & Human Services via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Order granting plaintiffs’ emergency motion for temporary restraining order via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Neergaard L, Casey M. Judge extends temporary block to huge cuts in National Institutes of Health research funding. Associated Press. Published February 21, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Erin Clancy
Erin Clancy is the associate editor of Cancer Therapy Advisor. She received a BA in media studies from the University of Virginia and lives in Brooklyn, NY.
Legal battles regarding the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze federal funding and cut indirect cost payments from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are currently unfolding in the court system. As a result, cancer research is facing significant disruptions.
“[C]ancer centers have struggled to fund new discovery projects in precision therapy, quality of life, and artificial intelligence for diseases such as prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain tumors,” the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) wrote in a statement.6 “Innovative statewide cancer clinical trial programs, such as one in North Carolina, are now on hold.”
“Cancer research is stalling — labs are in limbo, grants are frozen, and the development of life-saving treatments is delayed,” agreed Olivier Elemento, PhD, director of the Englander Institute for Precision Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York.
“Basic research, the foundation of every major cancer breakthrough, is being undercut, risking long-term setbacks that will slow scientific progress for years,” he added. “These disruptions don’t just affect individual research programs; they put the United States’ long-standing leadership in biomedical research at risk. If funding instability continues, top scientists may seek more reliable support abroad, collaborations could falter, and the US could cede its position as the global leader in medical innovation, with consequences that will be felt for decades.”
Federal Funding Freeze: A Timeline
Federal funding was frozen after a memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered all federal agencies to pause “grant, loan, and other financial assistance programs.”1,2Two judges temporarily blocked this action on January 28 and 31, respectively, and the Trump administration rescinded the memo.5 However, on January 29, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that the move was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s [executive orders] on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”7
On February 6, NBC News reported that some health clinics and non-profit organizations largely serving rural and low-income patients were still being affected by the funding freeze, and some even had to close down.8 On February 10, ProPublica reported that the Trump administration was still withholding federal funding in violation of court orders.9
On February 9, Vice President JD Vance had written on X that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”10 The next day, US District Court Judge John McConnell found that the Trump administration had “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.”5 The judge ordered the administration to abide by the previous restraining order and “immediately restore frozen funding.”5,11
On February 11, Leavitt said in a press briefing that the White House will “comply with the law in the courts” but would also “continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump’s policies can be enacted.”12 On February 12, the New York Times reported that many groups that were promised federal aid still had not received funds.13
On February 14, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the administration’s request for an appeal of Judge McConnell’s ruling.5 On February 21, the judge heard arguments related to a request to place a longer block on the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze, but no decision has been announced yet.14
NIH Funding
The Trump administration’s actions appear to have decreased grants issued by the NIH so far this year.15,16 The amount of money awarded by the NIH this year is roughly $1 billion less than what it was at the same time last year, and about 5000 fewer grants have been issued this year.16“The national economic impact of continued disruptions in the important work of NIH would be catastrophic,” the AACR wrote in its statement.6
The AACR cited a report suggesting that NIH research funding generated $92.89 billion in new economic activity nationwide in fiscal year 2023—or $2.46 of economic activity for every $1 of research funding.6,17 The report, “NIH’s Role in Sustaining the U.S. Economy,” also suggested that the $37.81 billion NIH awarded to researchers in fiscal year 2023 supported 412,041 jobs.
Another way in which the Trump administration is threatening NIH funding is by attempting to cap indirect cost payments.3,4 On February 7, the NIH announced that it would cap indirect cost payments for new and existing research grants at 15%. The agency said this move will save more than $4 billion per year, but representatives from US universities have said the change will hinder their ability to conduct important research.
Three separate lawsuits aiming to prevent the NIH from capping indirect costs were filed by 22 state attorney generals, the Association of American Universities and other entities, and the Association of American Medical Colleges and other entities.5,18-20
On February 10, District Judge Angel Kelley issued a temporary, nationwide restraining order blocking the policy.5,21 On February 21, the judge extended the temporary block on the policy.22
The “attempted dramatic cut to NIH indirect cost reimbursements threatens to cripple research institutions by stripping essential funding for labs, infrastructure, and core scientific support,” Dr Elemento said. “While currently on hold due to a judicial ruling, the cuts may still happen, forcing institutions to scale back, delaying projects, reducing staff, and ultimately slowing the pace of innovation.”
“All of us are sincerely hoping that judges or other administrators step in to return facilities and administrative costs (“F&A costs,” also known as indirect costs) to NIH-funded research,” an oncologist who asked to remain anonymous told Cancer Therapy Advisor. “Government-funded grants are the core mechanism where we can study important clinical questions in oncology without relying on pharmaceutical funding, which, of course, can come with inherent conflicts of interest. F&A costs are critical to running such research.”
“I’ve seen media coverage focus on F&A costs to ‘keep the lights on in the building,’ but it’s so much more than that,” the oncologist added. “Our regulatory coordinators are essential to ensuring that clinical trials are run safely, protocols are implemented correctly, and all necessary government oversight is carried out flawlessly. I won’t mince my words: cutting support to our regulatory coordinators (whose effort is built into F&A costs) will jeopardize patient safety for our ongoing clinical trials. Going forward, future clinical trials — especially those funded by the NIH without emphasis on any one pharmaceutical company — will be slower to activate and less likely to be able to benefit patients as a result.”
Disclosures: Dr Elemento receives funding from the NIH and is on the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Cancer Institute.
References:
Temporary pause of agency grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget via Washington Post. Issued January 27, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Clancy E, Smith J. Trump’s restrictions on health agencies prompt concerns about cancer research. Cancer Therapy Advisor. Updated January 29, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Supplemental guidance to the 2024 NIH grants policy statement: Indirect cost rates. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Released February 7, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Smith J. NIH cuts indirect cost payments: “Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out.” Cancer Therapy Advisor. Updated February 10, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Litigation Tracker: Legal challenges to Trump administration actions. Just Security. Accessed February 26, 2025.
AACR statement and call to action regarding the administration’s recent actions affecting NIH and the American people. American Association for Cancer Research. Published February 18, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Statement from Karoline Leavitt posted on X (formerly Twitter). Posted January 29, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Pettypiece S, Harris B. Health clinics face cuts, and closures as Trump’s funding fight ripples outside of Washington. NBC News. Published February 6, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Jake Pearson, Anjeanette Damon. The courts blocked Trump’s federal funding freeze. Agencies are withholding money anyway. Published February 10, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Statement from JD Vance posted on X (formerly Twitter). Posted February 9, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
State of NY, et al v. Trump via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
White House Press Briefing 2/11/2025. The Union Herald via Youtube. Posted February 11, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Fahrenthold DA, LaFraniere S, Nehamas N, Davenport C. Many groups promised federal aid still have no funds and no answers. New York Times. Published February 12, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Casey M. Federal judge considering a request to further block Trump administration from freezing funds. Associated Press. Published February 21, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Jewett C, Rosenbluth T. N.I.H. research grants lag $1 billion behind last year’s. New York Times. Updated February 18, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS). US Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed February 26, 2025.
NIH’s role in sustaining the U.S. economy. United for Medical Research. Published March 2024. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Association of American Universities v. Department of Health & Human Services via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Order granting plaintiffs’ emergency motion for temporary restraining order via CourtListener. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Neergaard L, Casey M. Judge extends temporary block to huge cuts in National Institutes of Health research funding. Associated Press. Published February 21, 2025. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Erin Clancy
Erin Clancy is the associate editor of Cancer Therapy Advisor. She received a BA in media studies from the University of Virginia and lives in Brooklyn, NY.
No comments:
Post a Comment