As blue states battle Trump's NIH funding cuts, red states benefit too

A ruling by a federal judge in Boston has paused the battle over National Institutes of Health funding for now — benefiting universities across the country, including in Republican states that have not joined the lawsuits.

In response to separate suits filed by 22 states and a cohort of universities, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston ordered a temporary block on the Trump administration’s plans to cap National Institutes of Health funding for “indirect” expenses that recipients say are a crucial part of medical research.

Though the 22 attorneys general — all Democrats — sought relief for their own states, the judge issued a restraining order in the suit brought by universities that was implemented across the country and protects institutions even in states that didn’t sue.

Speaking to reporters on Feb. 10, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said Republican AGs have been notably missing from the court actions to stop President Trump’s executive orders.

“We are always looking to collaborate and work across the aisle, because we deeply understand these issues are not partisan. Doesn’t matter what political party you are part of — this NIH funding for example affects everyone, regardless of political affiliation,” Campbell said. “But sadly the only ones that are stepping up right now are AGs — and Democratic AGs.”

Renée Landers, a law professor at Suffolk University, said Republican AGs seem to be playing it safe, even though their institutions have a lot to lose as well.

“Red state politicians are afraid to stick their necks out and challenge the administration directly,” Landers said. “But they’ll benefit from it because blue states have done it.”

Universities and medical institutions around the country count on hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants annually. Texas institutions, for instance, received more than $200 million in grant funding in fiscal 2025, according to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services data.

The temporary restraining order doesn’t offer much comfort to institutions across the country that rely on steady streams of funding, Landers said. She criticized the Trump administration's approach to the proposed cuts: “You can’t flip a switch. If they want to do it, there’s a way to do it,” she said, "which doesn’t eliminate the need to obey and follow the law."

Under the Trump administration’s order, indirect costs of running research, such as overhead expenses, would be limited to 15% of grants, well below what many currently get.

Trump similarly proposed a 10% cut to indirect costs during his first term, which was blocked by Congress. A law was passed to continue funding for medical research, and is still in effect.

But this time, researchers at top universities are worried their projects could eventually be canceled. The funding cap came in the wake of a communications blackout imposed the day after Trump took office, stalling the process of NIH grant approval. Now, life-saving medical research is in a state of flux.

“The entire research community nationwide is in a state of incredible uncertainty and some fear about this,” Gina Turrigiano, a neuroscience professor at Brandeis University in Waltham. “I think we’re all very happy about the temporary restraining orders, but everybody is pretty on edge.”

Indirect expenses cover things like offices, lights and janitorial staff and are more difficult to quantify than salaries and travel costs. But they are a critical part of conducting research effectively, said Dr. William Moss, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Moss said it’s not unreasonable for funding of indirect costs to be reconsidered, but the administration's blanket cut, with no room for negotiation, is cause for concern.

“It doesn’t allow for universities or investigators to really adapt. Part of the problem is the process by which some of these things are being done," he said.

Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, said the temporary restraining order will likely become a nationwide injunction at a hearing scheduled for Feb. 21 in federal court in Boston. He anticipates a national injunction would be in place for at least a few months, but doesn't know how that would be met by the White House.

“I am not assuming that even when the judge is clear about a nationwide injunction, the Trump administration will treat it like a nationwide injunction or obey it at all,” he said.

In a press conference Wednesday, Trump said he will “always” abide by the courts but would appeal should they rule against him.

If Trump were to disobey a court ruling, law professors see warning signs of a looming constitutional crisis.

“We’re not there yet,” Shugerman said. “We’re close. It’s like at an 11 o’clock on the midnight scale.”

In Pennsylvania, a state not part of the AG lawsuit, Takashi Kozai is worried about the future of his research team’s work. He’s an associate professor of bioengineering at the University of Pittsburgh, developing and evaluating technologies that slow the progression of Alzheimer’s and provide high-performing limbs for people with spinal cord injuries.

Kozai said he was in constant communication with NIH about approving a new grant until Inauguration Day but has not heard anything since. His research relies almost entirely on NIH funding, he said. Without it, his research will have to stop, a threat that has crushed the morale of his team.

“All that energy, time, intellectual merit — it’s all going to disappear,” he said. “This is not something you can restart months later. People are going to be dispersed, and their lives are going to change.”

This story is part of a partnership between the WBUR and the Boston University Department of Journalism.