Federal judge delays major NIH cuts that would jeopardize medical research in Minnesota

A federal judge on Friday further delayed proposed cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which scientists warn would slash grant money for important medical research, including work being done at public and private Minnesota institutions.

NIH, the nation’s primary funder of biomedical research, granted more than $715 million toward projects across Minnesota last year, the federal health agency’s records show. It divides grants into direct costs covering salaries and supplies, and indirect costs to cover administrative and facility support.

Proposals from President Donald Trump’s administration would cap indirect cost reimbursements at 15%, dropping significantly the level of federal support many researchers enjoy.

In all, the NIH provided about $35 billion in grants last year for medical research across the United States, which is recognized as a global leader in the field. State attorneys general, including Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, filed suit earlier this month seeking to block the cuts from taking effect.

The coalition argues the cuts are unlawful — undercutting legislated appropriations — and would upend advancements in emerging treatments for cancer, heart disease and PTSD.

During a hearing Friday in Boston, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley extended a temporary restraining order that prohibits the cuts from taking effect while considering a long-term injunction. It marked another victory for Ellison and 21 states in the legal dispute.

After the cuts were unveiled earlier this month, DFL Party officials and academic leaders quickly sounded the alarm. Worries abound over the impacts on jobs and the future ability of the University of Minnesota to participate in lifesaving research.

U President Rebecca Cunningham, who has called the move “a direct attack” on the university’s public service mission, told lawmakers during a House committee hearing Thursday that the drop in indirect cost reimbursements would “dramatically impact” research.

The U currently gets a reimbursement rate of 54%. If put in place as advertised, Cunningham said, the grant rollback would amount to a budget cut between $100 million and $130 million.

“You can’t fund individual researchers if you don’t fund the equipment that they need to do the work on, or the buildings they need to work in, or the utilities for that building,” she said.

Pulling back those grants would affect the ability to contribute to med-tech and biomedical innovations, Cunningham said, and reduce the potential for cures and technology that patients need. It also would have an impact on thousands of graduate students performing research.

“It would be a tremendous cut to the university that would gut our research mission,” Cunningham told lawmakers.

According to NIH, the U was far and away Minnesota’s highest grant recipient, with 768 grants and about $380 million in funding last year. The next biggest was Mayo Clinic, which received 439 grants and $278.6 million in total funding, according to the federal database.

Mayo Clinic has received NIH funding in support of many initiatives, including a $41 million award announced in 2023 for Alzheimer’s research.

In court, lawyers for the Trump administration have defended the proposed cuts, saying the executive branch has broad power in determining the allocation of funds. Another argument they make: Researchers have failed to show that cutting the grants would cause irreparable injury.

If the new policy is put in place, NIH estimates the agency would save $4 billion a year.

In his joint statement Friday, Ellison said the proposed cuts would undermine public health and the economy, adding that laws are in place to protect the funding that the Trump administration wants to cut.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.