Just a few weeks into his administration, President Donald J. Trump issued an order to cap indirect funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants at 15 percent, resulting in a cut of billions of dollars in research funding for universities and research institutions.
In response, California and 21 other states sued the federal government, arguing that this action would harm Americans who rely on medical research for new treatments and advancements in public health. The lawsuit claims that the order violates federal laws, including the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act and the 2018 Appropriations Act, which prohibits the NIH from making unilateral “deviations from negotiated rates” and requires federal agencies to adhere to specific procedural rules.
Angele Kelley, a U.S. District Judge from Massachusetts, temporarily blocked the administration’s order, stating that it “is justified to preserve the status quo pending a hearing” and that the plaintiffs would experience “immediate and irreparable injury.”
While the Trump administration is currently prohibited from freezing federal funding, NIH grants still cannot be disbursed, and universities are not allowed to schedule or hold meetings regarding their grants. Judge Kelley extended the temporary block on Feb. 21, 2025, until a final decision can be made on whether to issue an injunction, a court order requiring a party to cease an action, against the order.
Katherine Newman, Provost of the University of California (UC), released a statement supporting the temporary block, emphasizing, “We look forward to the judge’s ruling and maintain our position that the Administration’s misguided attempt to cut vital National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is not only arbitrary and capricious but will stifle lifesaving biomedical research, hinder U.S. economic competitiveness, and ultimately jeopardize the health of Americans who depend on cutting-edge medical science and innovation.”
The UC system receives over half of the federal distributions in California for its 10 campuses, which include 21 health professional sciences schools, five cancer centers and six academic medical centers. In 2024, UC Riverside (UCR) received $41 million in NIH funding. If President Trump’s proposed cuts go through, the campus could lose $10 million in research funding.
UCR’s School of Medicine is the newest in the UC system, enrolling its first class of 50 students in 2013 and expanding to 364 students in subsequent years. In 2023, UCR opened the new School of Medicine Education II Building, which created additional instructional support spaces for students and allowed the school to enroll 125 more medical students per class. Federal research funds have also increased; last year, the school received $15 million in NIH funding.
As the leading research institution in the Inland Empire, UCR would face significant setbacks if NIH funding is reduced, including challenges in research infrastructure, staff layoffs, fewer opportunities for student research and disruptions to ongoing community-focused and medical research projects.
The NIH categorizes funding into two types: direct costs, which cover research-related expenses, and indirect costs, which include expenses necessary for research facilities and administration, such as building utilities and maintenance.
According to Dr. Meera Nair, Associate Dean of Biomedical Research at UCR’s School of Medicine, cuts to indirect expenses would significantly impact university research.
“The NIH indirect costs critically support infrastructure that allows the School of Medicine to maintain research technologies. The indirect funds also support vital regulatory oversight to conduct rigorous science while maintaining the highest level of integrity and providing safety for researchers and participants,” explains Dr. Nair.
Medical research labs must comply with numerous safety, regulatory and research integrity standards. Dr. Nair relies on NIH funding for required regulatory oversight, including compliance with research regulations and workplace safety measures. Decreased indirect funding would halt critical medical projects and prevent new ones from starting.
Furthermore, the proposed cuts would limit research, employment and training opportunities for students pursuing scientific, pharmaceutical, medical and academic STEM careers. Dr. Nair indicated that her two postdoctoral researchers and three graduate students are at risk of “losing their jobs” due to the NIH funding cuts.
UCR’s School of Medicine is a community-based medical research institution dedicated to supporting underrepresented students from the Inland Empire. According to the school’s 2024 enrollment records, 44 percent of students in the program are underrepresented in medicine, 40 percent are first-generation college students, 55 percent speak English as a second language and 73 percent have ties to the Inland Empire.
NIH funding cuts will hinder the School of Medicine’s mission to educate local youth and train the next generation of health professionals. Without a competitive medical research institution supporting these students, healthcare quality in the region will decline — a significant loss for the entire Inland Empire community.
Medical research being conducted at UCR has far-reaching benefits beyond this region. Dr. Nair, for example, studies new immune cells that target obesity, a significant health issue in the United States (U.S.) affecting nearly 40 percent of Americans.
Dr. Declan McCole, a UCR biomedical researcher, uses his NIH funds to investigate how genetic variations in the PTPN2 gene contribute to autoimmune conditions such as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), which affects over 1.6 million Americans.
Additionally, Dr. Iryna Ethell, a UCR neuroscience professor, uses her NIH funding to investigate new mechanisms behind hyperactive neuronal networks in the brain, which can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders like autism — affecting 1 in 58 children in the U.S.
UCR’s medical research is crucial for advancing and improving treatment of complex health conditions. Losing this scientific progress would have serious consequences for the advancement of science and the health of Americans.
Academics, students and government officials must unite to address President Trump’s attacks on higher education and research. Advocacy efforts, such as those led by Dr. Nair and the School of Medicine’s initiative to gather letter submissions, are crucial in highlighting the urgency and detrimental effects these cuts could have on the U.S.
With so much at stake, it is only through collective action that students and academics can safeguard the future of higher education and scientific research.
