Funding cuts that were set to take effect at the National Institutes of Health this week could have Pittsburgh’s research institutions staring down a financial cliff. But the future of those cuts became unclear Monday after a U.S. district court judge temporarily blocked them.
A pair of lawsuits seeking to block the policy were filed on Monday; one by a group of 22 states and the other on behalf of public and private universities and hospitals, including Carnegie Mellon University. Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
According to the health and medicine outlet STAT News, federal Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued restraining orders in both cases. The federal judge's temporary restraining order on the funding cuts applies nationwide. A hearing has been set for Feb. 21 for both cases.
This all comes in reaction to the Trump administration's announcement Friday that the NIH would lower its grant funding cap for “indirect costs” to 15% effective Monday. The percentage is used to calculate additional money awarded alongside research grants to cover overhead expenses like building maintenance, utilities, equipment and support staff.
The announcement sent shock waves across the region’s life sciences research sector. And after weeks of apparent hesitation to speak about looming NIH cuts, leadership at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University — Pittsburgh’s two largest scientific research institutions — did not mince words in separate statements.
“There is no doubt that our collective scholarly impact could be harmed irreparably, as could our broader mission,” the University of Pittsburgh said. For every dollar of NIH funding going to research at Pitt, the university receives up to an additional 59 cents to cover indirect costs. That is far higher than the average overhead rate between 27% and 28%.
In an email, Carnegie Mellon University said overhead costs are “essential” to the university’s ongoing and future research. CMU receives as much as 52 cents in addition to every dollar for overhead costs.
“This change would have immediate and sweeping consequences on the ability of universities across America to fund essential infrastructure and services required to support groundbreaking research that advances human health and improves lives,” CMU said.
The NIH has historically negotiated indirect cost ratios individually with institutions, rather than allotting a flat rate. The new cap is the Trump administration’s latest effort to cut down on federal spending.
In a statement, the NIH said of the $35 billion granted for research in 2024, $9 billion was used for indirect costs. Lowering the cap to 15%, the agency said, “will save more than $4 [billion] a year effective immediately.”
The 15% rate is aligned with what many private foundations set as their maximum, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Rockefeller Foundation.
The change would affect current and future grants, but it’s unclear whether the Trump administration plans to claw back funds already awarded by applying the policy retroactively.
The Health and Human Services Department, which oversees NIH, told NPR that while HHS does "have the authority to make these changes retrospective for current grants and require grantees to return the excess overhead they have previously received," officials have "currently chosen not to do so to ease the implementation of the new rate."
But the department also told NPR it would "continue to assess” that choice.
Due to the restraining orders, it’s unclear when or how the policy could take effect.
Pennsylvania did not join the suit along with the other 22 states.
“We are speaking with institutions throughout Pennsylvania which are impacted by NIH’s change in policy and are in the process of assessing the best approach to protect their interests,” said a spokesperson for Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday.
What research could be impacted?
In its announcement about the new funding cap, the NIH said it was designed “to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”
But researchers who spoke to WESA said without covering those indirect costs, the research “won’t get done.” Several researchers asked not to be named Monday as they await more information and guidance from their respective universities.
The cuts could impact a broad range of research initiatives, as universities, medical schools, research hospitals and other scientific universities often share overlapping missions, research and public service with centralized management.
“[Indirect costs funding] covers a lot of things that people don't normally think about and some things that really are important,” said Takashi Kozai, an associate professor of bioengineering at Pitt, who relies almost exclusively on NIH funding.
For example, indirect costs support hazardous and radioactive waste disposal at Pitt, he said.
Kozai studies brain regeneration and has been researching how electric current can be used to regrow injured regions of the brain in Alzheimer’s and Multiple Sclerosis patients. His lab has also developed a brain implant that allows amputees to control a robotic arm and regain a sense of touch.
He said work like that doesn’t happen without the support staff keeping track of grant requirements, paperwork and other ancillary tasks. Kozai worried that if those responsibilities were shifted to researchers like him, American medical advances would languish.
“My expertise is generating new ideas and new science and new research … and making sure that all of the experimental requirements, control groups, correct statistics,” are there, Kozai said.
Pitt receives nearly $700 million in overall NIH funding, according to the university, making it the sixth largest recipient in the United States. That represents more than half of Pitt’s $1.2 billion research budget, which primarily focuses on health sciences.
“We recognize the significant impact this guidance could potentially have across our entire Pitt community on our work and for the many people involved directly and indirectly,” the university said, adding that the full impact of the change “remains to be seen.”
Federal data indicates that CMU received nearly $38 million NIH funding in 2024. The university said though “federal policies that impact research funding at universities are evolving rapidly,” that it plans to continue to advocate for the funding. CMU said it will hold a campus-wide meeting for the research community later this week.
Both universities are members of the Association of American Universities, which represent the schools that receive the majority of federal funding for public health research.
In a statement before the funding cuts took effect Monday, AAU president Barbara Snyder called them “quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families.”
The future of Pittsburgh’s eds and meds economy
Though changes at the NIH would have a large impact on local universities and research organizations, Allegheny County officials said Monday that such a “setback” could extend “far beyond the walls of academia.”
“The region’s life sciences sector is integral to our regional growth strategy,” said Lauren Connelly, the county’s director of economic development. “Because of NIH funding, and the work of our universities and research institutions, we are at the forefront of medical breakthroughs and technological advancements.”
She said cuts to NIH funding in the region “jeopardizes job creation, stifles innovation, and limits our ability to grow and attract new businesses to Allegheny County.”
The life sciences sector accounts for more than 15,500 jobs and $3.4 billion in economic activity according to 2023 data from the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Alliance.
“By cutting the indirect rate without warning, much local research will grind to a halt,” said Megan Shaw, president and CEO of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Alliance.
“In the short term, this means a loss of jobs among those directly doing the research and those whose work supports it, such as lab technicians, maintenance workers and truck drivers,” she said. “Longer-term, we will lose breakthrough research that can be translated into better diagnostics and therapies for people facing cancer, chronic diseases and other conditions.”
Linda DeAngelo, a higher education scholar and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said lower NIH funding in the region could have detrimental impacts on young scientists and incite a so-called “brain drain,” when academic talent flee the region for jobs elsewhere.
“This will have impacts on not only the type of research [and] the amount of it, but this has real human impacts,” she said.
DeAngelo, who was not speaking on behalf of the University of Pittsburgh, said it was unrealistic to expect that universities could quickly find new funding streams to cover overhead costs.
“The amount that it would take to build and continue this type of infrastructure without indirects will really be challenging,” she said.
Though temporarily blocked, the Trump administration’s policy change could face additional legal challenges.
In social media posts over the weekend, researchers and Congressional Democrats claimed the cuts were illegal, as they potentially violate a bipartisan bill that prohibits such modifications to the NIH’s indirect costs. A statement from the House Appropriations Committee suggested additional forthcoming litigation.
“Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law,” said ranking member Rosa DeLauro. “In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families.”
Trump attempted to cut NIH funding in 2017 during his first term in office. But Congress sharply rejected the proposal, instead boosting the agency’s budget by $2 billion that year.
