Trump maintains funding freeze at NIH, defying court order
The Trump administration is still prohibiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff from issuing virtually all grant funding, an NIH official tells Popular Information. The ongoing funding freeze is also reflected in internal correspondence reviewed by Popular Information and was reiterated to staff in a meeting on Monday. The funding freeze at NIH violates two federal court injunctions, two legal experts said.
The funding freeze at NIH puts all of the research the agency funds at risk. As the primary funder of biomedical research in the United States, NIH-funded research includes everything from cancer treatments to heart disease prevention to stroke interventions.
On January 27, the Trump administration, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a memo requiring federal agencies to "temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance," including "grants and loans" beginning at 5 PM on January 28. The purpose of the spending freeze was to ensure compliance with President Trump's Executive Orders prohibiting funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion, or "DEI," and "woke gender ideology."
The Trump administration quickly faced two federal lawsuits, one filed by the National Council of Nonprofits and another filed by 22 states. On January 28, a judge in the National Council of Nonprofits case issued an administrative stay preventing the funding freeze from going into effect. In an attempt to head off the litigation, the OMB rescinded the memo on January 29. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, however, posted on X that the memo was only rescinded to evade the court's order and the "federal funding freeze" was not rescinded and would be "rigorously implemented."
As a result of the post, plaintiffs in both cases pushed for the federal court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting the Trump administration from implementing the funding freeze.
On January 31, the federal judge overseeing the case brought by 22 states issued a TRO. The Trump administration is "restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025," according to the TRO.
On February 3, the federal judge overseeing the case brought by the National Council of Nonprofits also issued a TRO. This TRO states that "Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards."
Despite both of these injunctions, NIH staff was prohibited from issuing virtually any grant funding — including funding for multi-year grants that have already been approved and partially disbursed. According to internal NIH email correspondence, the agency leadership said that the freeze was in place to ensure the grants were compliant with Trump's executive orders. This was the precise rationale stated in the OMB memo.
On February 10, NIH canceled all Federal Advisory Committee meetings where new grants are approved. This notice was posted to the NIH Employee Intranet:
Between February 3, 2024, and February 10, 2024, the NIH issued 513 grant awards totaling $218,273,053. Between February 3 and February 10 this year, the NIH issued just 11 grant awards totaling $4,981,089. In other words, since the courts ordered a full resumption in grant funding, the agency approved a handful of grants accounting for 2.2% of its typical volume. An NIH official says a small number of grants are being approved by NIH leadership, but nearly all grants remain frozen.
David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on administrative law, told Popular Information that the Trump administration is "in contempt of court" and the continued funding freeze at NIH is "completely unlawful."
Further, Super said, the law requires "the prompt expenditure of appropriated funds" and "federal officials take oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the individual who happens to be president at a particular moment, and they must uphold those laws whether or not consistent with the wishes or executive orders issued by the president." Super noted that the U.S. Code says that the "[t]he Director of NIH shall expand, intensify, and coordinate research and other activities of the National Institutes of Health with respect to autoimmune diseases." Withholding appropriated grant funding is inconsistent with this legal obligation.
Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan with a specialty in governance issues, agreed. Bagenstos told Popular Information that both judges were "very clear" about the scope of the TROs and that the NIH is violating both orders.
The federal judge overseeing the case brought by 22 states found that the Trump administration had not fully complied with the January 31 order. The judge issued a new order directing the Trump administration to "immediately end any federal funding pause." According to an NIH source, no action was taken in response to the new order.
We started a new publication, Musk Watch. NPR covered our launch HERE. It features accountability journalism focused on one of the most powerful humans in history. It is free to sign up, so we hope you’ll give it a try and let us know what you think.
A $4 billion funding cut
Alongside the funding freeze, the Trump administration announced Friday that it would drastically cut its NIH grants to research institutions in order to save an estimated $4 billion.
When the NIH awards a grant to a university, part of that funding directly funds a research project, and part of it goes to the overhead costs that support the research, such as electricity, building maintenance, and personnel. In the past, the indirect funding tacked on to NIH grants has been around 30% of the grant for direct research funding on average, with some universities getting over 60%.
Now, the NIH says it will slash the rate for indirect funding to a maximum of 15% of the grant for direct research costs — a move that has sparked intense backlash at research institutions across the country.
Researchers and university officials note that overhead costs are essential to performing research. Many institutions rely on government funding for indirect research costs since many private grants cover a much smaller portion of those costs. In its announcement, the NIH pointed to the massive endowments of Harvard and Yale (around $50 billion and $40 billion, respectively), implying that universities could simply draw from their endowments to cover the sudden gap in funding. But most universities have endowments far smaller than those of Harvard and Yale and are restricted in how they can use those funds.
A 2022 report by the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing group behind Project 2025, argues that indirect funding linked to NIH grants is used by elite universities to hire DEI employees. The release announcing the indirect funding cap references the Heritage Foundation study, WIRED reports.
The cuts will be a devastating setback for biomedical research in the U.S. Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School, posted on X that “a sane government would never do this.”
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, has called the 15% limit “illegal” since a law was passed last year prohibiting the NIH from changing the system it uses to distribute funds for indirect expenses. On Monday, 22 states filed a new lawsuit the Trump administration to block the cuts, saying that "cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt.” A few hours after the lawsuit was filed a federal judge issued an injunction blocking the new policy.
This post is like when someone asks "Do you have the time?" and the other person answers "Yes."
What we all want to know is what comes next. What are enforcement options that aren't mere statements or fines, and what do countries do if they don't materialize?
They need to start to arrest the white collar people who don’t follow the court orders.. hopefully that would get their attention that the lawsuits are serious.