In a sweeping legal challenge, more than 22 states across the country—including Arizona, Delaware and Hawaii—have joined forces to file a federal lawsuit under the leadership of Massachusetts Attorney General Dana Nessel. The lawsuit aims to block the Trump Administration’s decision to slash funding for indirect research costs through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), arguing that such cuts would severely impact medical research and public health. The lawsuit contends that the administration’s decision will cause “cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease to grind to a halt,” jeopardizing life-saving research efforts. The legal argument follows similar precedents set by lawsuits filed by universities, also covered in this issue, but places a stronger emphasis on the broader societal consequences, particularly on healthcare accessibility and employment. Brandeis University, a key player in Massachusetts’ robust research ecosystem, stands to be significantly affected by the funding reductions. One of the university’s major collaborations, the UMass Amherst AI and Technology Center for Connected Care in Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease (MAITC), is directly at risk. The center, which focuses on integrating artificial intelligence into elder care, facilitates interdisciplinary research aimed at improving communication between older adults, caregivers and clinicians. Its mission is to enhance care for individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s and related dementias—work that could be critically underfunded if the NIH cuts proceed.
These funding reductions could impact not just researchers and university labs but also patients currently enrolled in clinical trials, as well as hospitals and medical centers affiliated with universities that provide direct patient care. Institutions like Brandeis rely on federal overhead reimbursements to support their research infrastructure, and any disruption in this funding stream threatens ongoing and future projects. Massachusetts has long been recognized as a national leader in scientific research, particularly in the medical and biotechnology fields. Home to world-renowned institutions, the state has been at the forefront of groundbreaking medical discoveries. Brandeis itself has an esteemed history in healthcare research, with Michael Rosbash, the university’s most recent Nobel Prize winner, receiving the prestigious award in medical sciences for his pioneering work on circadian rhythms. The lawsuit argues that cutting NIH research funding will have cascading consequences, particularly for those currently undergoing medical treatments or participating in experimental drug trials. Many of these trials depend on NIH grants, and without sustained federal support, institutions may be forced to scale back or halt their work entirely. The ripple effect could extend to university hospitals, medical centers and even job markets, as research institutions employ thousands of scientists, technicians and support staff whose positions depend on stable funding.
A critical aspect of the lawsuit is the issue of overhead rates, which represent the indirect costs universities incur while conducting federally funded research. These include essential expenses such as maintaining laboratory facilities, managing data storage, handling chemical waste and ensuring proper security and compliance with federal regulations. Unlike direct research costs, which cover items like laboratory equipment and researcher salaries, overhead costs are crucial to sustaining the infrastructure needed to conduct large-scale medical research. The federal government typically reimburses universities for these expenses through a complex review process overseen by federal officials. However, the Trump administration’s proposed NIH budget cuts include a 15% reduction in indirect cost reimbursements, significantly shrinking the financial resources available to institutions that rely on this funding to continue their work. The federal lawsuit represents a significant battle over the future of government-funded medical research. If the NIH funding cuts are upheld, it could result in the delay or cancellation of critical studies, hinder disease treatment advancements and strain healthcare services that rely on university research facilities. On the other hand, if the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it could reaffirm the government’s commitment to supporting the research sector and preserving the country’s standing as a global leader in scientific innovation. For Brandeis and other institutions across Massachusetts, the outcome of this legal battle will have lasting implications—not only for researchers and faculty but for patients, students and future generations who stand to benefit from continued advancements in medical science.
