Trump's push to slash wasteful spending threatens public health research in North Texas

DALLAS - A federal judge ruled in favor of the 22 Democratic state attorneys general who sued to stop the Trump administration from cutting funding for medical and public health research at universities nationwide.

Later Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts temporarily blocked the cuts from taking effect, setting a hearing for later this month to settle whether they are legal and should proceed.

The original reduction in grants was announced late Friday by the National Institutes of Health. The affected grants are used to cover costs for labs, infrastructure, utilities and, in some cases, faculty.          

By the numbers:

In 2023, the NIH funded about 50,000 research grants totaling $35 billion: $26 billion in direct costs for research and researchers, and $9 billion in indirect costs.

Indirect costs include lab, infrastructure, utility costs and more.

When a grant is awarded, the NIH says about 27 to 28% usually goes to cover indirect costs.

The NIH says limiting those indirect payments to 15% could save $4 billion a year.

Local perspective:

The UNT Health Science Center is among the 2,500 universities and 300,000 researchers nationwide with critical work being done to find cures and evolving treatment options for debilitating and life-threatening diseases.

The proposed cuts could leave a gap in many institutions’ research budgets. Something would have to give to make fewer dollars work.

UNT-HSC said in a statement, "We are working with our federal partners to best understand any potential implications."

What they're saying:

The states’ lawsuit said implementing the 15% cap would "mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless life-saving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives."

Stephen Love with the DFW Hospital Council says the cuts could impact staffing and compromise patient safety. He says many universities and researchers are rightfully concerned.

"These indirect costs could impact research. It could impact retention of faculty. It could impact faculty being hired. And it could also look at some of the great work that's been doing with hazard waste material, Also, things related to patient safety," he said. "I do know from what I've read nationwide this is going to have an impact on research, It potentially could even increase the costs to the students. I think it's premature to assess exactly what it's going to be. But based on the feedback that we've heard from major universities throughout the United States, this could be a big impact."

In a statement to FOX News Digital, White House Spokesperson Kush Desai said, "Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less."

What's next:

U.S. district court judge Angel Kelley scheduled a hearing on the case for Feb. 21. The Trump administration did not respond immediately to a request for comment.