Johns Hopkins Sues NIH: Joins 12 Universities in Lawsuit Over Research Budget Cuts

Photo: callison-burch/ Flickr/CC BY 2.0

Johns Hopkins University and 12 other top research universities have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH), challenging its decision to cap indirect cost reimbursements at 15%, down from an average of 27-28%. The universities argue this drastic cut threatens essential medical research.

Indirect costs cover critical expenses like lab space, equipment, and administrative support, explained the Hub, Johns Hopkins University's news center. While the NIH claims the policy will save $4 billion annually, universities warn it could disrupt vital research, including 600 clinical trials at Johns Hopkins.

"These trial participants are our patients. The care, treatments, and medical breakthroughs provided to them and their families are not 'overhead'—they offer meaningful hope and scientific expertise, often when it's needed most. They are the lifeblood of the advanced care that draws patients from across the country and around the world to Johns Hopkins," JHU President Ron Daniels and Hopkins Medicine CEO Theodore L. DeWeese wrote in a message on Monday.

"The NIH funding cut endangers these trials and many more like them into the future."

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, argues the NIH exceeded its authority by implementing these changes without proper authorization--enabling the executive branch to assume Congress’ authority in determining federal agency funding distribution.

Plaintiffs, including MIT and the University of California system, seek a court order to block the cuts.

This lawsuit is part of a broader response to the funding cuts. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states have also challenged the policy, citing potential research disruptions and job losses. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the cuts while the case proceeds, Reuters reported.

Universities argue that without adequate reimbursement, critical research and America’s leadership in medical innovation are at risk. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for federally funded research.