Republican states could lose billions of dollars in medical research funding after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced new funding cuts amid President Donald Trump's attempts to curb federal spending.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email.
Why It Matters
When a researcher receives a research grant, their institution will also receive additional funds known as "indirect costs" that go toward infrastructure such as utilities, maintenance or administrative costs, lessening the burden on these institutions. The exact percentage is negotiated between NIH and each institution.
NIH announced Friday it would implement a 15 percent limit on "indirect costs" on grants for research, highlighting that some institutions like Harvard University or Yale University currently enjoy rates upwards of 60 to 70 percent. In 2024, NIH spent more than $9 billion on these indirect costs, according to the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, which compiles data on all NIH grants.
These costs will now be taken on by research institutes, which say the cuts will have grim ramifications for medical research across the country.
While the NIH highlighted institutions in blue states Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland that benefit from the indirect funds, Republican states also benefit from the indirect funding and stand to lose billions from these cuts.
What to Know
The NIH wrote the lower indirect cost rates will "save more than $4B a year effective immediately," noting that rate is "above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today."
But the change has sparked concerns from researchers across the country who believe it will result in cuts to research for cancer and other diseases such as Alzheimer's or diabetes.
Funding generally reflects the population of a state, not its political leaning, so the two states that received the most indirect funding and would stand to lose the most are big blue states California and New York. Texas, the third largest state and largest red state, received nearly $505 million in indirect costs.
North Carolina and Pennsylvania, battlegrounds that backed Trump, received $394 million and $601 million in indirect funding in 2024, according to Blue Ridge Institute.
This map shows how much each state would have lost in 2024 indirect funding had the 15 percent rule been in place last year.
When it came to which states received the highest indirect cost rate, there was no clear partisan distinction. Of the 10 states with the highest rate, five voted for Trump—Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota—while five voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024—Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York.
Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, is among those raising concerns about the impact this move will have.
"While the administration works to achieve this goal at NIH, a smart, targeted approach is needed in order to not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama," she told AL.com.
Alabama, home to recipients such as the University of Alabama, received nearly $90 million in indirect costs in 2024, according to the Blue Ridge Institute.
What People Are Saying
Association of Public & Land Grant Universities President Mark Becker in a statement: "NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Let there be no mistake: this is a direct and massive cut to lifesaving medical research. We urge the administration to reconsider this self-defeating action."
White House spokesperson Kush Desai in a statement reported by Fox News: "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."
University of Wisconsin-Madison, in a statement: "This proposed change to NIH funding – UW–Madison's largest source of federal support – will significantly disrupt vital research activity and delay lifesaving discoveries and cures related to cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and much more.
"In addition, these reductions will have an inevitable impact on student opportunities to engage in research activities, from undergraduates to Ph.D. and medical students. Medical innovation will be slowed, delaying the creation of new treatments, new technologies, and new health workers."
What Happens Next
The decision is already facing a legal challenge from 22 attorneys general seeking to block the change in how indirect costs are dispersed. The lawsuit argues the move violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
"Massachusetts is the medical research capital of the country. We are the proud home of nation-leading universities and research institutions that save lives, create jobs, and help secure a better future. We will not allow the Trump Administration to unlawfully undermine our economy, hamstring our competitiveness, or play politics with our public health," Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, wrote in a statement.
fairness meter
About the writer
Andrew Stanton is a Newsweek weekend reporter based in Maine. His role is reporting on U.S. politics and social issues. ... Read more