This Week Was Filled With Threats to Longevity

The Fight for Science: How a Policy Change Threatened Longevity Research—And What Happened Next

AuthorAuthorAuthor

Join Longevity, Alvaro Luis & Peter Mathiesen
March 07, 2025

On February 7, 2025, the Trump administration announced a policy to cap indirect cost reimbursements for National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants at 15%.

“We need to cut unnecessary spending, and this is a step towards making government funding more efficient.” - Official White House Statement

Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, critical for keeping research labs running. Historically, these reimbursements averaged around 40%, with some institutions receiving up to 75%. The proposed cap aimed to cut federal spending by $4 billion annually.

This isn’t the first time Trump has done something harming the NIH. In 2017, the first Trump Administration proposed to cut funding for NIH research by approximately $6 billion, or nearly 20 percent. The proposal was met by universal opposition, including opposition by Republicans as well as Democrats.

Immediate Backlash

The policy sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Universities, research institutions, and biotech startups warned that this could lead to layoffs, halted clinical trials, and research programs shutting down.

Eric Verdin, CEO of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, posted on LinkedIn:

“NIH indirect costs are not bureaucratic overhead—they are the backbone of biomedical research in the U.S. Cutting these funds would cripple the very infrastructure that allows discoveries in cancer, neurodegeneration, infectious diseases, and aging to take place. If the U.S. wishes to remain the global leader in biomedical innovation, maintaining robust indirect cost recovery is not just necessary—it is non-negotiable.” - March 2, 2025

Andrew Steele reacted to the chaos by pointing out an unexpected consequence:

“My god. PubMed is down.This might not seem like a big deal against the backdrop of the appalling Ukraine situation, but gutting US biomedical research could ultimately be as or more deadly.” - March 2, 2025

While the exact cause of the outage hasn't been officially confirmed, the speculation is that it might be linked to recent NIH staffing reductions following a February 11 executive order.

The backlash was swift. 22 state attorneys general and several research organizations filed lawsuits to challenge the cap, arguing that it violated federal statutes and would cause irreparable harm to medical research.

On March 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley blocked the policy, issuing a nationwide injunction. The ruling emphasized that the cap would have unilaterally altered thousands of existing grants, disrupting ongoing studies in Alzheimer’s, cancer, and longevity research.

For now, the threat has been neutralized but concerns remain. Will funding cuts return in another form? Could this set a precedent for weakening the NIH?

What Happens Next

While the court’s decision blocks the immediate threat, concerns remain about future attempts to limit NIH funding. Some lawmakers have already signaled intentions to propose alternative cost-cutting measures, which could resurface in different forms. The Trump administration's broader agenda, as outlined in Project 2025, includes significant reductions in government spending, which could impact the NIH in the future.

In response, some legislators are working to introduce funding protections to prevent further disruptions to medical research.

How You Can Take Action

  • Sign petitions that advocate for stable NIH funding.

  • Sign other petitions for longevity supporting policies that advance aging research.

  • Support longevity-focused organizations through donations or spreading awareness.

  • Share this newsletter to inform more people about these threats to research funding.