ST. LOUIS — Missouri universities are sounding the alarm over the attempt by President Donald Trump’s administration to cut grants supporting biomedical research — a move that could result in the state losing tens of millions of dollars in efforts to tackle diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

A ruling this week by a federal judge in Boston put the cuts on hold at least until Feb. 21, when the next hearing is scheduled. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by university associations and other major research centers arguing that the cuts are unlawful and “will devastate medical research.”

U.S. Rep. Wesley Bell, a Democrat representing St. Louis and parts of St. Louis County, said the cuts especially affect Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, which he called the “heart of our region’s lifesaving research efforts” as one of the top recipients of federal research funds.

“It’s more than a financial blow; it’s a betrayal of the families who are depending on breakthroughs in cancer treatment, Alzheimer’s research, and other critical health challenges,” Bell said. “Beyond the immediate damage to our jobs and local economy, these cuts threaten our community’s well-being and jeopardize the futures of so many in the St. Louis region.”

The cuts are to “indirect funds” disbursed by the federal National Institutes of Health, the country’s largest funder of biomedical research. Indirect funds cover administrative and overhead costs of research, such as staff, buildings, maintenance and data processing.

In fiscal year 2023, the NIH distributed more than $35 billion in competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 research institutions across the country. More than a quarter — $9 billion — went to indirect costs.

Depending on the type and scope of research, as well as geography, some universities spend more on indirect costs than others.

The Trump administration says it wants to cut indirect funds roughly in half, by about $4 billion.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead,” read the NIH’s Feb. 7 announcement of the cuts.

Grants going towards indirect costs are difficult to oversee, NIH officials also stated. “NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life.”

Katie Miller, part of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, posted on social media: “President Trump is doing away with Liberal D.E.I. Deans’ slush fund.”

WashU receives by far the most in NIH funding in the state. Its medical school has for the past two years ranked No. 2 in NIH funding across the country. In fiscal year 2024, the school received $683 million, its highest amount yet.

An estimate by James Murphy, deputy director of higher education policy at Education Reform Now, shows that if the cuts to indirect costs go through, Missouri could lose nearly $132 million over the next year. The bulk — nearly $109 million — would be suffered by WashU alone.

WashU officials declined to provide a specific amount it could lose under the cuts or connect a reporter to researchers to describe how their studies could be affected.

Academic leaders at WashU sent a campuswide email over the past weekend telling students that they are “mobilized on multiple fronts.”

“Our leadership team is closely reviewing the policy, and our government relations team is engaging with congressional representatives and others to ensure that they understand the consequences of these cuts and are encouraged to act to address this threat to research and its many benefits to society,” it read. “We also are working with our national organizations to respond to this issue.”

The University of Missouri also is a major recipient of NIH funding. The institution received $98 million in NIH funding in fiscal year 2024. Of that, nearly 30% — $28.7 million — was for indirect costs, said Christopher Ave, the university’s communications director.

If the cuts remain in effect, Mizzou will lose nearly $11 million over the rest of this fiscal year, Ave said.

“This change would mean significant annual reductions in funding for our vital NIH-sponsored research that saves lives, creates jobs, enhances national security and improves quality of life for people in every part of our state and across the nation,” he said.

University leaders are also communicating with “key stakeholders in government,” Ave said.

While Congressman Bell said he was prepared to fight against the cuts, the office of U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner, a Republican representing suburban areas surrounding St. Louis, released a statement saying evaluating the cost shares of federal grants is “an appropriate role” for the executive branch.

“This pause by the courts will allow the Trump Administration to work with Congress on the best path forward to provide the strongest bang for the taxpayer buck possible,” Wagner said.

Missouri U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Republican, said covering expenses such as rent, utilities and janitorial services should not be the purpose of the NIH grants.

“This means less money for bureaucrats and more money for life-saving research,” Schmitt said. “I fully support President Trump and DOGE’s efforts to root out waste and abuse in the federal government.”

Missouri’s other U.S. senator, Republican Josh Hawley, did not respond to requests for comment.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe’s office emailed a statement acknowledging that research institutions contribute greatly to Missouri, both in economic impact and scientific advances, but stopped short of condemning the cuts.

“We are assessing the impact of this policy on institutions across the state,” the email read. “However, Governor Kehoe supports the Trump Administration’s efforts to increase government efficiency and find common sense caps for administrative spending at NIH.”

Researchers across the country, however, describe how the cuts could force projects to abruptly cease, cause layoffs and hinder innovation.

“Without relief from NIH’ action these institutions’ cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,” argued one of two lawsuits attempting to block the cuts.

‘A huge hole’

Stressing that he was not speaking on behalf of WashU, one researcher at the university shared his concerns with the Post-Dispatch about the possible cuts.

Michael Meers, assistant professor of genetics, heads a lab with seven full-time and two part-time employees that studies how human genes are regulated and how that process can go awry in disease, particularly in cancer.

Meers says about a third of the NIH funding the university receives covers indirect costs. If those costs were cut by half, “it would blow a huge hole in the budget,” he said.

He likened it to being asked to fly a plane without getting the money to build a runway. “It’s a fundamental part of being able to create the conditions to the research,” Meers said.

Less funding will mean fewer labs, which means fewer opportunities to train the next generation of scientists, and fewer opportunities for patients to participate in what could be life-saving studies.

“We need to clear that this is not a problem for the few of us that are sitting up her in our research labs,” Meers said. “It is a problem for every American, every Missourian and every St. Louisan; and it’s important that that’s understood.”

In an announcement at the end of last year about its record-breaking NIH funding amount, WashU officials touted how the grants create a “vibrant ecosystem of innovative research” that attracts the brightest minds in medicine and drives innovation across the globe.

More than 1,000 NIH-funded research projects are underway at the school. Newly funded projects this year include efforts to prevent early-onset colorectal cancer; understand why the aging brain is susceptible to dementia; develop a gene therapy to cure HIV; improve outcomes for children with heart disease; and prepare for the next viral pandemic.

“Our research programs are designed to tackle the most vexing questions with state-of-the-art techniques and analytical methods and generate innovative answers that will substantially improve outcomes for our patients,” stated Dr. David Perlmutter, dean of the medical school.

WashU officials said federal investments are supported by a significant amount of the university’s own funds — $376.3 million in 2024 — which goes toward maintaining equipment and facilities, salaries for principal investigators, start-up funding for trainees and other capital expenses.

According to the NIH, its funding generates significant local economic impact: Every dollar invested creates roughly $2.46 in economic activity through job creation and the development of new medical technologies based on NIH-funded research. WashU is the third largest employer in Missouri.

“This influx of talent fosters collaborations with biotech and pharmaceutical companies, driving further medical advancements and spurring local and regional economic growth,” WashU officials wrote. “Every $1 million in research funding creates 11 local jobs, generating opportunities in St. Louis and strengthening WashU’s role as a regional economic engine.”

St. Louis-area universities tread carefully as Trump directives disrupt research

In an email sent to faculty and students, a Washington University official described studies that had already been quashed and how funding for studies already underway could be in jeopardy.

©2025 STLtoday.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.