Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair, opposed what she called a “poorly conceived directive” for the National Institutes of Health to cut support for medical and public health research at universities nationwide, she said in a statement released on Monday.
Collins noted that she’d contacted Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier in the day about the move and that he’d promised to “reexamine” it.
“I oppose the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH,” Collins said in the statement, claiming she’s heard from laboratories and research institutions and other schools in Maine about the cuts, which “would be devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs.”
After her conversation with Kennedy about the cuts, Collins said she will support his nomination.
“He said he would re-examine them and seemed to understand,” Collins told reporters at the Capitol.
The senator’s support for Trump’s pick was uncertain before Monday, though she has broken with her party to oppose the confirmation of Pete Hegseth, the president’s nominee for defense secretary.
Trump’s NIH announced on Friday night it was cutting payments toward overhead costs for research institutions that receive its grants — a move that could leave universities with major holes in their budgets. NIH funding supports roughly 412,000 jobs and $92 billion in economic activity, according to a report from United for Medical Research, a coalition of top research universities, medical associations, and biomedical and pharmaceutical companies.
Collins, a moderate Republican lawmaker who has joined a slate of statewide and national Democratic leaders to decry the Trump administration’s move, said she reached out to Kennedy to express her “strong opposition to these arbitrary cuts in funding.”
Collins said Kennedy “promised” that as soon as he was confirmed he would “re-examine this initiative” that he says was “implemented prior to his confirmation.”
Collins had not publicly said how she would vote on Kennedy, whose full Senate confirmation could come as soon as midweek.
Democrats and many academic and medical professionals have been outspoken in their opposition to the cap in NIH funding.
“Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
“The Trump administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action,” DeLauro said.
Sen. Katie Britt, R-Alabama, told an Alabama news outlet that she would work with the administration to make sure federal funds are spent “efficiently,” but also said a “smart, targeted approach is needed in order to not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research.”
Collins’ critique of the NIH funding pause also comes as attorney generals from 22 states filed a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration over the move.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston challenges the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health over efforts to reduce indirect costs to these institutions, including lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs.
“We will not allow the Trump Administration to unlawfully undermine our economy, hamstring our competitiveness, or play politics with our public health,” Massachusetts Attorney Andrea Campbell said in a statement.
Reaction to the NIH developments been strong among researchers, who described it as “catastrophic” — with one group representing universities calling it “a direct and massive cut to live saving medical research.”
NIH is casting the move as limiting overhead and administrative costs. Researchers counter the agency is literally turning off the lights on them. This money goes toward things like the building of labs, utilities, IT and other equipment, finance management, legal support, grants management and help with the ethical oversight of studies.
-ABC News’ Anne Flaherty, Ben Siegel, Rachel Scott and Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.
ABC News: Top Stories
Read the full article .
