What local governments should expect after the Trump administration cuts $800 million in scientific research funding

By Jon Miller, Chief Program Officer, Public Rights Project

As a father, I spend a lot of time thinking about my children’s future — their health, their education, the kind of world they’re growing up in. Like most parents, I’ve sat in doctor’s offices worrying over broken bones, ear infections, and other childhood bumps and bruises. In fact, I still remember so many of the details of the night my older son — at the tender age of 4 — was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes, an ailment he will have to manage for his whole life. 

And like most families, I’ve taken comfort in knowing there are experts working behind the scenes to keep our kids healthy. Groundbreaking research has fundamentally altered the technology used to manage diseases like Type 1. It’s enabled our son to enjoy so many more opportunities.

But we’re living in a new reality: life-saving research and scientific innovations are under threat. And the laws that govern federal funding are being fundamentally reshaped. In August, the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to terminate nearly $800 million in grants awarded to scientific and medical research institutions across the country. The ruling came after President Donald Trump issued executive orders to eliminate funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and gender identity research. 

This is deeply troubling for several reasons. 

Research institutions across the country rely on NIH funding to conduct hundreds of clinical trials in cancer, diabetes, pediatrics, heart and vascular studies, and the aging brain. Without it, we risk losing important research that could help discover new medications, cure diseases, and improve lives. And funding cuts disrupt research that is years in the making, delaying potential breakthroughs.

Another key concern is the lasting harm these funding cuts will inflict on communities. I live in a city with a thriving research and medical community. I’ve seen first-hand that hospitals and universities are not just centers of care and education — they are a critical part of a city’s ecosystem. 

Funding cuts will lead to layoffs of skilled workers and reduced capacity for life-saving medical and scientific research. The degradation of a research community will also lessen real estate values, lower tax revenues, and diminish the identity of communities that local governments work hard to cultivate.

Impact on local governments

As we drafted an amicus brief challenging the NIH’s move, local governments told us about the consequences of losing funding they’ve long relied on. In total, 73 cities, counties, and local government leaders joined our brief demonstrating what’s at stake.

For example, Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee — which function as a consolidated city/county government — operate Nashville General Hospital. It relies on millions of dollars in NIH funding, which is factored into the government’s annual budget in advance. Local governments simply don’t have the flexibility to backfill the kind of shortfall these federal cuts will cause. 

And the impact on local economies will be deeply felt. The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Boston, NIH funding supported over 73,000 workers in 2021.
• In Houston, NIH-backed research brought in $263 million in indirect economic benefits.

To be clear, these cuts aren’t about saving taxpayer dollars. It’s rooted in the Trump administration’s obsession with punishing local governments and other institutions for policies it doesn’t agree with. 

Local governments aren’t looking for an ideological fight for its own sake. They are filing lawsuits and joining amicus briefs for one reason: their communities and institutions rely on this funding — most of it already approved by Congress — to operate effectively and serve the public.

Broader implications: Shifting legal landscape

The NIH case is one of several recent Supreme Court rulings that signal a troubling shift. The court has not only allowed unconstitutional funding cuts to proceed but also suggested it would push some of these cases into the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 

As an attorney, I’m concerned with how these rulings are changing the law so dramatically. The Federal Claims court has long been a venue for contract disputes and other claims for money damages against the government. Reframing the administration’s termination of congressionally approved programs as individual contractual disputes ignores the facts of these claims. 

It also narrows the type and amount of relief that is available to parties hurt by these actions. Furthermore, it undermines the authority of local governments by denying them the resources they need to support their communities.

How we’re supporting local governments

Public Rights Project is committed to supporting local governments facing unlawful and unconstitutional efforts to cut federal funding. Here’s how we help:

• Trainings: We host regular trainings to educate local government leaders on laws and trending issues.
• Organizing: We connect our partners who are facing similar challenges to collaborate and share strategies.
• Litigation and amicus briefs: We help local governments get relief in courts, and share facts with decision makers in other critical cases.
• Strategic communications: We are ringing the alarm about federal abuses of power and elevating the voices of local leadership through the media.

This is undoubtedly a turbulent and divisive period, but local governments are using their power to stand up for their communities and protect what is rightfully theirs. With their leadership, we can fight for a place where everyone can thrive.