WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives Scott Peters (CA-50) and Linda Sanchez (CA-38), along with 38 of their California colleagues, today called on the Trump administration to refrain from cutting over $800 million in National Institutes of Health funding for California universities. Nationally, the administration is attempting to block more than $4 billion in NIH funding. 

"While the purported intention is to direct NIH funding toward scientific research costs rather than 'administrative overhead,' the reality is that this drastic reduction in reimbursement will result in more than $800 million in cuts for the state of California," the members wrote. "This will devastate the development of groundbreaking research, inhibit patient access to life-saving treatments and clinical trials, and will cede American dominance in biomedical research to our foreign competitors like China, Russia, and Iran for years to come." 

On Monday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from making billions of dollars in NIH funding cuts hours after California and 21 other states sued. The ruling only applies to the 22 states that were part of the lawsuit.  

Background:

Since coming to Congress, Rep. Peters has been a vocal advocate for increased funding for NIH. In 2013, he led a group of his colleagues on a tour of NIH so they could learn about the critical work being done there. He has sent numerous letters to Congressional Appropriators and supported the 21st Century Cures Act, which, for the first time, provided $1.75 billion in mandatory spending on NIH-supported innovation. This is in addition to more than $8 billion in annual authorizations for NIH's research activities. In 2015, Rep. Peters successfully fought to increase NIH funding to a total of $37 billion—a record high even when adjusting for inflation. The amount includes $500 million in additional funds to address opioid addiction and $414 million extra for Alzheimer's disease research. In 2019, he helped secure a total of $29.1 billion for NIH, a $2 billion increase from the previous year. In 2020, Rep. Peters helped secure $43 billion for NIH. San Diego's unique Innovation Ecosystem depends on federal investment in basic scientific research through NIH and other federal agencies.

Full text of the letter is available here and follows: 

February 11, 2025 

Matthew J. Memoli, M.D., M.S. 

Acting Director 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

9000 Rockville Pike 

Bethesda, Maryland 20892 

Dear Acting Director Memoli: 
 

We write to express deep concern about the impact of recent guidance mandating a 15% cap across all National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants related to indirect costs. This guidance has not gone through proper notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559, making this guidance illegal. This is additionally a violation of Section 224 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, which bans changes to how the NIH funds overhead costs. While the purported intention is to direct NIH funding toward scientific research costs rather than "administrative overhead," the reality is that this drastic reduction in reimbursement will result in more than $800 million in cuts for the state of California. This will devastate the development of life-saving research, inhibit patient access to life-saving treatments and clinical trials, and will cede American dominance in biomedical research to our foreign competitors like China, Russia, and Iran for years to come. 

California's academic institutions are at the forefront of biomedical research across the world. The University of California Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco have consistently ranked at the top globally for its biomedical research. California academic facilities are embedded in the progress the United States has made – the U.S. now ranks near the top in scientific Nobel prizes per capita, scientific impact in academia, and research and development expenditures per capita. These achievements have made some of the most innovative and cutting-edge medical treatment options in the world available to Americans before they are accessible elsewhere. Indirect funding from the NIH has made these American innovations possible. 

Nationwide, our academic research institutions play a pivotal role in the drug to market pipeline. Academic health centers and research institutions regularly collaborate with both the NIH and the pharmaceutical industry to develop and bring a therapy to market. UCLA has numerous clinical trials ongoing in the pediatric cancer space. In 2005, UCLA developed a model of amyloid fibers, opening new avenues for treating neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Last year, the researchers at the University of California Irvine discovered "item memory," deepening our understanding of what the brain stores to potentially offer a new target for treating Alzheimer's. 

These cuts to indirect funding will not only be devastating to the state of California. The University of Texas San Antonio conducted breakthrough research to create the first mouse model with functional human immune system. Indirect funding supports these facilities and the administrative costs that keep research labs in operation. Expenses such as rent, acquiring and maintaining lab equipment, security, data processing and storage, and daily operations of critical research are essential to developing patient-saving treatments and technologies.  

As Members of Congress who represent many of these institutions, these cuts only stand to harm patients and diminish American excellence in the life sciences. Moreover, the life science community in California employs 1.2 million Californians, generating over $400 billion in economic output. Every American has benefitted from NIH funding – 3.7 million Californians receive care at teaching hospitals.  

As required by law, federal agencies must provide the opportunity for participation through the public comment process. Additionally, we ask that you respond to the following questions.  

1. Direction of funding: What assessments have been conducted to ensure this cap does not affect research funding? 
    
2. Impact on Global Progress: What assessments have been conducted on how this cap will progress United States' biomedical research? 
    
3. Program Disruption Monitoring: What steps are being taken to track the immediate and long-term impact of ongoing clinical trials and research? 

California's progress in biomedical research is the cornerstone of American progress and innovation in research. We urge you to halt these cuts until the agency can proceed through proper rulemaking. This move is not only illegal, but will bring progress in biomedical research to a standstill. 

Thank you,