Ron Lanton, Partner, Lanton Law, shares his insights on the legal and political consequences of the NIH funding freeze and potential options for continuing research.
ACT: With some judges indicating that the NIH funding freeze may be illegal, are there grounds for the NIH to continue conducting research, and what options do they have?
Lanton: NIH has been ordered to continue its current research funding, which is good. The available options will depend on several factors, and those factors will take time to unfold. The only way NIH could move forward without interference from the administration is if Congress steps in and drafts laws that explicitly prevent research funding from being influenced by political reasons. However, given today’s hyper-partisan environment, I don’t believe such legislation will pass.
ACT: How could the funding freeze potentially play out legally if the administration defies the courts' ruling, and what are the potential legal implications of such an action?
Lanton: It’s a nightmare scenario—not just for lawyers like me, but for anyone invested in this issue. It never used to be, but I think it’s the number one concern right now. If the administration defies court rulings, that’s a constitutional crisis—it would fundamentally disrupt how the federal government operates.
I remember back in law school, we discussed this possibility, and it seemed so theoretical, so far-fetched. But now, we have to seriously consider it. The legal implications are too numerous to outline entirely because they depend on how it happens, which cases are affected, and the specific facts of those cases. Then, we’d have to extrapolate to understand the broader consequences. Ultimately, it would mean a collapse of our checks and balances system—the foundation of our democracy. I don’t mean to sound alarmist, but that’s exactly what it is. It’s like a Jenga tower—you pull one piece from the center, and the whole structure collapses. It would throw everything into chaos. Hopefully, this scenario won’t play out, but based on recent events, we have to consider these possibilities.
Full Interview Summary: The future of NIH-funded research is facing significant uncertainty due to changes in funding policies under the new administration. A major issue is the reduction of indirect cost reimbursements, which cover administrative, regulatory, and overhead expenses, from 50% to 15%. This shift, currently halted by legal challenges, threatens research institutions’ financial stability. Additionally, a freeze on grant proposal reviews via the Federal Register has further complicated NIH’s funding process, requiring researchers to seek alternative funding sources, primarily from the private sector. However, this shift could create a highly competitive environment, potentially stalling critical research in areas like cancer and sickle cell disease.
Political challenges, including diversity-related restrictions, further complicate clinical trials. Researchers may now need to approach trial design with a more conservative lens, which could hinder studies focused on minority populations and vaccine development. If funding and regulatory barriers persist, the U.S. risks losing scientific talent to more research-friendly environments in the EU and Asia.
While some court rulings have temporarily allowed NIH to continue research funding, long-term solutions would require Congressional action. However, given the current partisan landscape, legislative intervention to secure NIH funding against political interference appears unlikely. If the administration defies court rulings, it could create a constitutional crisis, undermining the checks and balances of the federal government.
Beyond NIH, new reciprocal tariffs could disrupt the pharmaceutical supply chain, particularly for raw materials sourced internationally. Many commercial contracts include clauses that could be triggered, nullifying agreements and exacerbating supply shortages. Given the executive branch’s broad authority over trade policy, tariff changes could increase prescription drug costs and create economic instability. With Congress unlikely to reclaim tariff-setting power soon, the full impact remains uncertain, necessitating a “wait and see” approach.
