Bill Kristol Warns Trump’s NIH Cuts Are Politically and Legally Dangerous

News
Alexis N. Crockett
February 11, 2025
0
96
7 minutes read

(Colin Young-Wolff/Invision/AP)

Former Republican strategist and political commentator Bill Kristol believes that President Donald Trump’s deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will come back to haunt him. Despite the administration’s assurances that reductions to administrative overhead will not impact critical research projects, including cancer treatments, Kristol argues otherwise.

Writing in The Bulwark, he warns that slashing funding for indirect research costs—such as facilities, equipment, and staff—will inevitably harm biomedical research. “If you suddenly and drastically cut funding for the ‘indirect’ costs of research—the money used for the facilities, equipment, and staff that support biomedical research—you’re going to be cutting biomedical research,” Kristol wrote.

He also pointed to recent polling data from Navigator Research, which reveals that a significant majority of Americans are more concerned about Trump cutting programs like the NIH than they are about his actions being blocked by the courts.

Kristol further highlights that the funding reductions will not only affect prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale, which have the financial resources to absorb the blow but also universities in red states that heavily rely on federal funding. “Most of the indirect cost money goes to other institutions, including public universities and hospitals, that aren’t swimming in extra cash,” he noted.

Donald Trump The Elysee Presidential Palace — Photo Credit: Nathan Laine/Bloomberg via Getty Images

“Scientists and researchers of all political persuasions will be pointing this out. And many of these institutions are in red states. That’s why over the weekend Republican Sen. Katie Britt from Alabama refused to defend the cuts. The politics of NIH cuts are bad for Trump.”

Beyond the political implications, Kristol argues that the administration’s actions may be unlawful. He notes that congressional legislation explicitly prevents the executive branch from making unilateral changes to NIH overhead funding.

“It may also be worth noting that what the Trump administration is doing is illegal,” Kristol wrote, pointing out that existing laws prohibit such modifications without congressional approval.

With Republican lawmakers already hesitant to back the cuts and growing public concern over their impact, Kristol suggests that Trump’s decision to target the NIH could prove to be both a political and legal misstep.