The immediate implementation of the U.S. NIH’s guidance to cut indirect costs included in its grants to 15% was quickly halted late Feb. 10 when a federal district judge granted a nationwide temporary restraining order in two separate challenges to the cuts that were to go into effect that day on all existing and new NIH grants.

Cognition Therapeutics Inc. evolved from the work of a neuroscientist and a chemist working in the San Francisco Bay area, seeking out targets to block the effects of Alzheimer’s disease. Since the company’s 2007 inception, it has received close to $200 million in U.S. NIH grant funding. Investors often tell CEO Lisa Ricciardi, who joined the company in 2020: “’That’s because you have a relationship with the FDA.’ Well, no. It’s because it’s competitive” and the company’s research has met the muster. “You have to apply two or three times. … It’s with rigor that these results are generated and that we’re able to get more funding.”

From Feb. 10, the U.S. NIH is to cut the amount of its grants that go to indirect costs, in a move it says will save $4 billion per annum, but which scientists say will hit breakthrough biomedical research. The NIH announced the cut on Friday, Feb. 7, saying there would be a flat rate of 15% for indirect costs, such as running laboratories, buying and maintaining equipment, data processing and storage, across all of its grants. That compares to an average rate historically of between 27% and 28%, the NIH said.

For the pharmaceutical industry caught in the crosshairs of a potential trade war, the consequences of U.S. tariffs on China or Europe remain largely speculative, although both would be detrimental, according to a Korea Biotechnology Industry Organization (KoreaBIO) issue briefing Feb. 7.

“This current administration is like nothing that we've seen before,” said a managing partner of a global venture capital firm who spoke to BioWorld on the condition of anonymity. “President Trump’s first term was bad,” he said, “but nobody knows what’s coming.” “This is truly nationalism at its worst, because he won on the campaign [largely] to protect American jobs, claiming that Americans have been unfairly treated.” And it's not just China, he said, but India and other countries will also likely be affected.

Carrying out his campaign promises to reform government, President Donald Trump signed 46 executive orders (EOs) between Jan. 20-31 that have been published in the Federal Register. Of those, 26 were signed after noon and between all the inaugural events on Trump’s first day in office. Since then, he’s signed at least eight more orders, and the administration has issued numerous memos, several of which are intended to implement the EOs. Given the quantity, scope and content of the EOs Trump has issued over the past few weeks, it’s no surprise that they’ve generated controversy, a lot of uncertainty and at least a few court challenges.

The second Trump administration already left a large footprint on the administrative state as it took on trading nations with tariffs that affect device makers. Among these controversies is the question of whether gender should be included in regulatory considerations, such as in the case of a recent update on a 2014 guidance that has been removed from the device guidance webpage.

When the U.S. CDC and FDA recently removed several webpages and datasets from their websites in compliance with a directive from the Office of Personnel Management, they broke the law and harmed public health and research, according to a lawsuit filed Feb. 4 by Doctors for America.