Red states and blue states alike are poised to lose jobs in research labs and the local businesses serving them. Ripple effects of the Trump administration’s crackdown on U.S. biomedical research promise to reach every corner of America. It's not just about scientists losing their jobs or in the local economy their work indirectly supports, but also about patient health. "It's scary about what are we going to do if that doesn't happen, if we don't get funded?" said neuroscientist Richard Huganir of Johns Hopkins University. Huganir was studying how the brain stores memory as people learn when he discovered a gene that, when mutated, causes certain intellectual disabilities. It’s hard for patients to comprehend how they could lose an undiscovered cure. "They're desperate. We're running out of time and we're delayed. So that's not a great place to be," said Huganir. The administration’s unprecedented moves are upending the research engine that has made the U.S. “the envy of the world in terms of scientific innovation,” said Georgetown University health policy expert Lawrence Gostin. Among the biggest blows, if it survives a court challenge: Massive cuts in funding from the National Institutes of Health that would cost jobs in every state, according to an analysis by The Associated Press with assistance from the nonprofit United for Medical Research. Most of the NIH’s budget — more than $35 billion a year -- goes to universities, hospitals and other research groups. The grants are divided into “direct costs” – covering researchers’ salaries and a project’s supplies – and “indirect costs,” to reimburse other expenses supporting the work such as electricity, maintenance and janitorial staff, and safety and ethics oversight. NIH directly negotiates with research groups, a process that grants managers say requires receipts and audits, to set rates for those indirect expenses that can reach 50% or more. But the Trump administration now plans to cap those rates at 15%, estimating it would save the government $4 billion a year. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the move, but until the court fight is done researchers aren’t sure what they can continue to afford. "I can't work, and the people who work with me cannot work without the indirect support," said Dr. Otis Brawley, a professor of oncology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University. "Ultimately, we need to realize that indirect costs are just as important to research as direct costs."