Trump honored a cancer survivor. The boy's doctors now face his budget cuts.

A renowned medical school whose faculty helped treat a young cancer survivor honored this week by President Donald Trump is facing potentially devastating funding cuts because of the White House.

On Tuesday night, the president named Devarjaye "DJ" Daniel, a 13-year-old from Texas who was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2018, as an official member of the U.S. Secret Service. The recognition for Daniel, who has dreamed for years of becoming a police officer, was a rare moment of bipartisan unity amid an otherwise tense and raucous joint congressional address.

Trump highlighted Daniel's case in an effort to prioritize reducing childhood cancer rates, which he touted as a key component of his "Make America Healthy Again" approach to public health as president.

But the touching tribute also came weeks after the National Institutes of Health proposed drastically reducing funding reimbursement rates for medical schools – a measure that colleges and universities have said would devastate cancer research, jeopardize patients and hike student tuition prices. A federal judge indefinitely paused the administration's proposal Wednesday, saying it would "adversely and immediately affect public health."

Local news reports say Daniel received medical treatment from doctors affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine, a private school in Houston. Baylor is one of the top NIH-funded universities in Texas, according to data analyzed by United for Medical Research, a coalition of research institutions.

Texas Children's Hospital confirmed on social media this week that Daniel received care at the Texas Children's Cancer and Hematology Center, which is "composed of physicians and surgeons who are also academic faculty at Baylor College of Medicine," according to the hospital's website.

In a public video message two weeks ago, Paul Klotman, the medical school's president, said Baylor is poised to lose as much as $80 million to $90 million in funding from the changes to NIH funding. Sarah Heilbronner, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Baylor, recently told the Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Network, that the cuts threaten to short-circuit her work.

"We're talking about a lot of jobs here that would just disappear," she said.

The Trump administration has argued that slashing federal support for so-called "indirect" costs for research universities would prevent wasting taxpayer money on extra subsidies for rich colleges. New guidance issued by the NIH in early February stressed the importance of ensuring that "as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

Though the changes would only affect institutions of higher education, universities often have close relationships and affiliations with hospitals and clinics that can benefit from their research.

White House Spokesman Kush Desai defended the cuts in a statement Friday.

“It’s crude and pathetic to try to mar the President of the United States recognizing and honoring a brave boy with a mischaracterization of the administration’s policies to cut wasteful administrative spending and restore transparency in our healthcare apparatus," he wrote.

University leaders argue the Trump administration fundamentally misunderstands how research is funded. Without the money to pay for buildings, staff and equipment – all of which can be classified as indirect costs – research can't be done at all.

Barbara R. Snyder, president of the Association of American Universities, has said the Trump administration's proposal is "quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families.”

A group of universities and state attorneys general sued the administration last month over the cuts, which they said violate the law. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Boston granted their request for an injunction, barring the cuts from taking effect nationwide.

In her order, District Judge Angel Kelley said the administration's "unilateral change" posed an "imminent risk of halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering of research facilities, without regard for current patient care."