Columbus sues Trump administration over cuts to disease funding amid measles outbreaks
City Attorney Zach Klein said Columbus Public Health has already had to terminate 11 infectious disease workers due to cuts in the funding, leaving only 11 employees left.
'The Trump administration's termination of billions of dollars in infectious disease funding is both dangerous and unconstitutional,' Klein said in a statement. 'The City cannot stay quiet on the sidelines as extremists within this administration continue to defy the Constitution and recklessly endanger the health and safety of our children and the public.'
Ohio State faculty vote to join Big Ten alliance against Trump
The city claims that the funding cuts are unconstitutional because the money was already approved by Congress.
The city is asking for a judge to order the Trump administration to reinstate the grant programs and congressionally appropriated funding.
Kansas City and Nashville also joined the lawsuit, along with Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston.
Dkt.-1-ComplaintDownload
Several states also previously sued the administration over the funding cuts.
U.S. Health and Human Services Department spokesperson Andrew Nixon told the Associated Press earlier this month that it doesn't comment on pending litigation, but said the HHS 'will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
New Executive Order Could Thwart Efforts To End HIV
Harm reduction initiatives, like syringe services programs, can reduce HIV transmission among people ... More who inject drugs. A recent executive order threatens such programs. (Photo by) A recent executive order could hinder public health efforts designed to prevent new HIV infections. The EO largely focuses on people experiencing housing insecurities. But it also calls into question the value of harm reduction programs developed to help people who inject drugs. Public health experts argue that such services, like needle exchange programs, are effective. Moreover, these experts fear that the proposed changes could hinder efforts to combat HIV. The executive order, signed by President Trump on July 24, 2025, states that the secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure that grants, 'for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' Harm reduction strategies are evidence-based. They do not facilitate illegal drug use. They do save lives. Harm Reduction Strategies The idea behind harm reduction is simple. People engage in dangerous activities. Harm reduction strategies minimize the risks. Think about the seatbelts in your car. They reduce car crash fatalities and make driving safer. Syringe services programs work in the same manner. By ensuring that people who inject drugs have access to clean needles, SSPs make the act of injecting drugs less dangerous. They reduce overdose deaths. They help people get into treatment programs. And they decrease the transmission of HIV. Injection Drug Use And HIV The link between injection drug use and HIV transmission was clearly and tragically evident in Indiana over a decade ago. During a one-year period, 181 new HIV infections were confirmed, mostly in Scott County. Almost 90% of those new infections occurred in people who injected drugs. In March 2015, then-governor Mike Pence declared a public health emergency and authorized a short-term needle exchange program to help quell the outbreak. Combined with other public health efforts, this clean needle initiative caused the outbreak to subside. A subsequent modelling study, however, indicated that an earlier response could have prevented even more infections. The events that occurred in Scott County, Indiana easily could occur elsewhere. Indeed, researchers have identified 220 counties in the U.S. at risk for HIV or hepatitis C outbreaks among people who inject drugs. A vast majority of the identified counties are rural. Many of them are in Appalachia. Robust harm reduction programs in these areas are needed to help prevent future outbreaks. Public Health Effects Of Executive Order When asked about the new executive order, Erin Shoe, public health director at Cabarrus Health Alliance in North Carolina said, 'We know, from firsthand experience, that access to mental health and harm reduction programs and resources save lives. Cabarrus Health Alliance staff are reviewing and interpreting the executive order while we await further guidance from relevant federal agencies. We stand ready to navigate changes to harm reduction programs to ensure those who have needs can access resources in a timely and safe manner.' According to Dr. Elyse Powell, executive director at North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition, 'Harm reduction works. It's one of the best tools we have to stop the spread of HIV. People who engage in services are five times more likely to enter treatment and three times more likely to completely stop drug use.' Erin Major, a PhD candidate in the Health Law, Policy & Management Department at Boston University expressed similar thoughts. 'It's been shown time and time again that harm reduction is effective in terms of reducing not only overdose deaths, but also disease spread. Needle exchange programs can be effective ways to reduce the transmission of HIV. And harm reduction programs can increase treatment engagement,' she said. These experts also noted the financial benefits of harm reduction strategies. 'This approach isn't just dangerous, it's extremely expensive,' noted Dr. Powell. 'Hepatitis C costs over $25,000 to treat. HIV has lifetime health costs that can total over $420,000. Harm reduction prevents the spread of these illnesses for pennies on the dollar.' Ms. Major agreed, commenting that, 'Preventing an HIV outbreak is much more cost effective than treating people after an outbreak has occurred.' About 32,000 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2022. Approximately 7% of those infections occurred in people who inject drugs. We know that harm reduction strategies like syringe services programs can reduce this number. We also know that these strategies are cost effective. This executive order, however, stands in contrast to the existing evidence. Dr. Powell from NCHRC put it best, commenting that, 'Cutting funding means we'll be fighting this epidemic without one of the best tools in our toolbox.' That shouldn't be acceptable. If we hope to end HIV as a public health emergency in this country, then we need to employ all our resources.
an hour ago
More than 20 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over Planned Parenthood funding cuts
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- More than 20 mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its efforts to cut Medicaid payments to the nation's largest abortion provider — Planned Parenthood. The move comes in response to the package of tax breaks and spending cuts Trump signed earlier this month. A portion of the new cuts are focused on services such as cancer screenings and tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted infections — by ending Medicaid reimbursements for a year for major providers of family planning services. The cuts apply to groups that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The goal was to target Planned Parenthood, but the legislation also affected a major medical provider in Maine. California, New York, Connecticut, other states and Washington, D.C. argue in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts that the provision's language is unclear about which groups it applies to. They also say it retaliates against Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion access, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The states are asking that the portion of the law be blocked and deemed unconstitutional. The cuts threaten health care access for many low-income Americans, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference. 'This attack isn't just about abortion,' the Democrat said. 'It's about denying vulnerable communities access to care they rely on every day.' But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named a defendant in the suit, defended the provision. 'States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,' spokesperson Andrew G. Nixon said in an email. 'It is a shame that these democrat attorney generals seek to undermine state flexibility and disregard longstanding concerns about accountability.' Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics offering a range of services across the state, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed separate lawsuits earlier this year challenging the cuts. Planned Parenthood said although it is not specifically named in the law, the provision was meant to affect its nearly 600 centers in 48 states. About a third of those clinics risk closure because of the legislation, which would strip care from more than 1 million patients, the group argues. A federal judge on Monday ruled Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to receive Medicaid reimbursements. Maine Family Planning said it had enough in its reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursements only through October. About half of the group's patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid. The states' suit filed Tuesday argues that by pushing Planned Parenthood clinics to close or cut services, it could increase the states' medical care costs in the long term. Otherwise the cuts will make states use their own funds to keep health centers open. 'Either we have to comply and violate Planned Parenthood's constitutional rights and then push people to alternative providers that don't exist, who don't have the capacity to pick up the slack, or we have to spend upwards of $6 million or more to cover (those services),' said William Tong, Connecticut's Democratic attorney general. Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but some conservatives argue abortion providers use Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion. ___
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
FDA vaccine chief leaving agency after less than 3 months
Prasad joined the FDA in May after years as an academic researcher at the University of California San Francisco, where he frequently criticized the FDA's approach to drug approvals and COVID-19 vaccines. Advertisement His contrarian approach appeared to match FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who repeatedly praised Prasad's work and intellect. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But in recent weeks Prasad became a target of conservative activists, including Laura Loomer, who flagged Prasad's past statements criticizing Trump and praising liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders. 'How did this Trump-hating Bernie Bro get into the Trump admin???' Loomer posted on X last week. Prasad also attracted scrutiny for his handling of a recent safety issue surrounding the only approved gene therapy for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Under his direction, shipments of the therapy were briefly halted after a series of patient deaths, then resumed late Monday following vocal pushback from families of boys with the fatal muscle-wasting disorder. Prasad has long been skeptical of the therapy and other muscular dystrophy drugs sold by the drugmaker, Sarepta Therapeutics. As an academic, Prasad gained prominence by attacking the FDA for being too lenient in its standards for approving cancer drugs and other new therapies. Advertisement That approach is at odds with Trump's Republican supporters, who generally favor speedier approvals and unfettered access to experimental treatments. During Trump's first term he signed the " Right to Try " law, a largely symbolic piece of legislation that won popular support from conservatives seeking to give dying patients expanded access to unproven drugs. Prasad's decision to pause Sarepta's therapy was criticized last week by a columnist and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. Separately, Prasad's division issued rejection letters this month to three small biotech firms seeking approval for new gene therapies. Prasad's predecessor in the role, Dr. Peter Marks, oversaw a steep rise in approvals for new gene therapies, which aim to treat or prevent disease by replacing or modifying a portion of patients' genetic code. Prasad has been an outspoken critic of Marks' leadership at FDA. which included overseeing the approval of the first COVID vaccines and therapies.
