Former NIH official says Trump admin cut government's 'Safe to Sleep' team that helped reduce infant deaths
It is accurate to say that a former NIH spokesperson who worked at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the NIH institute that led Safe to Sleep, announced in April that her entire office was eliminated, effectively ending the federal government's participation in the campaign. As of this writing, Christina Stile, the spokesperson, is still listed as NICHD's public-facing contact on NIH's website.
However, NIH would not confirm this report and said "no final decisions" had been made about the future of the program. Stile told Snopes that while there is no one left at NIH to lead Safe to Sleep, she suspects NIH's statement is truthful because the Trump administration's efforts to restructure the federal government is still ongoing as of this writing.
Nonprofit organizations that collaborated on the Safe to Sleep campaign are looking to continue the program. But in an emailed update to Safe to Sleep partners from Dr. Rachel Moon, a pediatrics professor who worked on the program, Moon warned that while the American Academy of Pediatrics would "continue to be a leading voice," the organization cannot "dedicate as much time and resources as NICHD could."
In late April and early May 2025, a rumor spread online that U.S. President Donald Trump's administration fired the National Institutes of Health (NIH) team behind "Safe to Sleep," a public awareness campaign to prevent babies from dying in their sleep.
The program helped slash deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) by more than half when it first launched 30 years ago, according to the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDP) data. Those rates have risen in recent years despite decreasing infant mortality, according to peer-reviewed research.
Discussion about the federal government's alleged decision circulated on Bluesky, Facebook and Reddit. Meanwhile, Snopes readers searched the website for information on whether Trump's administration eliminated the Safe to Sleep team.
It is accurate to say that according to former NIH spokesperson Christina Stile, Trump's administration eliminated the team that coordinated the Safe to Sleep campaign, effectively ending the federal government's participation in the wide-ranging public education initiative, as first reported by STAT News. However, in a statement sent via email, NIH said that "no final decision has been made regarding the future of the Safe to Sleep® campaign."
"Safe to Sleep® campaign materials and tools remain available to the public, and we encourage individuals to visit https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov to access these resources," NIH's statement said. When pressed to acknowledge that NIH fired the Safe to Sleep team, the agency said it was "unable to comment on personnel matters."
Stile worked at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), which NIH oversees, until the White House eliminated the institute's communications office. That office led the Safe to Sleep initiative in partnership with various nonprofit organizations that shared Safe to Sleep educational resources with parents in local communities.
Stile said in a LinkedIn direct message that she suspects the agency's statement about having "no final decision" on the program's future is truthful, as the Trump administration continues to restructure the federal government.
"There is no certainty that NICHD will even exist if the NIH is reorganized, nor is it known whether its mission will include reducing infant mortality," said Stile, whose name was still on the institute's staff list webpage as of this writing.
Due to the constantly changing situation, and because NIH declined to confirm the layoffs, we are not putting a truthfulness rating on this story — but here is what we know to be true as of this writing.
White House eliminates the office in charge
Stile said officials eliminated NICHD's entire communications office on April 1.
"That action effectively ended NICHD's leadership of the campaign," Stile wrote. She said the decision "was made without warning or explanation by the administration under the purview of DOGE," or the Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE did not immediately return a request sent via X to confirm this; the department does not have a formal and public-facing media office.
The federal government first launched "Safe to Sleep" under the name "Back to Sleep" in 1994 alongside private organizations. Back then, the public awareness campaign focused specifically on reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome, a type of sudden unexplained death that usually occurs when the baby is asleep. (The name "Back to Sleep" came from the recommendation that healthy babies be placed on their backs.)
Deaths dropped in the years following the program — according to a 2012 news release, SIDS rates in the United States had dropped 50% since the start of the campaign; peer-reviewed research also indicates the program had a positive impact. At the same time, however, non-SIDS sleep-related infant deaths rose, leading NICHD to expand the program to address those causes as well.
"Safe to Sleep builds upon the success of the Back to Sleep campaign and includes messages about reducing the risk of SIDS and of other sleep-related causes of infant death, such as suffocation and entrapment," the 2012 release said.
"Since the campaign began, U.S. SIDS rates have dropped by 50% overall and the rate of back sleeping has increased significantly," a 2012 news release from NICHD announcing the decision said.
Ending the federal government's participation in Safe to Sleep does not necessarily mean the end of the campaign itself, at least informally — but it does mean it would require new leadership.
"I think it's possible NICHD or NIH could support Safe to Sleep through other means in the future; but, for now, there is nobody at NICHD to lead the activities," Stile told Snopes.
According to Shayna Raphael, who leads an organization raising awareness about SIDS called the Claire Bear Foundation, nonprofits formerly partnered with NICHD on Safe to Sleep are in discussions with each other regarding how to continue "the best version" possible of the campaign without participation from the federal government. In an email forwarded to Snopes by Raphael, Dr. Rachel Moon, a pediatrics professor who collaborated on the campaign, said staff members from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and First Candle, two organizations that co-founded the initial campaign with NICHD, met and "unanimously agreed that the Safe to Sleep campaign should continue."
"The AAP will continue to be a leading voice in the campaign as resources and priorities allow within the evolving context of child health, safety, and wellness," Moon wrote. "However, it should be understood by all that the AAP will not be able to dedicate as much time and resources as NICHD could."
Moon added that staff at First Candle volunteered to schedule the quarterly Safe to Sleep campaign partner meetings once led by NICHD, and that AAP would welcome "new partners who may be interested in taking a lead role." Snopes reached out to AAP to verify the information in Moon's email was accurate and up-to-date and await a response.
In sum, it appears the program will likely continue, with or without the federal government's help — but as of this writing, the Trump administration appears to have terminated support of the Safe to Sleep campaign.
Sources:
Belkoura, Ismael M. "NIH Cancels Participation in Safe to Sleep Campaign That Decreased Infant Deaths." Statnews.com, STAT, 30 Apr. 2025, www.statnews.com/2025/04/30/nih-ends-participation-in-safe-to-sleep-campaign-to-prevent-infant-deaths/. Accessed 6 May 2025.
"Campaign History | Safe to Sleep®." Https://Safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/, safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/campaign/history. Accessed 6 May 2025.
"Contacts." National Institutes of Health (NIH), 11 May 2015, www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/plain-language/contacts. Accessed 6 May 2025.
"Contacts | National Institutes of Health (NIH)." Archive.ph, 6 May 2025, archive.ph/R3kwH. Accessed 6 May 2025.
Deng, Grace. "Trump's First 100 Days: 25 Rumors We've Investigated." Snopes, 29 Apr. 2025, www.snopes.com/collections/trump-first-100-days-collection/. Accessed 6 May 2025.
"Homepage | Safe to Sleep." Nih.gov, National Institutes of Health, safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/. Accessed 6 May 2025.
"NICHD and Its Collaborators Launch Expanded Infant Mortality Awareness Campaign." Https://Www.nichd.nih.gov/, 3 Oct. 2012, www.nichd.nih.gov/newsroom/resources/spotlight/100312-safe-to-sleep. Accessed 6 May 2025.
Rodgers, Linda. "Amid Decreasing Infant Mortality, Sleep-Related Infant Deaths Are on the Rise." JAMA, Mar. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.1345. Accessed 16 Mar. 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
14 hours ago
- USA Today
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declares 'loyalty' to Trump, rules out a 2028 presidential bid
WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he's not running for president in 2028 and intends to remain in his position until President Donald Trump leaves office. The leader of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement said in an X post that his "loyalty" lies with Trump, and he dismissed speculation about his political future as part of a "smear campaign" from disgruntled Washington insiders who oppose the MAHA agenda. "They're pushing the flat-out lie that I'm running for president in 2028. Let me be clear: I am not running for president in 2028," Kennedy said. Kennedy competed for the presidency in 2024, first as a Democrat and later as an independent, before suspending his candidacy last August and throwing his support behind Trump. After the election, Trump made him HHS secretary. His comments ruling out a 2028 bid came far-right activist Laura Loomer accused Kennedy aide Stefanie Spear of using her position at HHS to lay the groundwork for Kennedy to run again. Loomer's comment came in a Politico interview and followed an Axios report in July that said Kennedy super PAC head Tony Lyons and Spear convened MAHA supporters on a call that left some attendees with the impression he was mulling another campaign. But in his social media post, Kennedy said, "The president has made himself the answer to my 20-year prayer that God would put me in a position to end the chronic disease epidemic — and that's exactly what my team and I will do until the day he leaves office."
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why do I feel more awake after 7.5 hours of sleep compared to 9?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The recommended amount of sleep for healthy adults is 7-9 hours, according to the National Institutes of Health. So why then, is it possible to feel better, more alert and refreshed after 7.5 hours sleep than getting a lengthier sleep of 9 hours? Surely, more is more when it comes to sleep? Well, not always. In fact, there are a number of reasons that you might feel worse after 9 hours compared to 7.5. Here, a sleep expert shares these, as well as revealing which is the most common cause of waking up feeling groggy. And, although we know one of the key ways to ensure you're waking up feeling great is to have one of the best mattresses for your sleep needs, we'll also be sharing a few more tips to help you ensure you wake up feeling refreshed every day of the week. How much sleep do we need? "Most adults need 7–9 hours a night. That number is largely set by biology – you can't train your body to genuinely need less without it taking a toll on mood, focus, and health," says UKCP psychotherapist and sleep specialist, and author of How To Be Awake So You Can Sleep Through The Night, Heather Darwall-Smith. Sleep runs in cycles, she explains, with each lasting for about 90 minutes, although they can extend to 100 minutes. During each sleep cycle we move "through light sleep, deep (slow-wave) sleep, and REM (dreaming) sleep. Deep sleep dominates the first half of the night, REM the second. Most people go through 4–6 cycles a night. You can't change the structure of sleep much, but you can improve its quality and timing," says Darwall-Smith. Given all of this, what's happening on those occasions we feel better after a shorter sleep duration like 7.5 hours compared to a longer sleep like 9 hours? Why do we feel more awake after 7.5 hours vs 9 hours sleep? There are a variety of reasons you might feel alert after 7.5 hours sleep and groggy after 9 hours, here Darwall-Smith talks us through them. 1. Sleep inertia "If you wake during deep sleep, you're likely to feel groggy, heavy-headed, and slow – this is called sleep inertia," says Darwall-Smith. Other symptoms of sleep inertia include disorientation and decreased cognitive ability. "At 7.5 hours, you might be waking at the end of a cycle, in lighter sleep, which makes getting up feel easier. At 9 hours, you might land in the middle of deep sleep, triggering inertia," she explains. Although we'll always experience sleep inertia to some extent upon waking, doing so during deep sleep means you'll experience it in a more pronounced way. 2. Circadian timing If you find that waking after 7.5 hours of sleep feels good, Darwall-Smith explains why this may be connected to your natural body clock. "Your internal body clock influences alertness. Waking in sync with your circadian rhythm (when your core body temperature is starting to rise) feels more natural," she says. Our circadian rhythm (also known as our internal body clock) regulates a whole host of our functions and processes, such as hormone release (like melatonin for sleep and cortisol for alertness), body temperature and our sleep-wake cycles. However, "if 9 hours takes you past that point, you might wake at a 'low' in your rhythm and feel sluggish," Darwall-Smith says. 3. Sleep fragmentation Sleeping for 9 hours might seem like a great way to catch up on some rest, but if your body doesn't require that much sleep, it can affect your sleep cycles and therefore, how you feel when you wake up. "If you stay in bed longer than your body needs, your last cycle(s) of sleep may be lighter and more broken," Darwall-Smith explains, adding that, "this can make you feel less refreshed, even if you technically slept longer." Is one reason more common than the others? "Sleep inertia is probably the most common culprit," Darwall-Smith says of why we might feel better after 7.5 hours sleep and sluggish after 9, providing two great visual analogies for the differences between waking up during deeper vs. lighter sleep. "Waking from deep sleep is like trying to start a car in freezing weather – you need time to warm up. Waking from light sleep is more like rolling downhill – much easier to get going," she explains. So which is better – 7.5 or 9 hours? I asked Darwall-Smith if all of this means that 7.5 hours sleep is better than 9 hours. "Not neccessarily," she says. "It's not about 'shorter vs longer' – it's about getting the right amount for your body and waking at the right point in a cycle. For some people, 9 hours genuinely works better; for others, 7.5 leaves them sharper. What matters is how you feel during the day." It's also worth keeping track of the recommended amount of sleep for your age, since the recommended 7-9 hours applies to healthy adults under 60, while children, teenagers and adults over 60 have, in general, different requirements. How can you make sure you wake up feeling refreshed? Track your patterns Sleep tracking apps can help you get a better sense of how you're sleeping through the night, giving you insights into how long you spend in each sleep stage and helping you to determine a sleep routine that gives you the amount of rest you need to feel your best in the morning. "Use a sleep diary or wearable for 1–2 weeks to see when you naturally wake feeling good. Look for patterns in bedtime, wake time, and total hours," advises Darwall-Smith. Speaking of the morning, Sleep Cycle , one of the best sleep tracking apps, even features a smart alarm clock that will do its best to wake you during lighter sleep within a 30 minute window, so you're not falling victim to the dreaded sleep inertia. Set a consistent wake time Consistency helps your circadian rhythm to function optimally, and one way to avoid issues, like sleep inertia from waking in the middle of a deep sleep stage, is to apply regularity to your wake up time. "Waking up at the same time every day keeps your circadian rhythm steady, making it more likely you'll wake from lighter sleep," explains Darwall-Smith. Let light in quickly in the morning Light plays a significant role in our sleep-wake cycles, with darkness promoting melatonin production, while exposure to bright light in the morning supresses it and increases cortisol levels. "Morning light signals your brain to stop melatonin production and raise alertness," agrees Darwall-Smith. To help you feel at your best and brightest in the morning, she suggests you, "open curtains, go outside, or use a light therapy lamp within 30 minutes of waking." One recent study also showed that getting morning sunlight can lead to better sleep efficiency and fewer nighttime awakenings.
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Boston Globe
US aid cuts condemn hungry children abroad
Starvation in the Gaza Strip has brought intense international attention to the horrors of famine, but less attention has been paid to a wider issue: The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development has worsened the problem of severe hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. Advertisement Saving children with severe acute malnutrition is simple and inexpensive. Each packet costs less than 30 cents but contains a high-calorie mix of peanuts, sugar, milk powder and oil -- flavors appealing to children -- and a blend of vitamins and minerals. A complete six-week treatment for a severely malnourished child runs less than $45. Advertisement USAID funded roughly half the world's supply of ready-to-use therapeutic food, or RUTF, purchasing some directly from U.S. manufacturers and funding the United Nations Children Fund, or UNICEF, to manage its distribution. All those grants were abruptly halted when the Trump administration froze foreign aid earlier this year. USAID eventually reimbursed grantees for costs already incurred. The State Department recently authorized a $93 million new grant to UNICEF, but it is less than half what the government had typically spent. In 2024, the agency spent about $200 million on this work, not including aid for countries and direct grants to organizations that implement programs. Funds for 2025 have yet to be released to manufacturers; the World Food Programme, which distributes a similar product for moderate acute malnutrition; those who transport the products; or the many organizations, like the International Rescue Committee or Helen Keller International, that run the malnutrition programs. In response to questions from the Times, the State Department emailed a statement asserting that lifesaving malnutrition programs 'remain a priority.' 'Malnutrition treatment is among the first new obligations of foreign assistance funding,' the statement said. But it also said that 'other actors -- including national governments and international humanitarian organizations -- must step up.' President Trump has made the same argument for many aid programs, saying the United States should not have to carry the bulk of the burden of caring for the world. Although other countries do already contribute, and some organizations are scrambling to fill the gap, it is unlikely that they can do so quickly enough to help the children who are now in need. Increasingly, some governments such as Nigeria, Kenya and Burkina Faso have been contributing by hosting factories that manufacture the packets. The Child Nutrition Fund, started by UNICEF, the British government and others, encourages governments to finance supply by offering a 1:1 match for every dollar. Advertisement Before the sudden withdrawal of aid, 'things were absolutely moving in the right direction,' said James Sussman, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee. Now boxes containing millions of dollars' worth of the lifesaving packets are stuck at every link in the supply chain: in manufacturers' warehouses, at shipping companies, in cities that received the shipments and in treatment centers that have shut down all over the world. In nearly a dozen countries, the supply chain for the packets has become so unstable that thousands of children are at high risk of dying, according to organizations that help distribute the treatments. Tens of thousands more could be in danger in the coming weeks and months if funds for this year do not move quickly. 'We have seen the mortality rates in the hospitals increasing by the day,' said Aliyu Mohammed Jabo, Helen Keller International's director for Nigeria. 'This is the ugly situation that we are facing because of this funding cut.' In Nigeria, 150 clinics operated by the World Food Programme in Borno and Yobe states, which provided treatment for more than 300,000 children under the age of 2, shut down at the end of July. In Bauchi state, Helen Keller International has had to stop treating malnutrition in 16 of its 17 centers, leaving more than 17,000 children without treatment. In eastern Chad, Mali and Niger, malnutrition treatments are unavailable or in dangerously short supply. Clinics in northeast Syria, Burkina Faso and Kenya have closed down. In South Sudan, the International Rescue Committee estimates that it will have to close 62 static treatment sites and nine mobile clinics if funding is not restored by September. Advertisement In Afghanistan, IRC warehouses are bare, despite 900,000 children who are in desperate need of treatment for severe acute malnutrition. Nepal has no supply in about half of its provinces and is facing a nationwide shortage starting this month, endangering about 200,000 malnourished children, including about 25,000 who are at risk of death. Several other countries, including Congo, Ethiopia and Madagascar, similarly have only enough products to treat children for a few more weeks or months. This month, after long delays, the State Department authorized $93 million for UNICEF, its first large grant for 2025, to supply RUTF to 12 African countries and Haiti. Part of the grant is for distributing 11,000 metric tons of packets, enough for about 800,000 children, to last through June 2026. Some money will also be spent to transport and distribute more than 1,200 metric tons of stalled packets -- enough for about 87,000 children. But UNICEF expects that it will be two to three months before the products are delivered, according to Helen Wylie, a spokesperson for the organization. After orders are placed and products manufactured, it can take months for treatments to reach people. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly said that no children have died as a result of the cuts to foreign aid and the dismantling of USAID, calling reports of any deaths 'false' and 'fake.' But several organizations, including Doctors Without Borders and the aid group Action Against Hunger, have reported deaths in children related to malnutrition. More timely and precise estimates of deaths are difficult, because many of the programs that track children in need have shut down, and most organizations dare not speak up against the administration, fearing retaliation. Advertisement One global study has estimated that more than 160,000 children might die each year if the funds are not restored. Acute malnutrition, also called wasting, is thought to affect about 43 million children worldwide. Even when aid flowed freely, it did not reach many of them. In 2023, RUTF was dispensed to 9.3 million children, according to UNICEF. The first 1,000 days of life in particular are critical for brain development. Severely malnourished children have impaired immune responses, may suffer permanent cognitive damage and are more vulnerable to infections, even after treatment. They are up to 11 times as likely to die as a healthy child is. Severe wasting accounts for as many as 1 in 5 deaths of children younger than 5 worldwide. By the time a child reaches a treatment center, he or she may have only hours to survive. 'It really comes down to the children who do not have time to waste,' said Navyn Salem, who runs Edesia Nutrition, one of two large U.S. manufacturers. In previous years, American farmers supplied the raw ingredients -- peanuts, milk powder and soy -- to Edesia and Mana, two large U.S. manufacturers. The finished product was transported by truck to major U.S. ports, then shipped to the ports of Africa, where it would be unloaded and stored. An intricate network of organizations then transported and distributed the boxes. The stop-start-stop of work orders and the dissolution of USAID has thrown the system into disarray. USAID's activities have in theory been transferred to the State Department, but the department has neither the personnel it needs to restart all activities -- even less so after widespread layoffs earlier this month -- nor the systems needed to release funds. Advertisement The department 'continues to strengthen internal systems and personnel capacity to ensure timely, accountable delivery of lifesaving humanitarian programs,' a representative of the State Department said in an email. In the meantime, some organizations are burning through their reserves, but many small ones have folded. Others are looking to philanthropy. Mana received a gift of $20 million from a British philanthropist and donated about 500,000 boxes to UNICEF. Edesia has raised $2 million in private funding and is shipping some boxes to the neediest sites on its own. Without more funds, the companies will have no money left to buy raw materials and are in danger of defaulting on contracts from farmers in 25 states. 'The American farmers that we work with can only hold on for so long as well,' Salem said. 'So it's been a waiting game, a very stressful waiting game.' Edesia recently shipped 122,000 boxes to Sudan and still has more than 185,000 at its warehouses. UNICEF will use the new funds to ship those products soon, according to the State Department. Mana, too, has already been paid for 400,000 boxes which have yet to ship; 100,000 are slated to move to South Sudan sometime in the coming weeks. Even if funding were to resume tomorrow, it takes weeks to ship products to their destinations. For RUTF to reach locations in South Sudan, for example, the products must first be shipped to Mombasa, Kenya -- or produced locally in Kenya -- then transported by road through Kenya and Uganda to Juba, the capital, and then to more remote parts of the country. The roads are rough, especially in the rainy season, and boxes may take two or three months to reach the sites, said Stephane Doyon, an operations manager for Doctors Without Borders. In Afghanistan, the time to delivery may stretch to eight or nine months, he said. That may be too late for some children. This article originally appeared in
