Trump administration abruptly terminates $226M in COVID-19 grants for Minnesota
The Trump administration has terminated about $226 million in grants to the Minnesota Department of Health related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
MDH Commissioner Dr. Brooke Cunningham said in a statement the termination is effective immediately and impacts ongoing work and contracts, calling it "sudden and unexpected."
"Abrupt terminations of grants and contracts is unprecedented and will impact our work and that of our partners. Every dollar rescinded had been thoroughly reviewed and approved for its intended purpose by the federal government," Cunningham said.
"In the past, we could count on the federal government to uphold its commitments and obligations. When changes are necessary, the federal government typically gives sufficient notice to plan and pursue other sources of funding to ensure that the work to protect the health of Minnesotans continues uninterrupted and does not put our residents at risk."
Cunningham adds that the cuts are "a tremendous loss" as the department looks to assess the situation going forward.
It marks the latest loss of congressionally-approved federal funding for Minnesota, coming on the heels of the Trump administration pausing or terminating 24 federal grants worth $110 million relating to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Commerce and Minnesota Department of Public Safety.The United States Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement on Tuesday it's pulling back $11.4 billion in COVID-19-related funds for state and local public health departments and other health organizations throughout the nation, according to The Associated Press.
A department spokesperson declared that the "COVID-19 pandemic is over" as its reasoning, saying money is still being spent on a "non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago
While COVID wasn't as prevalent this past winter as in previous years, the virus is still killing Americans. According to CDC data, around 8,000 people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19 between Jan. 1 and mid-March.
Since September, more than 500 Minnesotans have died from COVID-19.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
8 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right
Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: 1. Link the highly siloed health care and government data we already have The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. 2. Create capacity for researchers to securely link to other valuable data In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. 3. Invest in data-research infrastructure Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: 1. Strictly limit data access to vetted researchers Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. 2. Require analytical plans and ethics-board approval up front Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20 th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. 3. Emphasize true transparency Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Miami Herald
44 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
VA Marks Benefits Milestone For Veterans
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that its mobile app has now accumulated more than 3 million downloads since its launch in 2021. The Health and Benefits app, which has 1.4 million active users, provides veterans access to information on health care and benefits. It allows users to refill and track VA prescriptions, review appointments, review claims and appeals status, submit evidence for claims and appeals, review VA payment and direct deposit information, locate the closest VA facilities, access the Veterans Crisis Line and show proof of Veteran status. VA Acting Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology and Acting Chief Information Officer Eddie Pool said: "VA's Health and Benefits app gives Veterans fast and convenient access to a host of important information, from appointments to prescriptions and benefits. We encourage all VA-enrolled Veterans to stay connected and informed by downloading the app." This story will be updated. Related Articles How Veteran's Benefits Are Impacted by Trump's Tax Bill: What to KnowHegseth Joins Veterans in Normandy to Mark 81st Anniversary of D-DayList of Cities Hosting 50501 Protests on June 6Harvey Milk Navy Ship To Be Renamed-Vets Call It 'Insult to LGBTQ Troops' 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
