Blackburn accuses Vanderbilt medical center of 'concealing' DEI programs targeted by Trump
U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, sent a letter April 15 to Vanderbilt University Medical Center President Jeffrey Balser urging him to stop concealing diversity, equity and inclusion programs to comply with President Donald Trump's mission.
"For the benefit of Tennesseans and all Americans who rely on VUMC for lifesaving care and research, I urge you to end all DEI programs and fully comply with the President's executive action," Blackburn wrote.
Blackburn wrote that the medical center scrubbed its website of references to DEI initiatives, "going so far as to password protect web pages tied to DEI and climate activism."
"Concerningly, though, offices such as the Office of Health Equity, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and the Office for Diversity Affairs are seemingly still active," Blackburn wrote in her letter.
"These offices have advocated for 'collectively addressing systemic inequities' and 'confronting structural racism,' " according to Blackburn's letter. She pointed to the more than $66 million the medical center has received during this fiscal year in federal funds through the National Institutes of Health.
John Howser, the medical center's chief communications officer, said in a statement April 16 in response to the letter that Vanderbilt is eliminating all DEI programs and is "fully complying with Executive Actions on DEI."
"Shortly after the Executive Orders were issued, VUMC began removing related content on internal and external websites to reflect the termination of these programs," Howser said. "VUMC will continue to comply with federal mandates and directives."
Balser initiated a hiring freeze in March for most research positions as the Nashville medical center and other leading U.S. research hospitals brace for deep cuts as Trump continues shrinking the federal government, including NIH grant money.
In her letter, Blackburn said the medical center has invested more than $17 million in diversity and equity programs, including efforts to hire diverse biomedical researchers, which is "only one of many examples of VUMC investing in DEI initiatives instead of lifesaving medical research."
"VUMC's track record on embracing harmful woke initiatives is grim," Blackburn said, citing the medical center's treatment programs for transgender patients, including minors.
Howser didn't respond to these comments by Blackburn.
Beth Warren covers health care and can be reached at bwarren@tennessean.com.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Marsha Blackburn attacks Vanderbilt medical center for DEI spending
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Tells German Chancellor D-Day Was 'Not A Pleasant Day For You'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that D-Day—the day Allied forces invaded Normandy, France, during World War II—was "not a great day" for Germany. What To Know Trump made his comments while he and Merz spoke to reporters during Merz's White House visit on Thursday. Merz pointed out that the anniversary of D-Day is on Friday, saying it was when "the Americans ... ended the war in Europe." "That was not a pleasant day for you," Trump responded. "No, that was not a pleasant—well—" Merz began before Trump interjected. "This was not a great day," Trump said. Merz cut in: "In the long run, Mr. President, this was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship." "That's true," Trump said. Merz went on to say that "we know what we owe you," adding that the U.S. can play a similarly crucial role in bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. "America is, again, in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war, so let's talk about what we can do jointly," the German chancellor said. "We are ready to do what we can and you know that we gave support to Ukraine and that we are looking for more pressure on Russia ... we should talk about that." MERZ: Tomorrow is the D Day anniversary, when the Americans ended a war in Europe TRUMP: That was not a pleasant day for you? This is not a great day MERZ: This was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 5, 2025 President Donald Trump, right, meets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump, right, meets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What will Trump's megabill do to programs like Medicare and SNAP?
A large part of funding for President Donald Trump's second-term agenda would come from cuts to safety net programs like Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans and those with disabilities, and SNAP, which helps millions of lower-income Americans buy groceries every month. The bill passed by the House makes around $600 billion in cuts to Medicaid. About 10.9 million people could lose their coverage over the next 10 years, according to Wednesday's estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. The SNAP cuts total an estimated $230 billion over 10 years. MORE: Trump tries to shore up support for megabill among Senate GOP at White House meeting Republicans say their goal is reducing 'waste, fraud, and abuse' in these programs to save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade and to pay for Trump's tax cuts and increased funding for the border and defense. Here's a breakdown of those cuts in the current form of the bill: Work requirements: The bill imposes new 80-hours per month work requirements on able-bodied Medicaid recipients aged 19 to 64 who don't have dependents. These requirements include working or other approved activities such as volunteering. Under the bill's current text, these work requirements won't kick in until 2026. Increased eligibility checks: The bill also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations at least every six months for all recipients instead of the current 12 months. Undocumented migrants: The legislation seeks to prohibit states from using their funds to cover undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid, but 14 states and the District of Columbia have opted to use their own funds to cover those individuals. This bill would penalize them by reducing Medicaid funding. The White House estimates approximately 1.4 million undocumented migrants would lose coverage. MORE: Trump administration live updates Increased copays: The bill increases copays for Medicaid recipients who make more than the federal poverty level of just over $15,500 for single beneficiaries. They would be required to pay an extra $35 dollar copay in some visits. Income and residency verification: Required Medicaid paperwork for income and residency verification will increase as lawmakers look to crack down on people who are 'double-dipping' in multiple jurisdictions. The additional steps are expected to especially impact seniors and others who can't promptly respond. Prohibits funds for abortion providers and gender transition care: The legislation would ban Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood as long as the organization provides abortions and abortion services. The legislation also prohibits Medicaid funds from going to gender transition care, including puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgery. In the initial text of the bill, this language applied only to children, but it was expanded to include adults shortly before the House vote. MORE: CBO estimates Trump's bill could add $2.4T to deficit, leave 11 million without health insurance Obamacare enrollment: The bill ends open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act a month earlier. Most states hold open enrollment from Nov. 1 to Jan. 15. The House bill requires open enrollment to end on Dec. 15. An analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation found in 2025 that roughly 40% of enrollees, or about 10 million people, selected plans after Dec. 15. The legislation also eliminates a Biden-era policy that allows year-round ACA enrollment for the poorest Americans -- those who make up to 150% of the poverty level, or around $22,600 a year. Americans will still be able to enroll year-round if they've had a 'change in circumstances or the occurrence of a specific event.' These changes would codify a rule proposed in March by the Trump administration's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The bill tightens eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which used to be called the 'food stamp' program, which helped roughly 42 million low-income people buy groceries per month in 2024. Work requirements: The bill raises the age for work requirements from 54 to 64. A similar bill introduced in the House in 2023 would have reduced rolls by between 3 million and 3.5 million people, according to the CBO. It would also require parents with children older than 6 to meet the work requirement. There is currently no work requirement for SNAP beneficiaries with dependent children at home. Shifting costs to states: SNAP is currently 100% federally funded. The bill requires states to share in at least 5% of SNAP benefit costs starting in 2028. Indirect effects: The changes could have an impact on school lunch programs, requiring some previously eligible families to apply for access and on federal reimbursement payments for some school districts.
Business Wire
28 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
