
Trump injected uncertainty into federal contracting. Donor brains went to the grave.
President Donald Trump's push to cut billions of dollars in government contracts is rattling the niche community of scientists who collect, study and share human brains.
Two of the country's brain banks, which have worked with the government to store and distribute specimens to researchers studying diseases like Parkinson's and ALS for more than a decade, told POLITICO they had temporarily stopped taking new donations for fear the administration would not renew their contracts. Even though both facilities — home to nearly 8,000 brains between them — eventually received six-month extensions from the National Institutes of Health, the relief came too close to a May 1 deadline.
The director of the University of Maryland Brain and Tissue Bank said it turned away as many as 30 brains from people hoping to do something positive with the remains of a loved one who lived with a neurological disease. The Mount Sinai Brain Bank in New York would have accepted roughly 10 more if it had known its contract was being renewed, according to its program director.
The funding whiplash demonstrates some of the practical consequences of the Trump administration's rapid-fire approach to cutting federal spending, where even the potential for funding lapses create real setbacks.
"Not knowing when, or even if this extension was going to happen, it was very problematic," said Tom Blanchard, director of Maryland's brain bank. The window for collecting a brain for research after death is short: just 24 hours, so families of would-be donors had little choice but to give up.
Unsure whether it'd be able to pay staff after April, Mount Sinai Brain Bank sent layoff notices to its nearly two dozen employees, then revoked them when it learned of the funding extension less than 18 hours before the deadline, said program director Harry Haroutunian.
In the month before the contract expiration, the program, which stores 2,640 brains in 43 freezers set at minus 80 degrees Celsius, stopped taking them. Mount Sinai typically takes two brain donations a week.
"I wasn't about to accept a donation and then not be in a position to actually characterize the brain and distribute it to our investigators," Haroutunian said.
When asked to respond to researcher concerns about funding uncertainty, a spokesperson at the Department of Health and Human Services said that leaders at HHS, the parent agency of the National Institutes of Health, maintain continuous communication with NIH leadership to ensure smooth funding. The spokesperson said NIH remains committed to "rigorous, Gold Standard Science."
Susan Mojaverian felt heartened by the idea of donating her brother James' brain to the NIH. She'd discussed the plan with him prior to his death last month. James, who died at 72, was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 16.
Furthering research into schizophrenia was important to them. Susan and James participated in an NIH schizophrenia sibling study where they traveled to the agency's Bethesda, Maryland, campus for days of psychological tests and MRIs.
Research on donor brains has helped scientists understand the genetic risk for schizophrenia, shown distinct scarring patterns on the brains of servicemembers who suffered blast injuries and helped identify cells that contribute to developing Down syndrome.
Through the NIH's NeuroBioBank, researchers around the world can search an inventory of thousands of brains across the six repositories, refine their search by diagnosis, age, race, gender and brain region, then order brain tissue by volume, weight or number of brain sections. The NIH manages researcher requests, while the repositories collect and prepare the donor brains, fulfill orders and mail out tissue. All scientists pay is shipping.
Without the NIH program, brain donor research would be prohibitively expensive, said Blanchard. A single piece of brain tissue could cost $250 through a commercial lab, he explained, and researchers need to purchase enough samples to produce statistically significant results — plus buy control group samples. Without the federally funded network saving them millions of dollars a year, researching human tissue might be too expensive for some scientists.
The loss of the brains at Maryland and Mount Sinai could have consequences for research, he added, pointing to the brains of Parkinson's patients: "Everybody wants to study the same small region of the brain, the substantia nigra," Blanchard said, adding, "Even though we have the whole brain, for the Parkinson's research community, they get exhausted quickly."
When Mojaverian contacted the director of the NIH's Human Brain Collection Core by email, he offered his condolences and the Maryland brain bank's phone number. He added a note in his reply, stressing the importance of James' donation. "For UMD: the decedent was extensively studied at NIH as a participant with schizophrenia. It would be important to acquire this brain if at all possible."
Later that day, Mojaverian approached Maryland about making the donation, and was told it wouldn't be possible.
Maryland's donor portal was clear about the reason why: "Due to the uncertainty of federal funds UMBTB is anticipating a funding gap, that will impact our ability to collect donations. We cannot anticipate how long this funding gap will be."
By the time Maryland learned of its contract extension 16 days later, the window to accept James' brain had passed.
Mojaverian, who said she's had a good experience with NIH researchers and doctors over the decades, blamed the Trump administration for her loss.
'This is the contribution that my brother, who had so much potential in this world and was never able to achieve it because of this severe and persistent mental illness — that he could be making this major contribution to science and somebody else would benefit from it,' she said.
Members of Congress, including Republicans, have also complained about the administration's approach to cost-cutting.
'Stability is a key aspect of the American formula because it allows scientists to focus their work knowing that they will have the support they need to pursue and test their ideas from start to finish,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said during an Appropriations Committee hearing last month.
Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) put it more directly. 'Trump is committing deliberate sabotage at NIH and creating indefensible uncertainty that is making it impossible for researchers to do their jobs,' Murray told POLITICO.
The ambiguity and eleventh-hour funding decisions at the brain banks are indicative of a larger phenomenon the NIH-funded research ecosystem is grappling with as Trump reconsiders its work.
Another program that suffered funding whiplash was the Women's Health Initiative, an ongoing long-term national women's health study backed by an NIH institute.
On April 21, initiative investigators reported that HHS was terminating the program's regional center contracts. A few days later, following widespread news coverage, an HHS spokesperson told POLITICO the funding was being restored. It wasn't until May 5 that contractors received official confirmation.
Without timely communication, investigators were left to wonder whether HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s public comments calling the centers' work "mission critical for women's health" and the cuts "fake news" meant that HHS would maintain current funding levels, impose some funding reductions or whether nothing had changed and the cuts were still coming.
HHS said that government procedures and bureaucratic processes held up officially notifying the group of restored funding.
While renewing and restoring research funding have run up against the red tape of government processes and procedures, cuts have come more swiftly, with few signs that bureaucracy is holding them up.
Regardless of the cause of the notification delay, the uncertainty had a chilling effect. Investigators, especially early career researchers, were reluctant to pitch new projects to the Women's Health Initiative. Staff worried about losing their jobs. Managers wondered how they'd quickly wind down the 32-year-old project, notify the 42,000 participants and destroy or negotiate transfer of 4 million vials of frozen biospecimens.
Meanwhile, the administration's decision to extend the brain bank contracts for six months doesn't end the banks' uncertainty. While Blanchard said he's optimistic in the wake of the renewal, if a month or two passes without word of the next review or funding meeting, his anxiety will return. While the October contract renewal should be for five years, he's concerned that his funding level could be cut, likely causing him to reduce donations once again or cut staff.
NIH program officers told Mount Sinai's Haroutunian that maintaining the program's resources is an agency priority and that they expect to be able to renew the funding in October, he said. "But that's guesswork on everybody's part," he added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Check out the latest Donald Trump presidential approval ratings for PA and across US
Despite mass firings within the government, threats of tariffs and struggles to get the 'big, beautiful bill' passed, President Donald Trump's approval ratings have held steady early in his second term. DOGE leader Elon Musk is leaving the White House and Trump is threatening to tariff two high profile American companies — Apple and Mattel — despite questions by the US Court of International Trade about his authority to unilaterally impose tariffs without action by congress. Here's what the recent polls show about Trump's presidential job approval ratings as of the first week of June. According to Rasmussen Reports polling, Trump's approval has improved to a 53% approval rating and 46% that disapprove. The TrafalGarGroup poll from this weekend found that 53.7% of Americans approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 45.6% disapprove. The Morning Consult tracker poll taken this weekend reported a drop to 46% approval rating and a 51% that disapprove. The Economist/YouGov poll taken this week, shows Trump improving with a 45% favorability versus 53% unfavorable. Americans expressed the most important issue was overwhelmingly focused on inflation/prices, followed by jobs and the economy, health care, immigration and civil rights. In this weekend's Quantus Insights poll, Trump's job approval improved with 48.3% approval versus 47.8% that disapprove and 3.9% that had no opinion. RealClear Polling which encompasses the average of different 15 different pollsters, including all those mentioned above, shows Trump's overall favorability at 47.5% and 49.7% that disapprove. These numbers have improved since his lows at the end of April, when it reached a 52.4% disapproval rating and 45.1% favorable approval rating. According to Civiqs polls, last updated June 2, Trump's approval ratings have dropped about three points in The Keystone State compared to what Pennsylvanians thought of his performance in January. About 53% of Pennsylvanians polled currently disapprove of the president's performance, up from 50% on Jan. 20. Only 43% of the commonwealth gave Trump a thumbs up as of early June, down from 46% six months ago. These polling numbers were also broken down by age, education, gender, race and party. Age: Those between 18-34 were most unfavorable of Trump (60%), while those 50 to 64 were the most favorable (55%). Education: Postgraduate students were most unfavorable toward Trump (68%). Non-college graduates were most favorable (49%). Gender: Men and women are split on Trump, more than half of females (58%) holding an unfavorable view and more than half of males (52%) having a favorable view of the president. Party: Members of the Republican party were 87% favorable of Trump, compared to the Democratic party, who felt just 3% favorable of the president's performance. Independent voters leaned unfavorable (48%). Race: Black voters had the highest unfavorable opinion of Trump (89%), followed by other races at 59%, Hispanic/Latino at 57% and white at 46%. Note: Polls are constantly changing and different pollsters ask different varieties of the population. These numbers were reflected as of Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 10 a.m. This article originally appeared on Donald Trump presidential approval rating today in PA vs. nationally
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion


Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.