NIH reportedly loses two top leaders in two days
(The Hill) — Two key staff members at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are reportedly leaving the agency amid ongoing efforts by the Trump administration and Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk to drastically cut the size of the federal workforce.
NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak told staffers in an email Tuesday that he was retiring effective immediately, according to CBS News. Along with being principal deputy director, Tabak also served as the agency's deputy ethics counselor, having held both roles since 2010.
Tabak temporarily served as acting head of NIH between December 2021 and November 2023, after the institute's former director Francis Collins stepped down.
As CBS reported, Tabak had not been expected to retire until the fall but told a colleague that he felt it was necessary to retire at this time.
Senate confirms RFK Jr. as Health secretary; McConnell lone GOP dissenter
Just a day after Tabak's abrupt retirement, it was reported that Michael Lauer, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health's extramural research, will be leaving the agency at the end of the week.
According to STAT, acting NIH director Matthew Memoli informed staff in an email of Lauer's departure, thanking him for his 'exemplary service to NIH and the American people.'
The Hill has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House for comment.
These departures are occurring as the NIH is currently undergoing significant upheaval. Last week the agency issued an order slashing federal funding for research projects, alarming lawmakers, universities and institutions across the country. The order has been stayed, though biomedical researchers remain wary for the future.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
RFK Jr. plans crackdown on pharma ads in threat to $10 billion market
The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending. Although the U.S. is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it's instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad - likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive - or removing the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said. The discussions are ongoing and plans could still change before the agency undertakes any action, they said. Limiting pharma ads would be a major win for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's long wanted to more strictly regulate how medicines are promoted. He's said he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries because of the U.S. drug companies' ability to directly advertise to consumers. The new policies could threaten a key source of revenue to advertising and media companies, as well as the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in total, according to a report from the advertising data firm MediaRadar. AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were particularly big spenders. AbbVie alone spent $2 billion on direct-to-consumer drug ads last year, primarily on advertising for the company's anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq. The medicines brought in more than $5 billion for AbbVie in the first quarter of 2025. "We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a written statement, adding that no final decisions have been made. AbbVie shares fell as much as 2.3% on Tuesday, their biggest drop in a month. Pfizer shares slipped as much as 1.7%. Ad reversal Before the loosening of advertising regulations by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, U.S. pharma companies had to list all possible side effects for a medication if they wanted to mention which condition the drug being advertised was intended to treat. Reading out a list of side effects took so long it drove up the cost for air time and meant there wasn't as much broadcast advertising as there is today, said Jim Potter, executive director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, a trade association. The FDA change allowed ads to disclose fewer side effects and also allowed companies to direct customers to talk to their doctors, call a telephone number, or visit a website to get more information on the advertised drugs. In the following years, TV pharma ad spending surged. In 2024, 59% of the pharmaceutical industry's spend was on television advertising, making pharma the third-highest spending industry on television ads, according to MediaRadar. If the Trump administration brings back some of those restrictions, broadcast ads may become more "impractical," according to Meredith Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at Harvard University's school of public health, who has studied the impacts of pharma advertising. More specific drug ads could have benefits for patients who might be prompted to talk to their doctor for the first time about a medical condition like depression or erectile dysfunction, Rosenthal said. However, there are also drawbacks. Drug ads can be used to drive sales of expensive, brand-name medicines when lower-cost generic alternatives may be appropriate, she said. When asked if a crackdown on ads would hurt its business, AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart told analysts at a conference in May that the company "would have to pivot." He said the company could shift its investment to "disease awareness" or through advertising on digital channels rather than through mass media. Tax changes The Trump administration could also work with Congress to prohibit pharmaceutical companies from deducting direct-to-consumer advertising costs as business expenses on their taxes. House lawmakers discussed the idea in talks over President Donald Trump's tax cut legislation, but ultimately left the measure out of the bill. The Senate omitted it as well. HHS has been supportive of those discussions, according to a person familiar with the talks. Kennedy has also said publicly he's having conversations about tax changes within the administration, telling Senator Josh Hawley during a May hearing on Capitol Hill that he expected an announcement on the matter "within the next few weeks." Joe Grogan, who served as White House Domestic Policy Council chief during President Donald Trump's first term and now consults for health-care companies, said it's unclear whether lawmakers will have an appetite to crack down on the pharmaceutical industry further given Trump's tariff threats and demands to dramatically lower drug prices. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry has warned that allowing lawmakers to regulate advertising by changing the tax code to single out pharmaceutical companies could set a dangerous precedent and raise the specter of lawsuits. Other industries also can deduct advertising costs as business expenses, heightening concerns they could be targeted next. "If you choose a sector, if one becomes a target, everyone becomes a target," said Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication. The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents companies that own radio and television stations, said the group opposes restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising, and that revenue from ads allows local broadcasters to staff newsrooms and invest in weather technology. "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns," NAB spokesperson Alex Siciliano said. (With assistance from Madison Muller.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Medscape
33 minutes ago
- Medscape
Judge Deems Trump's National Institutes Of Health Grant Cuts Illegal
BOSTON (Reuters) -A federal judge in Boston on Monday said the termination of National Institutes of Health grants for research on diversity-related topics by President Donald Trump's administration was "void and illegal," and accused the government of discriminating against racial minorities and LGBT people. U.S. District Judge William Young during a non-jury trial said the NIH violated federal law by arbitrarily canceling more than $1 billion in research grants because of their perceived connection to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Young said he was reinstating grants that had been awarded to organizations and Democratic-led states that sued over the terminations. And the judge indicated that as the case proceeds he could issue a more sweeping decision. "This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community," said Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. "Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it and at an appropriate time, I'm going to do it." Referring to the termination of grants for research related to issues involving racial minorities, the judge said he had in four decades on the bench "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable." "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," the judge said, referring to Trump's administration. "The Constitution will not permit that." Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency stands by its decision to end funding for research "that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people," and is considering an appeal. "Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration, HHS is committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars support programs rooted in evidence-based practices and gold standard science – not driven by divisive DEI mandates or gender ideology," Nixon said in a statement, referring to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Rachel Meeropol of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the grant recipients who sued, said Young's ruling applies to hundreds of grants. The plaintiffs include the American Public Health Association, a membership organization for public health researchers, and 16 states led by Massachusetts. The NIH, the world's leading funder of biomedical and behavioral research, has terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since Trump took office in January, according to a letter that dozens of NIH employees signed last week, protesting the cuts. The funding cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the government, slash federal spending and end government support for DEI programs and transgender healthcare. The administration's plans to cut 10,000 jobs at health agencies including NIH have been temporarily blocked by another federal judge. Trump also has signed a series of executive orders requiring agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote "gender ideology" and to end support of what it sees as discriminatory DEI programs. Conservative critics of DEI programs have portrayed them as discriminatory against white people and certain others. In line with Trump's policy agenda, the NIH has instructed staff to terminate grant funding for studies related to DEI programs, transgender issues, COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy, and grants that could potentially benefit Chinese universities. The trial that Young held on Monday concerned only some of the claims in the consolidated lawsuits over the cuts. The judge will consider others later. Young said he would give the parties an opportunity to present further evidence before he rules on those claims and decides whether to reinstate grants beyond those awarded to the plaintiffs. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey in a statement said Young's ruling was welcome, but that the NIH cuts had already halted crucial research into cures for disease including cancer and Alzheimer's. "He forced our research universities to lay off staff and rescind PhD offers. And he handed China and other foreign countries the opportunity to recruit away our researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs," said Healey, a Democrat. (Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Will Dunham and Matthew Lewis)
an hour ago
FDA to offer faster drug reviews to companies promoting 'national priorities'
WASHINGTON -- U.S. regulators will begin offering faster reviews to new medicines that administration officials deem as promoting 'the health interests of Americans,' under a new initiative announced Tuesday. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will aim to review select drugs in one to two months. FDA's long-standing accelerated approval program generally issues decisions in six months for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases. Regular drug reviews take about 10 months. Since arriving at the FDA in April, Makary has repeatedly told FDA staff they need to 'challenge assumptions' and rethink procedures. In a medical journal commentary published last week, Makary suggested the agency could conduct 'rapid or instant reviews," pointing to the truncated process used to authorize the first COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed. For the new program, the FDA will issue a limited number of 'national priority vouchers' to companies 'aligned with U.S. national priorities,' the agency said in a statement. The special designation will give the selected companies access to extra FDA communications, streamlined staff reviews and the ability to submit much of their product information in advance. Speeding up drug approvals has long been a priority of the pharmaceutical industry, which has successfully lobbied Congress to create a variety of special programs and pathways for faster reviews. Many aspects of the plan announced Tuesday overlap with older programs. But the broad criteria for receiving a voucher will give FDA officials unprecedented discretion in deciding which companies can benefit from the fastest reviews. "The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public,' Makary said in a statement. Makary previously said the FDA should be willing to ease its scientific requirements for certain drugs, for instance, by not always requiring randomized studies in which patients are tracked over time to track safety and effectiveness. Such trials are generally considered the gold standard of medical research, though the FDA has increasingly been willing to accept smaller, less-definitive studies for rare or life-threatening diseases. In several recent cases, the FDA has faced criticism for approving drugs based on preliminary data that didn't ultimately show benefits for patients. The push to rapidly accelerated drug approvals is the opposite approach that Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have taken on vaccines. Promising a 'return to gold-standard science,' Kennedy previously announced that all new vaccines would have to be compared to placebo, or a dummy shot, to win approval. Kennedy and Makary also have announced a stricter policy on seasonal updates to COVID-19 shots, saying they will have to undergo new testing before they can be approved for use in healthy children and most adults. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
