Latest news with #N.I.H.
New York Times
04-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President to Discuss Economy in TV Interview
Drawing blood for an S.T.I. test at a San Francisco AIDS Foundation clinic. The N.I.H. canceled several grants to a network of researchers who work on preventing and treating H.I.V. and AIDS in young adults, who account for a fifth of new infections each year in the United States. The Trump administration has scrapped more than $800 million worth of research into the health of L.G.B.T.Q. people, abandoning studies of cancers and viruses that tend to affect members of sexual minority groups and setting back efforts to defeat a resurgence of sexually transmitted infections, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. In keeping with its deep opposition to both diversity programs and gender-affirming care for adolescents, the administration has worked aggressively to root out research touching on equity measures and transgender health. But its crackdown has reverberated far beyond those issues, eliminating swaths of medical research on diseases that disproportionately afflict L.G.B.T.Q. people, a group that comprises nearly 10 percent of American adults. Of the 669 grants that the National Institutes of Health had canceled in whole or in part as of early May, at least 323 — nearly half of them — related to L.G.B.T.Q. health, according to a review by The Times of every terminated grant. Federal officials had earmarked $806 million for the canceled projects, many of which had been expected to draw more funding in the years to come. Scores of research institutions lost funding, a list that includes not only White House targets like Johns Hopkins and Columbia, but also public universities in the South and the Midwest, like Ohio State University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. At Florida State University, $41 million worth of research was canceled, including a major effort to prevent H.I.V. in adolescents and young adults, who experience a fifth of new infections in the United States each year. In termination letters over the last two months, the N.I.H. justified the cuts by telling scientists that their L.G.B.T.Q. work 'no longer effectuates agency priorities.' In some cases, the agency said canceled research had been 'based on gender identity,' which gave rise to 'unscientific' results that ignored 'biological realities.' Other termination letters told scientists their studies erred by being 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.' The cuts follow a surge in federal funding for L.G.B.T.Q. research over the past decade, and active encouragement from the N.I.H. for grant proposals focused on sexual and gender minority groups that began during the Obama administration. President Trump's allies have argued that the research is shot through with ideological bias. 'There's been a train of abuses of the science to fit a preconceived conclusion,' said Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that helped formulate some Trump administration policies. 'And that was based on an unscientific premise that biology is effectively irrelevant, and a political project of trying to mainstream the notion that people could change their sex.' Image President Trump during a visit to the National Institutes of Health in 2020. In his first term, Mr. Trump had pledged to end the country's H.I.V. epidemic within a decade. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times Scientists said canceling research on such a broad range of illnesses related to sexual and gender minority groups effectively created a hierarchy of patients, some more worthy than others. 'Certain people in the United States shouldn't be getting treated as second-class research subjects,' said Simon Rosser, a professor at the University of Minnesota whose lab was studying cancer in L.G.B.T.Q. people before significant funding was pulled. 'That, I think, is anyone's definition of bigotry,' he added. 'Bigotry in science.' The canceled projects are among the most vivid manifestations of a broad dismantling of the infrastructure that has for 80 years supported medical research across the United States. Beyond terminating studies, federal officials have gummed up the grant-making process by slow-walking payments, delaying grant review meetings and scaling back new grant awards. Bigger changes may be in store: Mr. Trump on Friday proposed reducing the N.I.H. budget from roughly $48 billion to $27 billion, citing in part what he described as the agency's efforts to promote 'radical gender ideology.' The legality of the mass terminations is unclear. Two separate lawsuits challenging the revocation of a wide range of grants — one filed by a group of researchers, and the other by 16 states — argued that the Trump administration had failed to offer a legal rationale for the cuts. The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment. Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the health department, told The Daily Signal, a conservative publication, last month that the move 'away from politicized D.E.I. and gender ideology studies' was in 'accordance with the president's executive orders.' The N.I.H. said in a statement: 'N.I.H. is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with N.I.H. and H.H.S. priorities. We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science.' The L.G.B.T.Q. cuts ended studies on antibiotic resistance, undiagnosed autism in sexual minority groups, and certain throat and other cancers that disproportionately affect those groups. Funding losses have led to firings at some L.G.B.T.Q.-focused labs that had only recently been preparing to expand. The N.I.H. used to reserve grant cancellations for rare cases of research misconduct or possible harm to participants. The latest cuts, far from protecting research participants, are instead putting them in harm's way, scientists said. They cited the jettisoning of clinical trials, which have now been left without federal funding to care for volunteer participants. 'We're stopping things that are preventing suicide and preventing sexual violence,' said Katie Edwards, a professor at the University of Michigan, whose funding for several clinical trials involving L.G.B.T.Q. people was canceled. H.I.V. research has been hit particularly hard. The N.I.H. ended several major grants to the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for H.I.V./AIDS Intervention, a program that had helped lay the groundwork for the use in adolescents of a medication regimen that can prevent infections. That regimen, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is credited with helping beat back the disease in young people. Cuts to the program have endangered an ongoing trial of a product that would prevent both H.I.V. and pregnancy and a second trial looking at combining sexual health counseling with behavioral therapy to reduce the spread of H.I.V. in young sexual minority men who use stimulants. Together with the termination of dozens of other H.I.V. studies, the cuts have undermined Mr. Trump's stated goal from his first term to end the country's H.I.V. epidemic within a decade, scientists said. Image Truvada, a pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, medication, at a Manhattan pharmacy. Credit... Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times The N.I.H. terminated work on other sexually transmitted illnesses, as well. Dr. Matthew Spinelli, an infectious disease researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, was in the middle of a clinical trial of doxycycline, a common antibiotic that, taken after sex, can prevent some infections with syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The trial was, he said, 'as nerdy as it gets': a randomized study in which participants were given different regimens of the antibiotic to see how it is metabolized. He hoped the findings would help scientists understand the drug's effectiveness in women, and also its potential to cause drug resistance, a concern that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had voiced in the past. But health officials, citing their opposition to research regarding 'gender identity,' halted funding for the experiment in March. That left Dr. Spinelli without any federal funding to monitor the half-dozen people who had already been taking the antibiotic. It also put the thousands of doses that Dr. Spinelli had bought with taxpayer money at risk of going to waste. He said stopping work on diseases like syphilis and H.I.V. would allow new outbreaks to spread. 'The H.I.V. epidemic is going to explode again as a result of these actions,' said Dr. Spinelli, who added that he was speaking only for himself, not his university. 'It's devastating for the communities affected.' Despite a recent emphasis on the downsides of transitioning, federal officials canceled several grants examining the potential risks of gender-affirming hormone therapy. The projects looked at whether hormone therapy could, for example, increase the risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, altered brain development or H.I.V. Other terminated grants examined ways of addressing mental illness in transgender people, who now make up about 3 percent of high school students and report sharply higher rates of persistent sadness and suicide attempts. For Dr. Edwards, of the University of Michigan, funding was halted for a clinical trial looking at how online mentoring might reduce depression and self-harm among transgender teens, one of six studies of hers that were canceled. Another examined interventions for the families of L.G.B.T.Q. young people to promote more supportive caregiving and, in turn, reduce dating violence and alcohol use among the young people. The N.I.H. categorizes research only by certain diseases, making it difficult to know how much money the agency devotes to L.G.B.T.Q. health. But a report in March estimated that such research made up less than 1 percent of the N.I.H. portfolio over a decade. The Times sought to understand the scale of terminated funding for L.G.B.T.Q. medical research by reviewing the titles and, in many cases, research summaries for each of the 669 grants that the Trump administration said it had canceled in whole or in part as of early May. Beyond grants related to L.G.B.T.Q. people and the diseases and treatments that take a disproportionate toll on them, The Times included in its count studies that were designed to recruit participants from sexual and gender minority groups. It excluded grants related to illnesses like H.I.V. that were focused on non-L.G.B.T.Q. patients. While The Times examined only N.I.H. research grants, the Trump administration is also ending or considering ending L.G.B.T.Q. programs elsewhere in the federal health system. It has proposed, for example, scrapping a specialized suicide hotline for L.G.B.T.Q. young people. The research cuts stand to hollow out a field that in the last decade had not only grown larger, but also come to encompass a wider range of disease threats beyond H.I.V. Already, scientists said, younger researchers are losing jobs in sexual and gender minority research and scrubbing their online biographies of evidence that they ever worked in the field. Five grants obtained by Brittany Charlton, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, have been canceled, including one looking at sharply elevated rates of stillbirths among L.G.B.T.Q. women. Ending research on disease threats to gender and sexual minority groups, she said, would inevitably rebound on the entire population. 'When other people are sick around you, it does impact you, even if you may think it doesn't,' she said. Irena Hwang contributed reporting.
New York Times
04-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Trump Administration Slashes Research Into L.G.B.T.Q. Health
The Trump administration has scrapped more than $800 million worth of research into the health of L.G.B.T.Q. people, abandoning studies of cancers and viruses that tend to affect members of sexual minority groups and setting back efforts to defeat a resurgence of sexually transmitted infections, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. In keeping with its deep opposition to both diversity programs and gender-affirming care for adolescents, the administration has worked aggressively to root out research touching on equity measures and transgender health. But its crackdown has reverberated far beyond those issues, eliminating swaths of medical research on diseases that disproportionately afflict L.G.B.T.Q. people, a group that comprises nearly 10 percent of American adults. Of the 669 grants that the National Institutes of Health had canceled in whole or in part as of early May, at least 323 — nearly half of them — related to L.G.B.T.Q. health, according to a review by The Times of every terminated grant. Federal officials had earmarked $806 million for the canceled projects, many of which had been expected to draw more funding in the years to come. Scores of research institutions lost funding, a list that includes not only White House targets like Johns Hopkins and Columbia, but also public universities in the South and the Midwest, like Ohio State University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. At Florida State University, $41 million worth of research was canceled, including a major effort to prevent H.I.V. in adolescents and young adults, who experience a fifth of new infections in the United States each year. In termination letters over the last two months, the N.I.H. justified the cuts by telling scientists that their L.G.B.T.Q. work 'no longer effectuates agency priorities.' In some cases, the agency said canceled research had been 'based on gender identity,' which gave rise to 'unscientific' results that ignored 'biological realities.' Other termination letters told scientists their studies erred by being 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.' The cuts follow a surge in federal funding for L.G.B.T.Q. research over the past decade, and active encouragement from the N.I.H. for grant proposals focused on sexual and gender minority groups that began during the Obama administration. President Trump's allies have argued that the research is shot through with ideological bias. 'There's been a train of abuses of the science to fit a preconceived conclusion,' said Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that helped formulate some Trump administration policies. 'And that was based on an unscientific premise that biology is effectively irrelevant, and a political project of trying to mainstream the notion that people could change their sex.' Scientists said canceling research on such a broad range of illnesses related to sexual and gender minority groups effectively created a hierarchy of patients, some more worthy than others. 'Certain people in the United States shouldn't be getting treated as second-class research subjects,' said Simon Rosser, a professor at the University of Minnesota whose lab was studying cancer in L.G.B.T.Q. people before significant funding was pulled. 'That, I think, is anyone's definition of bigotry,' he added. 'Bigotry in science.' The canceled projects are among the most vivid manifestations of a broad dismantling of the infrastructure that has for 80 years supported medical research across the United States. Beyond terminating studies, federal officials have gummed up the grant-making process by slow-walking payments, delaying grant review meetings and scaling back new grant awards. Bigger changes may be in store: Mr. Trump on Friday proposed reducing the N.I.H. budget from roughly $48 billion to $27 billion, citing in part what he described as the agency's efforts to promote 'radical gender ideology.' The legality of the mass terminations is unclear. Two separate lawsuits challenging the revocation of a wide range of grants — one filed by a group of researchers, and the other by 16 states — argued that the Trump administration had failed to offer a legal rationale for the cuts. The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment. Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the health department, told The Daily Signal, a conservative publication, last month that the move 'away from politicized D.E.I. and gender ideology studies' was in 'accordance with the president's executive orders.' The N.I.H. said in a statement: 'N.I.H. is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with N.I.H. and H.H.S. priorities. We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science.' The L.G.B.T.Q. cuts ended studies on antibiotic resistance, undiagnosed autism in sexual minority groups, and certain throat and other cancers that disproportionately affect those groups. Funding losses have led to firings at some L.G.B.T.Q.-focused labs that had only recently been preparing to expand. The N.I.H. used to reserve grant cancellations for rare cases of research misconduct or possible harm to participants. The latest cuts, far from protecting research participants, are instead putting them in harm's way, scientists said. They cited the jettisoning of clinical trials, which have now been left without federal funding to care for volunteer participants. 'We're stopping things that are preventing suicide and preventing sexual violence,' said Katie Edwards, a professor at the University of Michigan, whose funding for several clinical trials involving L.G.B.T.Q. people was canceled. H.I.V. research has been hit particularly hard. The N.I.H. ended several major grants to the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for H.I.V./AIDS Intervention, a program that had helped lay the groundwork for the use in adolescents of a medication regimen that can prevent infections. That regimen, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is credited with helping beat back the disease in young people. Cuts to the program have endangered an ongoing trial of a product that would prevent both H.I.V. and pregnancy and a second trial looking at combining sexual health counseling with behavioral therapy to reduce the spread of H.I.V. in young sexual minority men who use stimulants. Together with the termination of dozens of other H.I.V. studies, the cuts have undermined Mr. Trump's stated goal from his first term to end the country's H.I.V. epidemic within a decade, scientists said. The N.I.H. terminated work on other sexually transmitted illnesses, as well. Dr. Matthew Spinelli, an infectious disease researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, was in the middle of a clinical trial of doxycycline, a common antibiotic that, taken after sex, can prevent some infections with syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The trial was, he said, 'as nerdy as it gets': a randomized study in which participants were given different regimens of the antibiotic to see how it is metabolized. He hoped the findings would help scientists understand the drug's effectiveness in women, and also its potential to cause drug resistance, a concern that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had voiced in the past. But health officials, citing their opposition to research regarding 'gender identity,' halted funding for the experiment in March. That left Dr. Spinelli without any federal funding to monitor the half-dozen people who had already been taking the antibiotic. It also put the thousands of doses that Dr. Spinelli had bought with taxpayer money at risk of going to waste. He said stopping work on diseases like syphilis and H.I.V. would allow new outbreaks to spread. 'The H.I.V. epidemic is going to explode again as a result of these actions,' said Dr. Spinelli, who added that he was speaking only for himself, not his university. 'It's devastating for the communities affected.' Despite a recent emphasis on the downsides of transitioning, federal officials canceled several grants examining the potential risks of gender-affirming hormone therapy. The projects looked at whether hormone therapy could, for example, increase the risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, altered brain development or H.I.V. Other terminated grants examined ways of addressing mental illness in transgender people, who now make up about 3 percent of high school students and report sharply higher rates of persistent sadness and suicide attempts. For Dr. Edwards, of the University of Michigan, funding was halted for a clinical trial looking at how online mentoring might reduce depression and self-harm among transgender teens, one of six studies of hers that were canceled. Another examined interventions for the families of L.G.B.T.Q. young people to promote more supportive caregiving and, in turn, reduce dating violence and alcohol use among the young people. The N.I.H. categorizes research only by certain diseases, making it difficult to know how much money the agency devotes to L.G.B.T.Q. health. But a report in March estimated that such research made up less than 1 percent of the N.I.H. portfolio over a decade. The Times sought to understand the scale of terminated funding for L.G.B.T.Q. medical research by reviewing the titles and, in many cases, research summaries for each of the 669 grants that the Trump administration said it had canceled in whole or in part as of early May. Beyond grants related to L.G.B.T.Q. people and the diseases and treatments that take a disproportionate toll on them, The Times included in its count studies that were designed to recruit participants from sexual and gender minority groups. It excluded grants related to illnesses like H.I.V. that were focused on non-L.G.B.T.Q. patients. While The Times examined only N.I.H. research grants, the Trump administration is also ending or considering ending L.G.B.T.Q. programs elsewhere in the federal health system. It has proposed, for example, scrapping a specialized suicide hotline for L.G.B.T.Q. young people. The research cuts stand to hollow out a field that in the last decade had not only grown larger, but also come to encompass a wider range of disease threats beyond H.I.V. Already, scientists said, younger researchers are losing jobs in sexual and gender minority research and scrubbing their online biographies of evidence that they ever worked in the field. Five grants obtained by Brittany Charlton, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, have been canceled, including one looking at sharply elevated rates of stillbirths among L.G.B.T.Q. women. Ending research on disease threats to gender and sexual minority groups, she said, would inevitably rebound on the entire population. 'When other people are sick around you, it does impact you, even if you may think it doesn't,' she said.
New York Times
02-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Trump's Budget Calls for Deep Cuts to Public Health Programs and Research
Two of President Trump's favorite targets — the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — will have their funding cut nearly in half under Mr. Trump's proposed budget, which also wipes out a $4.1 billion program that helps low-income Americans pay their heating and cooling bills. The budget blueprint, released Friday, advances, in hard numbers and biting words, Mr. Trump's assault on the nation's universities and scientific research enterprise. It calls the N.I.H., the world's premier biomedical research agency, 'too big and unfocused,' and proposes to cut its funding to $27 billion from roughly $48 billion — a stark contrast from its heyday in the 1990s, when Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill agreed to double its budget over a period of five years. 'NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health,' the budget document declares. It goes on to effectively accuse the institutes of funding research that led to the coronavirus pandemic, and says the N.I.H. has 'also promoted radical gender ideology to the detriment of America's youth.' Funding for the C.D.C., whose mission has expanded greatly over the past several decades, would drop to $4 billion from about $9 billion under the proposed budget, which eliminates entire divisions of the agency, including programs devoted to chronic disease prevention; injury prevention, including those from guns; environmental health; and global health and public health preparedness. The budget says those programs are either duplicative, focused on diversity equity and inclusion, or 'simply unnecessary.' While chronic disease and injuries are now major causes of death in the United States, the C.D.C.'s scope would be narrowed, and would return to its original mission of protecting Americans against infectious disease. The budget outline also calls for the elimination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program — labeling it 'unnecessary' because Mr. Trump is planning to increase domestic oil and gas production and reduce energy prices. The Government Accountability Office has raised significant integrity concerns related to fraud and abuse in the program, but it currently helps 6.2 million Americans from Texas to Maine offset their high utility bills. Last month, the administration fired everyone working in the office that administers the program. Additionally, the budget proposes to cut more than $1 billion from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which directs funds and support nationwide to address two of the country's biggest public health crises. While Mr. Kennedy, a recovering heroin addict, has said he is concerned in particular about the opioid epidemic, the budget rails against the public health strategy known as 'harm reduction,' which was supported by the Biden administration and involves decreasing the risk of deaths and overdoses by ensuring that people who use illicit substances can do so safely. It specifically criticizes 'safe smoking kits' and 'syringes.'
New York Times
17-04-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Trump Cuts Likely to Curtail Study of Climate Change's Health Effects
With frequent and severe disasters repeatedly underscoring the dangers of climate change, scientists across the country have been working to understand the consequences for our hearts, lungs, brains and more — and how to best mitigate them. The work has relied largely on hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. But since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took charge of H.H.S., the Trump administration has indicated that it will stop funding research on the health effects of climate change. The N.I.H. said in an internal document obtained by The New York Times that it was the agency's new policy 'not to prioritize' research related to climate change. The document also described the organization's intent not to fund research on gender identity, vaccine hesitancy or diversity, equity and inclusion. N.I.H. employees were instructed to tell researchers to 'remove all' mention of the topics and resubmit their applications, even if the main focus was unrelated. The policy shift on climate change, first reported by ProPublica, stands to drastically limit U.S.-based research into its health effects, which tries to answer questions like whether events like wildfires and heat waves can affect cardiovascular health and pregnancy. A spokeswoman for H.H.S. said in a statement that the agency was 'taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with N.I.H. and H.H.S. priorities.' Later, an N.I.H. spokeswoman sent a statement with slightly different wording, saying the agency was 'taking action to review, and in some cases freeze or terminate' funding. Both spokeswomen said the N.I.H. and H.H.S. were prioritizing research that they believed 'directly affects the health of Americans' and was in line with the 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. That includes studying the causes of chronic disease, a focus of Mr. Kennedy's. But Shohreh Farzan, an associate professor at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, said that climate change events were 'already directly impacting the health of Americans,' and that one of the best ways to prevent chronic disease was to identify potential causes and symptoms as early as possible. Dr. Farzan has received N.I.H. funding to study the effects of wildfires and extreme heat on children's cardiovascular health. Already, a range of conditions have been linked to extreme weather, including asthma flare-ups, heart attacks, strokes and mental health problems, scientists said. One study found last month that firefighters who fought the Los Angeles blazes in January had elevated lead and mercury in their blood. Scientists have also discovered that some wildfire smoke contains substances associated with chronic conditions like heart disease. So far, grant recipients have been unable to get answers from direct contacts at N.I.H. about their funding, which they said would be difficult to replace, if not impossible. 'There's nothing that comes close,' Dr. Farzan said. 'This could be a really devastating loss to scientists who have worked for years with a goal of keeping people healthy.' Without N.I.H. funding, 'only a small fraction' of the research at the recently created Cincinnati Center on Climate Change and Health could continue, said Ardythe L. Morrow, the organization's co-director. The center, part of the University of Cincinnati, has been studying the effects of extreme heat on the immune system and assessing ways to protect high-risk populations. Grants from foundations are typically smaller than N.I.H. grants, and even wealthy philanthropists' resources don't compare to the government's. Relying on them would leave the country 'flying blind' as it figures out how to combat climate change's health consequences, said Lyndsey Darrow, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Nevada, Reno. 'The health effects of climate change are happening whether or not we fund the science to understand them,' said Dr. Darrow, who is finishing up an N.I.H.-funded project on extreme heat. Her research has found that heat waves increase the likelihood of premature births, especially among groups such as women under 30 and people of color. Research related to the effects of climate change only used a minimal percentage of N.I.H. funding. In 2024 and 2025, the N.I.H. funded at least 16 studies on the effects of wildfire smoke, and at least seven on extreme heat, out of thousands of total funded studies. But interest in the area had increased. Several studies are focused on wildfires that spread from forest and brush to highly populated areas, as occurred in Los Angeles. Many questions remain about the health effects of these fires because, until recently, they were rare. What chemicals are in the smoke, and how does that differ by location? What are the short- and long-term effects? Extreme heat research has similar gaps. Researchers are still trying to understand fully how heat exposure affects the body, especially over prolonged periods. Perry Hystad, a professor in the College of Health at Oregon State University, had expected to receive a five-year N.I.H. grant to study who is most susceptible to extreme-weather exposure. He planned to follow more than 200,000 people in 27 countries, a far larger subject base than most studies. But he no longer believes he will receive the grant. Dr. Farzan, the professor at the University of Southern California, feels similarly. If she loses the N.I.H. grant she currently has, she does not expect to be able to replace it. 'Our work isn't driven by politics or ideology,' she said. 'It's driven by the idea that we can do things now to protect the future health of our children and make our communities places that will be more able to withstand the impacts of extreme events.'
New York Times
04-04-2025
- Health
- New York Times
16 States Sue the Trump Administration to Restore NIH Funding
California, Massachusetts and 14 other states sued the Trump administration on Friday for withholding grant funding from public health and medical research institutions, cuts that have forced universities to curtail research and to delay the hiring of new staff. The National Institutes of Health is the world's leading public funder of biomedical research, supporting studies on aging, substance abuse and other major issues. More than 80 percent of the agency's $47 billion budget goes to outside researchers — grant funding that in recent weeks has been eliminated, paused or delayed by the Trump administration in a 'concerted, and multi-pronged effort to disrupt NIH's grants,' according to the lawsuit. Cuts and delays to N.I.H. funding have crippled research teams in universities across the country and halted studies midstream, setting back work on diseases like cancer and diabetes and plunging American medical research into crisis. The attorneys general are asking the courts to restore pulled grant funding and to allow pending grant applications to be evaluated and approved fairly. 'In their unlawful withholding and terminating of medical and public health research grants, the Trump Administration is upending not only the critical work being done today, but the promise of progress for future generations,' Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, said in a statement. Neither the National Institutes of Health nor the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the agency, responded to requests for comment. The massive University of California system — which conducts nearly 9 percent of all U.S. academic research, through both its undergraduate campuses and academic medical centers — gets half of its funding from the federal government. The university system last fiscal year received $2 billion in N.I.H. contracts and grants, according to the lawsuit. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
