Happy New Year 2025

Tag: NIH

Academic unions plan nationwide demonstration to protest Trump NIH research cuts

The science community is clapping back at President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut facilities and administrative costs that go out to institutions when the federal government disperses money for publicly funded research projects.

A cohort of academic unions around the country has called on scientists, researchers, clinicians, academics and “allies” to protest in front of the Health and Human Services Department building and at different universities across the country on Wednesday, calling it a “National Day of Action.” The Feb. 19 event follows protests outside the HHS building Friday, during which demonstrators locked arms in front of the building and chanted, “We are not leaving!”

Trump’s move to cap these costs at 15% has garnered criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, who argue the spending limit will severely impact the country’s world-leading research apparatus. But, while much of that criticism has been online and in the media, it is starting to spill over into the streets.

INDEPENDENT VOTERS SHOW SIGNIFICANT DISAPPROVAL OF DEMOCRATIC ANTICS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP

Protesters demonstrate in support of federal workers outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Feb. 4, 2025 in Washington, DC. Organizers held the protest to speak about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts. (Getty Images)

“We are joining academic unions across the country in a National Day of Action,” the RSVP form for the event reads. “We are demanding the administration stop the attack on science, medicine, and public health research by rescinding the cuts and restrictions.”

The form says that Trump’s directive is “restrict[ing] and censor[ing]” critical research and subsequently preventing “potential treatments and cures” from coming to fruition, while also reducing the nation’s global competitiveness when it comes to “scientific world power.”

Union members from Johns Hopkins, George Washington University and the University of Maryland are slated to attend, according to the RSVP form. A separate online advertisement for the event indicated that additional protests would take place on Wednesday at Rutgers, the University of Washington, Oregon Health & Science University, the University of Illinois – Chicago, and other places. Fox News Digital reached out to organizers of the Feb. 19 demonstrations to glean more details about expected numbers, but did not receive a response.

TRUMP NOMINEES DEBUT NEW SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL AIMED AT SPURRING SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE, INCREASING TRANSPARENCY

During a protest outside HHS offices in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 14, 2025, demonstrators deliver Valentine’s Day greetings with messages of support for federal workers. (Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

A “Feb. 19 toolkit,” included with the second online advertisement, also implored interested demonstrators to protest outside congressional offices and at public meetings where legislators are present. It included messaging prompts on how demonstrators should respond to push back as well, and implored them to take a lot of pictures and videos.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Metropolitan Police Department to determine whether any safety or security measures would be put in place, but the department declined to share specifics regarding operations, tactics or staffing. The department did iterate that it recognizes the importance of “upholding the First Amendment rights of individuals to peacefully express their views” and is committed to facilitating these events while also protecting public safety. The department added that there was no known threat to the D.C. area at that time.

A federal judge last week put a temporary restraining order on Trump’s directive, halting it nationwide. An in-person hearing date is scheduled for later this month.

JUDGE ORDERS TEMPORARY REVERSAL OF TRUMP ADMIN’S FREEZE ON FOREIGN AID

The National Institutes of Health announced a $9 billion spending cut in response to a new mandate from the Trump administration. (Alamy/Getty Images)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was confirmed as HHS secretary by the Senate last week, shared a NIH social media post explaining how much will be saved under Trump’s new spending limit, signaling that he potentially supports Trump’s cap on indirect facilities and administrative costs going to research institutions from the NIH.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition to the protests on Wednesday, a “Stand Up For Science 2025” protest is also being planned for early March. Furthermore, a nationwide protest movement against Trump’s actions has also been attempting to organize protesters to show up at every major state capital on Presidents Day.

A recent survey of Independent voters showed the unaffiliated group is largely getting tired of the Democratic Party’s sometimes profanity-laced attacks on the president.

February 17, 2025
Second-in-command at NIH who led agency during COVID resigns

The No. 2 in command at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak, who served as acting director of the agency during the COVID-19 pandemic, has abruptly resigned.

Tabak, 73, has been at the NIH for 25 years, first serving as director of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research before eventually becoming the NIH’s principal deputy director in 2010, which is the second-in-command at the agency. Tabak also served during transitional periods as acting director, including during the COVID era when he was regularly grilled by Republicans, alongside Dr. Anthony Fauci, over the NIH’s response.

“I write to inform you that I have retired from government service, effective today, 2/11/2025,” Tabak wrote in an email, reportedly circulated to staff at the NIH, earlier this week. The note did not explain the reason for his departure.

SENATE DEMOCRATS RAIL AGAINST RFK JR. IN LATE-NIGHT SESSION AHEAD OF VOTE

Dr. Lawrence Tabak testifies before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education on Capitol Hill on May 4, 2023. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Tabak’s resignation comes amid a shakeup within the Health and Human Services Department, the NIH’s parent agency, that occurred once President Donald Trump took office in January. Under Trump, the agency has faced cuts to programs and reports have indicated the administration has plans to fire a trove of HHS employees. Typically, Tabak would have been promoted to acting director while Trump’s nominee awaited confirmation. However, the position was instead assigned to Dr. Matthew Memoli, a former top researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a known critic of COVID vaccine mandates.

Tabak was part of a group of agency leaders, including Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins, who congressional investigators accused of trying to manipulate the narrative around the origins of the COVID-19 virus. Through GOP investigations, it was determined Tabak was part of a controversial phone call with Fauci, Collins and several prominent scientists that critics have argued was a catalyst for the publication of a scientific paper that was released positing that it was not plausible the virus originated in a lab.

SCIENTISTS EXPECT MAJOR ‘MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS’ DESPITE TRUMP’S CAP ON NIH RESEARCH FUNDING

Security personnel stand guard outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

He was also front-and-center when it came to GOP probes into whether risky gain-of-function research was occurring at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, and faced criticism for slow-rolling the release of information requested by Republican investigators for these concerns.

Tabak “[dealt] with all of the messy or intractable problem[s]” and was “often… the fall guy when things [went] sideways,” Jeremy Berg, former director of NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, said on social media following news of Tabak’s resignation. “Larry has shoveled so much s— over the years that he would have been well qualified to work behind the elephants in an old circus.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital reached out to the NIH for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

February 13, 2025
Medical experts explain why Trump’s cap on NIH research funding is a good idea

The Trump administration’s decision to slash overhead costs linked to federally funded research has sparked an immense backlash. But some doctors are praising the move, suggesting it will help “optimize” how taxpayer dollars are used when it comes to scientific research.

A new rule from the Trump administration that went into effect Monday, capped facilities and administrative costs, also known as “indirect costs,” at 15% for federally funded research grants provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When a grant is awarded to a scientist by the NIH, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these “indirect costs.”

According to an announcement about the new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as high as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.

UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR HAILS THAT SCIENCE ‘THRIVED’ UNDER HITLER IN ATTACK ON TRUMP’S NIH CUTS

“If that money is cut to 15%, what that means is there’s actually going to be more grants given out to do science. You get more money back to the NIH to give out more science,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s about time,” said Dr. Erika Schwartz, the founder of Evolved Science, which is a concierge medical practice in New York City with more than 1,500 active patients.

“While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.”

HHS WILL REEVALUATE PROGRAMS, REGULATIONS TO ENSURE TAXPAYER FUNDS ARE NOT PAYING FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS

Dr. Erika Schwartz is the founder of a New York City-based practice, Evolved Science, which utilizes new therapies to improve patient results.

Prasad posited that universities and research institutions have negotiated “sweetheart deals” that allow them to rake in funds that sometimes aren’t even necessary to the research at hand. To demonstrate his point, he explained the numbers for a research institution that has negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs:

“Let’s say I get $100,000 [for a research project] and I need a laboratory… I get $100,000, and then they still get the $57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and presumably the fact that I have a lab bench, and the lights, etc. But now let’s say I do the same $100,000 project, but my project is we’re going to analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So, I just have a laptop… but they still get the $57,000 even though there’s literally no space being given to this person. There’s no bench, there’s no desk, there’s nothing.”

Prasad added that another “fundamental problem” with these negotiated rates is that the money is not formally budgeted, so “the American people don’t know where that money is going.”

DOGE CANCELS FUNDING FOR FAUCI MUSEUM EXHIBIT

“A famous researcher once said to me, an NIH dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for whatever purpose they want. Although, nominally, they’re supposed to use it to keep the lights on and, you know, make the buildings run, but that’s not always the case,” he said.

Dr. Vinay Prasad is a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

David Whelan, a former healthcare writer for Forbes who has spent time working in hospitals and now works in the healthcare consulting space, echoed this concern in a post on X that claimed universities have used indirect research grant payments “to pocket money.”

“Indirects are just ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket money that their investigators won and then create slush for those who are incapable of getting funded on their own,” Whelan wrote. “It’s a huge grift and great place for cuts.”

‘LOST ALL CRTEDIBILITY’: NONPROFIT CEO DELIVERS DEMAND TO TRUMP HHS AMID ‘FAILED’ HUMAN TRAFFICKING HOTLINE

The Trump administration’s cap on indirect funding associated with NIH research grants was immediately challenged in court with lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general and a cohort of universities, which argued the move will “devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a $9 billion spending cut in response to a new mandate from the Trump administration. (Alamy/Getty Images)

“Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. “The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.”

In response to the lawsuit from Democratic state attorneys general, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order prohibiting NIH agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The judge’s order also required Trump administration agencies that are impacted by the new rule to file reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, an in-person hearing date on the matter has been scheduled for Feb. 21.

February 11, 2025
Trump NIH and FDA nominees debut new scientific journal aimed at spurring debate

President Donald Trump’s nominees to run the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are part of a group of scientists who just launched a new research journal focused on spurring scientific discourse and combating “gatekeeping” in the medical research community.

The journal, titled the Journal of the Academy of Public Health (JAPH), includes an editorial board consisting of several scientists who complained of facing censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic.

JAPH’s co-founders include Martin Kulldorff, a former Harvard Medical School professor who is a founding fellow at Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University who is also Trump’s nominee to be the next NIH director. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya became known during the pandemic for authoring The Great Barrington Declaration, which sought to challenge the broader medical community’s prevailing notions about COVID-19 mitigation strategies, arguing that – in the long run – the lockdowns that people were facing would do more harm than good.

CDC STAFF TOLD TO REMOVE TERMS LIKE ‘NON-BINARY,’ ‘THEY/THEM,’ ‘PREGNANT PEOPLE’ FROM PUBLIC HEALTH MATERIAL

Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, who is Trump’s nominee to be the next director of the FDA, is on the journal’s editorial board as well.

Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, left, appears alongside Johns Hopkins University’s Dr. Marty Makary. (Getty Images/Fox News)

JAPH is adopting a novel approach by publishing peer reviews of prominent studies from other journals that do not make their peer reviews publicly available. The effort is aimed at spurring scientific discourse, Kulldorff said in a paper outlining the purposes of the journal’s creation.

The journal will also seek to promote “open access” by making all of its work available to everyone in the public without a paywall, he said, and the journal’s editorial leadership will allow all scientists within its network to “freely publish all their research results in a timely and efficient manner,” to prevent any potential “gatekeeping.”

“Scientific journals have had enormous positive impact on the development of science, but in some ways, they are now hampering rather than enhancing open scientific discourse,” Kulldorff said. “After reviewing the history and current problems with journals, a new academic publishing model is proposed – it embraces open access and open rigorous peer review, it rewards reviewers for their important work with honoraria and public acknowledgment and it allows scientists to publish their research in a timely and efficient manner without wasting valuable scientist time and resources.”

‘WHAT A RIPOFF!’: TRUMP SPARKS BACKLASH AFTER CUTTING BILLIONS IN OVERHEAD COSTS FROM NIH RESEARCH GRANTS

Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, Makary and others on the new journal’s leadership team have complained that their views about the COVID-19 pandemic were censored. These were views that were often contrary to the prevailing ideas put forth by the broader medical community at the time, which related to topics such as vaccine efficacy, natural immunity, lockdowns and more.

(Censorship was a common complaint from medical researchers like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who were among the few scientists who promoted ideas like herd immunity and challenged the efficacy of lockdowns and vaccine mandates.)

“Big tech censored the [sic] all kinds of science on natural immunity,” Makary said in testimony to Congress following the pandemic. During his testimony, Makary also shared how one of his own studies at Johns Hopkins during the pandemic that promoted the effectiveness of natural immunity, which one scientific journal listed as its third most discussed study in 2022, “was censored.”

“Because of my views on COVID-19 restrictions, I have been specifically targeted for censorship by federal government officials,” Bhattacharya added in his own testimony to Congress the same year.

Kulldorff, who has also complained about censorship of his views on COVID-19, argued he was asked to leave his medical professorship at Harvard that he held since 2003, for “clinging to the truth” in his opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

CONSERVATIVE LAW FIRM LAUNCHES PROBE INTO FIVE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES FOR ALLEGED ‘CENSORSHIP REGIME’

Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a former Harvard Medical School professor. (Getty Images)

“The JAPH will ensure quality through open peer-review, but will not gatekeep new and important ideas for the sake of established orthodoxies,” Andrew Noymer, JAPH’s incoming editor-in-chief told Fox News Digital.

“To pick one example, in my own sub-field of infectious disease epidemiology, we have in the past few years seen too little published scholarship on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Academic publishing as it exists today is too often concerned with preservation of what we think we know, too often to the detriment of new ideas.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Bhattacharya and Makary did not wish to comment on this article.

February 11, 2025
Trump cuts $9 billion in overhead costs from NIH research grants: ‘A ripoff!’

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it would be cutting billions in overhead costs associated with federally funded research grants that go to various institutions, as part of a wider move by the Trump administration to slash wasteful spending.

The agency’s announcement unveiling the directive indicated that in fiscal year 2023, the NIH spent around $35 billion across roughly 50,000 grants that go to research institutions, such as universities and hospitals. Of that $35 billion, according to the announcement, $9 billion was allocated for “indirect costs” that cover expenses related to depreciation on buildings, equipment, capital improvements, interest on debt associated with certain buildings, and operations and maintenance expenses.

When a grant is awarded, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these “indirect costs.” According to the announcement, that percentage has historically been around 27 to 28% for each grant; however, the new directive is now imposing a 15% threshold, unless otherwise negotiated.

US SEASONAL FLU CASES SKYROCKET TO HIGHEST LEVEL IN AT LEAST 15 YEARS: CDC

A medical technologist in the molecular diagnostic lab extracts DNA from milk samples for testing at the Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell University on Dec. 10, 2024 in Ithaca, New York. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

“Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations. For example, a recent study found that the most common rate of indirect rate reimbursement by foundations was 0%, meaning many foundations do not fund indirect costs whatsoever,” NIH’s announcement, released Friday evening, stated. “In addition, many of the nation’s largest funders of research—such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—have a maximum indirect rate of 15%. And in the case of the Gates Foundation, the maximum indirect costs rate is 10% for institutions of higher education.”

Some universities responded to the new indirect cost cap with confusion and backlash.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison put out a statement arguing the new indirect cost cap will “significantly disrupt vital research activity and daily life-saving discoveries.” It added that the move will also “have an inevitable impact on student opportunities to engage in research activities.”

POSITIVE PEOPLE CAME THROUGH COVID MUCH BETTER THAN OTHERS: NEW STUDYNews of the

News of the cap on indirect costs associated with agency research grants came in a memo issued by the Office of the Director of the National Institute of Health.

At the University of Michigan, which currently has a negotiated indirect cost rate with the federal government of 56%, the school put out a statement emphasizing the “great deal of uncertainty” over how the policy will be implemented. The school said it has begun investigating the implications of this new rule on its current grants.

“It seems like it is of a piece with the sort of slash-and-burn philosophy of the current administration,” Dr. Francis P. Wilson, a Yale associate professor of medicine and public health, told the Yale Daily News. “It feels indiscriminate and abrupt, executed with little regard for the potential downstream consequences.”

The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, applauded the move in a post on social media. “Amazing job by the NIH team,” the group said in a post on social media. “Saved > $4B annually in excessive grant administrative costs.”

The National Institutes of Health under President Donald Trump put a cap on indirect costs associated with agency research grants, as part of a wider move to reduce wasteful government spending. (Alamy/Getty Images)

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead’?” Musk also posted on social media. “What a ripoff!”

“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less,” added White House spokesperson Kush Desai in an emailed statement to reporters.

Fox News Digital reached out directly to the NIH for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

February 10, 2025
NIH resumes critical grant making process

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will resume important meetings and travel associated with the critical grant-review process amid an agency-wide communications freeze at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

While the agency is working its way back to normalcy, its operations are still not completely back to what they were before President Donald Trump took office. The advisory council and scientific review meetings associated with the NIH’s grant-making process, in which outside scientists provide a final grant review and strategic advice before the finalization of a new program, have continued but will not yet meet in open session.

When Trump took office, he initiated a freeze on external communications at HHS and all of its sub-agencies. Earlier this week, HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said that “several types of external communications” are no longer subject to the pause, and “all HHS divisions have been given clear guidance on how to seek approval for any other type of mass communication.”

MEDICAL EXPERT GIVES HEALTHY, COST-EFFECTIVE PROTEIN ALTERNATIVES FOR CHICKEN, EGGS

A seal that reads “U.S. Public Health Service” adorns a building on the campus of the National Institutes of Health, March 9, 2001, in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Newsmakers)

NIH is currently taking things day-by-day to ensure they are meeting their obligations under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs the operation of federal advisory committees and emphasizes public involvement through open meetings and reporting.

Last week, NIH director Matthew Memoli sent a letter to staff seeking to clarify the ongoing communications pause. According to Memoli, the freeze had been issued to “allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization,” but noted that due to “confusion on the scope of the pause” he wanted to provide additional guidance.

In addition to halting announcements, press releases, website and social media posts, new guidance, and new regulations, the freeze also halted public appearances and travel by agency officials, and prohibited new purchases or service requests related to agency work. The move caused anger and confusion among both HHS officials and those in the broader medical community, particularly due to the potential pause of critical health research.

SEAFOOD SAMPLES CONTAIN HIGH LEVELS OF MICROPLASTICS IN US STATE, SAY RESEARCHERS

NIH Acting Director Matthew Memoli

In his memo to staff, Memoli clarified that any research or clinical trials initiated before Jan. 20 can keep going “so that this work can continue, and we do not lose our investment in these studies.” Officials working on these studies may also purchase any “necessary supplies” and conduct meetings related to such work. Although new research projects are still prohibited, NIH staff were told they could continue submitting papers to medical journals and can communicate with those journals about submitted work.

Travel and hiring for such work can continue as well, Memoli indicated, but his office must grant specific exemptions for new hires as Trump also initiated a freeze on the hiring of new federal civilian employees across all agencies during his first week in office. Routine travel planned for after Feb. 1 “does not need to be canceled at this time,” Memoli added. Patients receiving treatment at NIH facilities can also continue to do so.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

NIH can also submit documents to the Federal Register and send correspondence to public officials.

While the pause at HHS has caused a firestorm of concern and criticism, Dr. Ali Khan, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientist who is now the dean of the University of Nebraska’s school of public health, told the Associated Press that such pauses are not unusual. Khan said concern is only warranted if the pause was aimed at “silencing the agencies around a political narrative.”

February 7, 2025
NIH says research, clinical studies can continue amid HHS freeze

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Acting Director Matthew Memoli sought to clarify the extent of the Trump administration’s freeze on communications and other functions within the Health and Human Services Department, which has raised concern among agency officials and lawmakers.

Memoli’s memo, sent Monday to leaders across the NIH’s more than two dozen centers and institutions, said the freeze had been issued to “allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization,” but noted that due to “confusion on the scope of the pause” he wanted to provide additional guidance.

The internal memo was first reported by STAT News .The NIH did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

TRUMP DEI CRACKDOWNS LAUDED FOR BRINGING MERIT BACK TO MEDICINE: ‘MAKE HEALTHCARE GREAT AGAIN’

Last week, the new Trump administration abruptly paused external communications at HHS through the first of next month. In addition to halting announcements, press releases, website and social media posts, new guidance, and new regulations, the freeze also halted public appearances and travel by agency officials, and prohibited new purchases or service requests related to agency work.

A scientist demonstrates pipetting viscous genomic DNA at the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center in Rockville, MD on April 13, 2023.

The move caused anger and confusion among both HHS officials and those in the broader medical community. Following the directive, scientific meetings and grant reviews were canceled, raising significant concerns about the impact on research.

“We write to express our grave concerns about actions that have taken place in recent days that potentially disrupt lifesaving research being conducted and supported by the National Institutes of Health,” a trio of Democratic lawmakers from Maryland said in a Monday letter to HHS’s Acting Secretary Dr. Dorothy Fink. “Without quick corrective action, the consequences of further disruption could be disastrous.”

According to Memoli’s memo, while agency officials are not permitted to begin new research while the pause is in effect, any research or clinical trials initiated before Jan. 20 can keep going “so that this work can continue, and we do not lose our investment in these studies.” Officials working on these studies may also purchase any “necessary supplies” and conduct meetings related to such work. Although new research projects are still prohibited, NIH staff can continue submitting papers to medical journals and can communicate with those journals about submitted work.

TRUMP AND A HEALTHIER AMERICA WELCOMED BY DOCTORS: ‘NEW GOLDEN AGE’

A seal that reads “U.S. Public Health Service” adorns a building on the campus of the National Institutes of Health, March 9, 2001, in Bethesda, Maryland. (Mark Wilson/Newsmakers)

The freeze on purchases was further clarified by Memoli’s memo, which indicated that while the pause remains, purchases “directly related to human safety, human or animal healthcare, security, biosafety, biosecurity, or IT security,” can continue. Travel and hiring for such work can continue as well, Memoli indicated, but his office must grant specific exemptions for new hires as President Donald Trump also initiated a freeze on the hiring of new federal civilian employees across all agencies during his first week in office.

Routine travel planned for after Feb. 1 “does not need to be canceled at this time,” Memoli added. Patients receiving treatment at NIH facilities can also continue to do so.

AI HAS PUT MEDICINE IN ‘HYPER SPEED,’ DR. MARC SIEGEL SAYS

Meanwhile, external communications will continue to be prohibited except for “announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical.” On Monday, amid the freeze, Fink announced that HHS would begin evaluating its current practices to ensure they meet federal requirements under the Hyde Amendment, a law prohibiting the use of federal funds for non-medically necessary, elective abortions.

One subject area that was notably absent from Memoli’s memo to federal health leaders was clarifications around grant review meetings. However, the acting director’s memo concluded by indicating that further guidance is expected to be made available later this week.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services building, also known as the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, is located at the foot of Capitol Hill in the nation’s capital. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

While the pause at HHS has caused a firestorm of concern and criticism, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientist who is now the dean of the University of Nebraska’s school of public health, Dr. Ali Khan, told the Associated Press that such pauses are not unusual. Khan said concern is only warranted if the pause was aimed at “silencing the agencies around a political narrative.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I think the intention of such a chaotic freezing of communications was to scare us, to demoralize us, and to set science back a bit in an effort to make us look bad,” said a long-time NIH staffer who spoke to Forbes on the condition of anonymity. “We are by no means perfect, but, ffs, our job is literally to enable research to save lives, what the heck?”

January 28, 2025