Happy New Year 2025

Tag: research

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
Assoc of American Med Schools chief says medical research needs ‘regulatory relief’

While the debate over President Donald Trump’s cuts to facilities and administrative costs associated with federally funded research grants rages on, one expert in the field of medicine says he sees a clear way forward.

Dr. David Skorton, president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges, has had a wide-ranging career spanning government, higher education and medicine. He now runs a national association that oversees all Medical Doctorate-granting schools in the country, and about 500 academic health systems teaching hospitals. Skorton told Fox News Digital that while he does not agree with Trump’s blanket cuts, the current status quo needs changing. He cited over-regulation as a reason why facilities and administrative costs have gotten so “wildly expensive.”

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

He also said that transparency from research institutions could help create better awareness of how taxpayer dollars are being used to support those institutions that have become the bane of critics who say they are stockpiling taxpayer dollars for their own benefit.

Dr. David Skorton, president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents all the MD-granting accredited medical schools in the country, and about 500 academic health systems teaching hospitals. (Fox News)

“In some cases, more than one agency will develop regulations, and the researchers have to answer to all of those different agency regulations. We should be able to harmonize those things and come out with a more thoughtful approach to reducing some of the regulatory burden,” Skorton said. He added that, in turn, researchers will be able to spend more time doing what they do best, research, which in the long run will mean greater results for the public.

“It would also mean that the costs would go down because the additional personnel, the additional things that are necessary to keep track of things for these regulations, that would also go down,” Skorton pointed out.

JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ORDER LIMITING ‘INDIRECT’ NIH RESEARCH COSTS AFTER PUBLIC OUTCRY

Skorton said that the impact of reducing over-regulation will be two-fold: it will improve the current research environment and show that there is room for collaboration to reduce overhead costs while not threatening new research. In particular, he pointed to research involving human or animal subjects, which Skorton said is often riddled with regulatory requirements that, while important, could be streamlined.

The National Institutes of Health is facing a shakeup with the new administration, worrying some about how it may impact critical aspects of public health. (Fox News)

Skorton added that the AAMC was “very hungry” to work with the administration on improving this framework, noting that “we’re not here to claim that the status quo is perfect, and we want to defend it, but the idea of very quickly knocking down the facilities and administrative costs to what felt like an arbitrary number to many of us, 15%, will cause research to be reduced.”

The AAMC president said there is an onus on research institutions as well to better educate folks about where their taxpayer dollars are going when they are utilized by federally funded research programs.

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

“For every dollar that we get at universities, medical schools, et cetera, for research from the NIH or some other science agency, for every dollar another half dollar, roughly, is contributed by the institution,” Skorton pointed out. “That’s something that maybe people don’t realize, and why would they, because we have to be more clear in making that visible, that we already contribute a lot to the research.”

In fiscal year 2023, the NIH spent around $35 billion across roughly 50,000 grants that went to research institutions, such as universities and hospitals. Of that $35 billion, according to the Trump administration, $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. (iStock)

Fox News Digital spoke to medical experts who have supported Trump’s blanket cut to administrative and facilities costs, and they argue that reducing this price burden on the federal government will increase the availability of new research grants, while getting rid of financial bloat that universities have been able to take advantage of at the taxpayers’ expense.

One of the doctors who shared their thoughts, Dr. Erika Schwartz, echoed calls for reform to the current structure, similar to Skorton.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“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,” Schwartz said. “This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.”

February 14, 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
Judge blocks Trump admin directive capping costs tied to federal research grants

A judge temporarily halted a directive by the Trump administration that imposed a cap on overhead costs that go to universities and other institutions that host federally funded research projects.

The directive, which went into effect Monday, sparked an outcry of criticism from research institutions that argued the new rule would have devastating consequences. It was immediately challenged in court by 22 Democratic state attorneys general, as well as by several leading research universities and related groups in a second lawsuit.

U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelley subsequently ruled in favor of the 22 state attorneys general, granting their request for a temporary restraining order that prohibits agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule that imposed a cap on facilities and administrative costs that are part of federally funded research grants.

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

The rule capped overhead costs associated with National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research grants at 15%.

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 even higher, such as at the University of Michigan where the negotiated rate for indirect costs is 56%.

In fiscal year 2023, the NIH spent around $35 billion on roughly 50,000 grants that go to research institutions, such as universities and hospitals. Of that $35 billion, according to the Trump administration, $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. (iStock)

The lawsuit from the attorneys general argued the move violated federal law governing the procedures federal agencies must follow when implementing new regulations. They also argued that the move usurped the will of Congress, which, in 2018, passed legislation prohibiting the NIH or the Health and Human Services Department from unilaterally making changes to current negotiated rates, or implementing a modified approach to the reimbursement of indirect costs.

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

Kelley’s temporary restraining order requires the 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 her order. Meanwhile, Kelley set an in-person hearing date on the matter for Feb. 21.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on the restraining order, but did not hear back at press time. However, after the directive went into effect on Monday, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Fox News Digital, “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.”

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)

Earlier on Monday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said the Trump administration had violated his order halting a federal aid funding freeze that sought to pause “all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,” to ensure federal disbursements aligned with the president’s executive actions.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

McConnell ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding,” noting that plaintiffs had provided adequate evidence to show the Trump administration “in some cases [has] continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” despite his “clear and unambiguous” order lifting the freeze.

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
CDC staff told to remove terms like ‘Non-binary,’ ‘They/Them’ from future research

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been told to remove words frequently associated with progressive gender ideology from research manuscripts that they intend to publish.

A screenshot of a leaked internal email sent out to CDC staff, obtained by the newsletter Inside Medicine, showed a list of terms and phrases that must be removed from scientific manuscripts produced by the agency’s researchers and intended for publication.

Those terms included: “gender,” “transgender,” “pregnant person,” “pregnant people,” “LGBT,” “transsexual,” “non-binary,” “nonbinary,” “assigned male at birth,” “assigned female at birth,” “biologically male” and “biologically female.” According to the Washington Post, the list includes about 20 terms. They indicated that the directive also ordered the removal of any use of “they/them.”

LGBT ACTIVISTS MOBILIZE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP’S ‘EXTREME GENDER IDEOLOGY’ EXECUTIVE ORDERS

The rule affects manuscripts under review, as well as those accepted but not yet published, no matter whether they are intended for internal circulation only or circulation outside the CDC.

A CDC spokesperson told Fox News Digital that “All changes to HHS and HHS division websites/manuscripts are in accordance with President Trump’s January 20 Executive Orders.”

After taking office last month, President Donald Trump signed a slew of Day One executive orders, including one that attempts to root out “gender ideology extremism” and restore “biological truth” to the federal government. Meanwhile, in line with that order, the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management issued a memo a little over a week later calling on all federal agencies to “take prompt actions to end all agency programs that use taxpayer money to promote or reflect gender ideology.”

FEDS SPENT MILLIONS STUDYING TRANS MENSTRUATION, STRENGTHENING GAY RIGHTS IN THE BALKANS, DATABASE REVEALS

LGBT advocates and medical organizations sued the Trump administration over his executive order barring federal funds from going toward transgender surgeries for those under the age of 19. (Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition to the terms, CDC web pages titled “Supporting LGBTQ+ Youth | Adolescent and School Health” and “April 18 is National Transgender HIV Testing Day” have also been removed.

The removal of the terms may make it hard to read surveys and research that utilizes them as demographic identifiers, The Post reported.

“If you are trying to optimize society, you can’t just pretend some people aren’t in it,” executive director of the National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network, Scout, who legally goes by only one name, told The Post.

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