Key Takeaways
- Sixteen state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the HHS and NIH over research grant terminations.
- The lawsuit seeks to prevent the cancellation of research grants and demands a review of delayed applications.
- Political influences from the Trump administration are cited as a major factor behind the funding cuts, which may hinder public health efforts.
State Attorneys General Challenge Grant Cancellations
Sixteen state attorneys general have initiated legal action against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), contesting the recent termination of research grants. This lawsuit marks the second significant legal challenge to the funding cancellations within a week. The defendants include HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH Director Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, along with nearly all of NIH’s 27 institutes. The case has been brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The state officials are seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions to halt the cancellation of grants and to compel health agencies to reconsider delayed funding applications. The plaintiffs argue that these cancellations are “unlawful” and are requesting relief from what they describe as unreasonable and intentional delays in the grant application process.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs, expressed strong disapproval of the cancellations, stating, “Once again, the Trump administration is putting politics before public health and risking lives and livelihoods in the process.” She emphasized the vital role that U.S. research institutions play in providing treatments and cures for diseases that afflict many families. James indicated that the funding cuts signify an attack on science and medical innovation.
The coalition of attorneys general represents a diverse group of states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. A spokesperson from HHS stated that the department does not comment on ongoing litigation.
This lawsuit follows another legal case filed against the NIH and HHS, targeting the funding revocations of over $1.1 billion. This earlier suit includes the American Public Health Association and various researchers aiming to reverse these cancellations.
The funding cuts emerged shortly after President Donald Trump took office, with his administration launching an initiative aimed at reducing NIH grants, particularly focusing on “indirect costs” associated with research. Such costs encompass essential resources like facilities, equipment, and administrative expenses.
Under the Trump administration, funding for scientific research has been affected by political directives, including limitations on research that does not comply with executive orders recognizing only two genders or opposing diversity initiatives. Historically, the NIH has maintained a budget of nearly $48 billion, positioning it as the largest public funder of biomedical research worldwide. The current funding controversies and litigations highlight the tensions between scientific funding and political considerations, raising concerns about potential impacts on health research and innovation.
The content above is a summary. For more details, see the source article.