In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. “Dissent,” he said, “is the very essence of science.”

That commitment is being put to the test.

On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, a frontal challenge to “policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe”.

It says: “We dissent.”

In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, more than 90 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter – and their careers on the line.

They went public in the face of a “culture of fear and suppression” they say Donald Trump’s administration has spread through the federal civil service. “We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,” the declaration says.

Named for the agency’s headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world’s premier public health research institution over the course of mere months.

It addresses the abrupt termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12bn and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants.

In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients.

In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. “Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,” it says, “it wastes $4 million.”

The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya but also sent to the health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, was endorsed by 250 anonymous employees of the agency besides the 92 who signed.

Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency’s National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Senator Angela Alsobrooks to talk about what is happening at the NIH.

At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration.

“I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,” Norton told the Associated Press.

The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya’s own Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School.

His declaration drew together like-minded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive Covid-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH.

“He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,” said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH’s National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration.

As chief of the health systems and interventions research branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who have been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. But sudden cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. “So much of it is gone – my work,” she said.

The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because “I don’t want to be a collaborator” in the political manipulation of biomedical science.

Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. “We have a saying in basic science,” he said. “You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients.

“We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,” he added. But that will not happen, he said, if Trump’s Republican administration prevails with its searing cuts to grants.

The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes or the NIH.

Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants.

The letter asserts that “NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety” and that the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who “braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health”.

The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money.

This has forced “indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science”, the declaration says.

Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya’s town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH’s direction.

A Signal group became the place for participants to sort through NIH chatter on Reddit, discern rumor from reality and offer mutual support. The declaration took shape in that group and as word spread neighbor to neighbor in NIH offices.

The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a linchpin in science.

With that in place, he said in a statement in April: “NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.”

Now it will be seen whether that is enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him.

“There’s a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can’t be brave if you’re not scared,” said Norton, who has three young children. “I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it’s only going to get harder to speak up.

“Maybe I’m putting my kids at risk by doing this,” she added. “And I’m doing it anyway because I couldn’t live with myself otherwise.”

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases employee Jenna Norton, National Institute for General Medical Sciences employee Ian Morgan and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases former employee Anna Culbertson sit for a portrait in Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.,… Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

Item 1 of 6 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases employee Jenna Norton, National Institute for General Medical Sciences employee Ian Morgan and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases former employee Anna Culbertson sit for a portrait in Bethesda, Maryland, U.S., June 8, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

Summary NIH employees say cuts risk patient health and waste tax dollars

Researchers say agency has ignored scientific vetting to “cater to political whims”

NIH director faces budget questions at Senate hearing Tuesday

June 9 (Reuters) – Dozens of scientists, researchers and other employees at the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a rare public rebuke Monday criticizing the Trump administration for major spending cuts that “harm the health of Americans and people across the globe,” politicize research and “waste public resources.”

More than 60 current employees sent their letter to NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee NIH. Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify Tuesday at the U.S. Senate appropriations committee about his agency’s budget.

Sign up here.

Overall, more than 340 current and recently terminated NIH employees signed the letter, about 250 of them anonymously.

In their letter, NIH staff members said the agency had terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since President Donald Trump took office Jan. 20. The contracts often support research, from covering equipment to nursing staff working on clinical trials.

These terminations “throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars” and put patient health at risk, the letter said. NIH clinical trials “are being halted without regard to participant safety, abruptly stopping medications or leaving participants with unmonitored device implants.”

In a statement shared with Reuters, Bhattacharya said the employees’ letter “has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months … Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.”

In prior remarks, Bhattacharya has pledged support for Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again agenda, and he has said that means focusing the federal government’s “limited resources” directly on combating chronic diseases. At his Senate confirmation hearings in March, Bhattacharya said he would ensure scientists working at NIH and funded by the agency have the necessary resources to meet its mission.

NIH is the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research and has long enjoyed bipartisan support from U.S. lawmakers. The Trump administration has proposed cutting $18 billion, or 40%, from NIH’s budget next year, which would leave the agency with $27 billion. Nearly 5,000 NIH employees and contractors have been laid off under Kennedy’s restructuring of U.S. health agencies, according to NIH staff.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, said the agency’s staffing must evolve to meet changing priorities and to ensure good use of taxpayer dollars. The official also defended NIH’s funding decisions, saying the agency was “working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process.”

Dr. Jenna Norton, a program director within NIH’s division of kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases, was one of 69 current employees who signed the letter as of early Monday. She said speaking out publicly was worth the risk to her career and family.

“I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up,” Norton said. “There are very real concerns that we’re being asked to do likely illegal activities, and certainly unethical activities that breach our rules.”

About 20 NIH employees who were recently terminated as probationary workers or “subject to reductions in force” added their names to the letter.

In the letter, Norton and other NIH employees asked Bhattacharya to restore grants that were delayed or terminated for political reasons, where officials ignored peer review to “cater to political whims.” They wrote that Bhattacharya had failed to uphold his legal duty to spend congressionally appropriated funds.

One program director at the NIH’s National Cancer Institute, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said she has repeatedly been asked to cancel research grants for no valid reason and in violation of agency rules. She said she fears she could become the target of lawsuits from grantees challenging those decisions.

Dr. Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist and core director at NIH’s Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said he and other researchers want to work with Bhattacharya on reversing the cuts and restoring the NIH as a “beacon for science around the world.”

“This is really a hit to the whole enterprise of biomedical research in the United States,” Feldman said.

Dr. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, signed the letter and said he has heard from university researchers about patients losing access to novel cancer treatments in clinical trials due to the uncertainty over NIH funding. He also worries about the long-term effect from gutting NIH’s investment in basic science research that can lead to lifesaving treatments years later.

The NIH employees, based in Bethesda, Maryland, named their dissent the “Bethesda Declaration,” modeled after Bhattacharya’s Great Barrington Declaration in 2020 that called on public health officials to roll back lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our hope is that by modeling ourselves after the Great Barrington Declaration that maybe he’ll see himself in our dissent,” Norton said.

Reporting by Chad Terhune in Los Angeles; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Chizu Nomiyama

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

President Donald Trump’s new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president’s escalating campaign of immigration enforcement.

Meanwhile, scores of scientists at the National Institutes of Health sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, a frontal challenge to policies they say undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources and harm people’s health.

Here’s the latest:

16 states suing Trump administration over plan to allow sale of forced-reset triggers

The lawsuit, which is also over plans to return seized devices, was announced Monday.

The states argue that returning the triggers, which make semiautomatic rifles fire more rapidly, would violate federal law, pose a threat to residents and law enforcement and worsen gun violence. The administration announced the deal last month.

It resolves a series of cases over the aftermarket trigger the government had previously argued qualify as machine guns under federal law, saying they’re essentially illegal machine gun conversion devices because constant finger pressure on the triggers will keep a rifle firing essentially like an automatic weapon.

Latinas for Trump founder says she’s now disappointed by recent escalation of immigrant arrests

“I have always supported Trump, @realDonaldTrump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane,” said Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach. She posted the message on X over the weekend. “I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal.”

Garcia was referring to Stephen Miller, a key architect of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Garcia also said “this is not what we voted for.”

However, Trump promised voters he would conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions

As President Trump builds a crypto empire — including hosting a private dinner with top investors at his golf club — Democrats have united in condemning what they call blatant corruption from the White House.

But the Democratic Party’s own relationship with the emerging crypto industry is far less cut and dried.

Work in the Republican-led Senate to legitimize cryptocurrency by adding guardrails has drawn backing from some Democrats, underscoring growing support for the industry in the party. But divisions have opened over the bill, with many demanding it prevent the Republican president and his family from directly profiting from cryptocurrency.

“I’m all on board with the idea of regulating crypto,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “But at this moment, when cryptocurrency is being so clearly used by Donald Trump to facilitate his corruption, I don’t think you can close your eyes to that when you’re legislating.”

▶ Read more about Democrats and cryptocurrency

Rare earth minerals expected to be the major issue in China-US trade talks

A senior White House official says he expects a “short meeting with a big, strong handshake” on the export of rare earth minerals from China.

Appearing on CNBC this morning, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said it was a “very significant, sticking point” because China, which controls the processing of critical minerals, has been “slow rolling” in sending the materials to U.S. over licensing requirements.

“It could potentially disrupt production for, you know, some U.S. companies that rely on those things,” Hassett said. High-level U.S. and Chinese officials are meeting today in London for their latest round of trade talks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom to sue Trump over National Guard deployment

Newsom, a Democrat, told MSNBC he plans to file suit Monday against the Trump administration to roll back the Guard deployment, which he called “an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.”

Trump has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal troops when there is ”a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

But Newsom said he believed the president was required to coordinate with the state’s governor before ordering such a deployment.

“We’re going to test that theory with a lawsuit tomorrow,” Newsom said Sunday night.

▶ Follow live updates on the immigration protests

Preparations underway for military parade

Security precautions are already being put in place ahead of this Saturday’s military parade. Workers were assembling black metal barriers near the White House on Monday morning.

More information on preparations will be announced in the afternoon during a briefing with local and federal officials.

Trump expected to speak to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The American and Israeli leaders plan to speak Monday morning, according to a White House official. The official requested anonymity before a public announcement.

Trump has been pushing for a nuclear agreement with Iran, while Netanyahu is wary of the diplomatic effort.

— Seung Min Kim

ABC News suspends correspondent for calling Trump administration official a ‘world class hater’

ABC News has suspended correspondent Terry Moran for calling Trump administration deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller a “world class hater” in a since-deleted social media post.

Moran’s post was swiftly condemned by administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance. ABC News, in a statement, said it “stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others.”

The network said Moran was suspended pending further evaluation.

Moran, in his post on X at 12:06 a.m. on Sunday, said President Trump was a hater, too. But he wrote that for Trump, his hatred is a means to an end, “and that end is his own glorification.” For Miller, “his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.”

Trump’s Monday schedule, according to the White House

This morning, Trump is traveling back to the White House from Camp David. Later today, at 2 p.m., he’ll participate in an “Invest America Roundtable” event at the White House.

Trump was awake past midnight raging against the protests in LA and calling for a crackdown

“Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” he wrote on Truth Social at 12:16 a.m. ET.

Trump has already deployed 300 members of the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The military said 500 Marines were on standby.

“ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!” Trump wrote at 12:19 a.m.

Trump cited Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell’s recent comments to defend his response to the protests.

“Don’t let these thugs get away with this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump wrote at 12:14 a.m.

“This thing has gotten out of control,” McDonell said Sunday.

“We have great cops in Southern California here that work together all the time,” he said. But he added that “looking at the violence tonight, I think we gotta make a reassessment.”

US and China are holding trade talks in London after Trump’s phone call with Xi

High-level delegations from the U.S. and China are meeting in London on Monday to try and shore up a fragile truce in a trade dispute that’s roiled the global economy.

A Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier He Lifeng was due to hold talks with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer at a U.K. government building.

The talks, which are expected to last at least a day, follow negotiations in Geneva last month that brought a temporary respite in the trade war.

The two countries announced May 12 they had agreed to a 90-day suspension of most of the 100%-plus tariffs they had imposed on each other in an escalating trade war that had sparked fears of recession.

▶ Read more about trade talks between the U.S. and China

In the ‘Bethesda Declaration,’ NIH scientists step forward en masse to denounce their agency’s direction

Scores of National Institutes of Health scientists have gone public to assail deep program cuts and upheaval at their agency under the Trump administration.

On Monday, more than 90 current employees sent their leader a letter entitled the Bethesda Declaration. It’s a frontal challenge to policies it says “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.”

By signing their names, the NIH employees gave up the veil of anonymity common in Washington — and put their jobs at risk. Their declaration was endorsed anonymously by 250 other NIH researchers and staff. Altogether, employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers registered their dismay with the agency’s direction.

▶ Read more about dissent at the National Institutes of Health

Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences’ if he backs Democratic candidates

Trump is not backing off his battle with Elon Musk, saying Saturday that he has no desire to repair their relationship and warning that his former ally and campaign benefactor could face “serious consequences” if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections.

Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is over, Trump responded, “I would assume so, yeah.”

“I’m too busy doing other things,” Trump said.

The president also issued a warning amid chatter that Musk could back Democratic lawmakers and candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.

“If he does, he’ll have to pay the consequences for that,” Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Musk’s businesses have many lucrative federal contracts.

▶ Read more about Trump’s comments

Mike Johnson downplays Musk’s influence and says Republicans will pass Trump’s tax and budget bill

Johnson took clear sides Sunday in Trump’s breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk, saying Musk’s criticism of the GOP’s massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk’s influence over the GOP-controlled Congress.

“I didn’t go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,” Johnson said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Johnson said he has exchanged text messages with Musk since he came out against the GOP bill.

Musk called it an “abomination” that would add to U.S. debts and threaten economic stability. He urged voters to flood Capitol Hill with calls to vote against the measure, which is pending in the Senate after clearing the House. His criticism sparked an angry social media back-and-forth with Trump, who told reporters over the weekend that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk.

The speaker was dismissive of Musk’s threats to finance opponents — even Democrats — of Republican members who back Trump’s bill.

▶ Read more about Johnson’s comments

Trump’s new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement

Trump’s new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president’s escalating campaign of immigration enforcement.

The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don’t hold a valid visa.

The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all U.S. diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect.

▶ Read more about the travel ban

The Associated Press

Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions, January 20, 2025

PURPOSE: Initial rescissions of Executive Orders and Actions issued by President Biden. Among these orders are several that addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and global health security, such as Executive Order 13987 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government To Provide a Unified and Effective Response To Combat COVID-19 and To Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security), which among other things established the National Security Council Directorate on Global Health Security and Biodefense and a Senior Director position to oversee it. What Happens Next/Implications: Given that most of the provisions in the COVID-19 and Global Health Security actions issued by President Biden are no longer current or relevant, the rescissions of these actions are likely to have minimal effect on government policies. One exception may be the elimination of the Directorate of Global Health Security and Biodefense and its Senior Director at the National Security Council, which were responsible for interagency coordination on global health security matters during the Biden Administration. The elimination of this office echoes a similar move made during the first Trump Administration to eliminate an NSC Directorate for Global Health Security, and raises questions about who and which offices at NSC (and across the government) will fill this coordination role in the new Administration. More rescissions of other Biden administration Executive Actions may be issued at a later date.

Withdrawing The United States From The World Health Organization, January 20, 2025

PURPOSE: To withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). “The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.” ACTIONS: The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO. The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked.

Executive Order 13987 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and Effective Response to Combat COVID–19 and To Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security), which, among other things, called for “engaging with and strengthening the World Health Organization” is revoked.

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall establish directorates and coordinating mechanisms within the National Security Council apparatus as necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.

The Secretary of State and Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take actions to pause future transfer of any U.S. funds, support, or resources to WHO; recall and reassign U.S. government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with WHO; and identify credible and transparent U.S. and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by WHO.

The Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy shall review, rescind, and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy.

The Secretary of State shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any other applicable depositary, and the leadership of the WHO of the withdrawal.

While the withdrawal is in progress, Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and states that “actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.” What Happens Next/Implications: President Trump initiated a process to withdraw from the WHO during his first term in office, a process that takes a year to finalize, and halted funding. This time period was not met when President Biden took office and he reversed this decision and restored funding. Now, after issuance of a formal letter of withdrawal United Nations and WHO, the process will be initiated once again. Such a letter has been issued, indicating that membership will end as of January 22, 2026. Per the Executive Order, U.S. government representatives may not work with WHO. While U.S. representatives attended the Executive Board meeting in February (the U.S. previously held a seat on the Executive Board), no representatives attended the World Health Assembly in May, where world leaders adopted the Pandemic Agreement. On May 30, the White House released details on the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026, requesting eliminated funding for WHO. Further, on June 3, the administration asked Congress to rescind funds previously appropriated for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including contributions to WHO. However, for both the FY 2026 appropriations and FY2024-25 rescissions, Congress will determine the final funding levels. As the largest donor to WHO providing approximately 16%-18% of the organization’s revenue, the absence of U.S. funding will have an impact WHO’s operations, as will the loss of U.S. technical expertise. See: KFF Fact Sheet and Quick Take

Reevaluating And Realigning United States Foreign Aid, January 20, 2025

PURPOSE: To pause funding and review all U.S. foreign assistance to assess alignment with American values. The U.S. “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.” “It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.” Calls for: 90-day pause in U.S. foreign development assistance (new obligations or disbursements) to assess programmatic efficiencies and consistency with U.S. foreign policy.

Review of U.S. foreign assistance programs by the responsible department and agency heads under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of OMB.

Responsible department and agency heads, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will make determinations within 90 days of this order on whether to continue, modify, or cease each foreign assistance program based upon the review recommendations, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

New obligations and disbursements may resume for a program prior to the end of the 90-day period if a review is conducted, and the Secretary of State or his designee, in consultation with the Director of OMB, decide to continue the program in the same or modified form. Additionally, any other new foreign assistance programs and obligations must be approved by the Secretary of State or his designee, in consultation with the Director of OMB.

The Secretary of State may waive the pause for specific programs. What Happens Next/Implications: Almost all global health programs are funded through foreign aid appropriations and are therefore subject to this order. The order temporarily freezes any new U.S. government spending (obligations or disbursements) through these programs, which could interrupt implementation of programs for which funds have not yet been obligated. It also calls for a 90-day review of all foreign aid programs. Key developments are as follows: On January 24, 2025 , A Notice on Implementation of the Executive Order was issued by USAID which, among other things, calls for stop-work orders to be issued for all existing foreign assistance awards (not just new obligations and disbursements). It notes that waivers have been granted for: foreign military financing for Israel and Egypt and emergency food assistance (and related expenses) and, on a temporary basis, salaries and related administrative expenses, including travel, for U.S. direct hire employees, personal services contractors, and locally employed staff. The stop-work order on existing awards halted U.S. global health (and other foreign assistance) programs that were already underway, placing key programs at risk of not being able to provide critical services, and affecting access for individuals on the ground, unless a waiver was received.

, A Notice on Implementation of the Executive Order was issued by USAID which, among other things, calls for stop-work orders to be issued for all existing foreign assistance awards (not just new obligations and disbursements). It notes that waivers have been granted for: foreign military financing for Israel and Egypt and emergency food assistance (and related expenses) and, on a temporary basis, salaries and related administrative expenses, including travel, for U.S. direct hire employees, personal services contractors, and locally employed staff. The stop-work order on existing awards halted U.S. global health (and other foreign assistance) programs that were already underway, placing key programs at risk of not being able to provide critical services, and affecting access for individuals on the ground, unless a waiver was received. On January 28 , the Secretary of State issued a blanket waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance programs, which also lays out a process for requesting additional waivers (more information is here). This guidance also states that the waiver does not apply to “activities that involve abortions, family planning, conferences, administrative costs [unless associated with waived activities], gender or DEI ideology programs, transgender surgeries, or other non-life saving assistance.”

, the Secretary of State issued a blanket waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance programs, which also lays out a process for requesting additional waivers (more information is here). This guidance also states that the waiver does not apply to “activities that involve abortions, family planning, conferences, administrative costs [unless associated with waived activities], gender or DEI ideology programs, transgender surgeries, or other non-life saving assistance.” On February 1 , PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, was granted a limited waiver enabling it to resume or continue “urgent life-saving HIV treatment services”, defined as a set of care and treatment services and prevention of mother-to-child transmission services.

, PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, was granted a limited waiver enabling it to resume or continue “urgent life-saving HIV treatment services”, defined as a set of care and treatment services and prevention of mother-to-child transmission services. On February 4 , some additional services for other global health programs – tuberculosis; malaria; acute risks of maternal and child mortality, including severe acute malnutrition; and other life-threatening diseases and health conditions – deemed to be “lifesaving” were also granted a limited waiver to allow them to resume or continue.

, some additional services for other global health programs – tuberculosis; malaria; acute risks of maternal and child mortality, including severe acute malnutrition; and other life-threatening diseases and health conditions – deemed to be “lifesaving” were also granted a limited waiver to allow them to resume or continue. On February 6 , a lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees, challenging the foreign aid funding freeze, the plan to put most staff on leave, and the fact that staff had already been placed on leave; on February 7 , they filed a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia preventing the government from placing additional staff on leave or evacuating staff back to the U.S., and requiring reinstatement of all staff already placed on leave, until February 14. The court did not grant a TRO on the funding freeze, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate that the freeze caused them irreparable harm. On February 13 , the court extended the TRO through February 21 (further actions are described below, as this case was combined with another for purposes of the court’s consideration).

, a lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees, challenging the foreign aid funding freeze, the plan to put most staff on leave, and the fact that staff had already been placed on leave; on , they filed a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia preventing the government from placing additional staff on leave or evacuating staff back to the U.S., and requiring reinstatement of all staff already placed on leave, until February 14. The court did not grant a TRO on the funding freeze, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate that the freeze caused them irreparable harm. On , the court extended the TRO through February 21 (further actions are described below, as this case was combined with another for purposes of the court’s consideration). On February 10 , a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of two U.S. organizations seeking emergency relief from the freeze on funding for foreign assistance (AVAC v. United States Department of State).

, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of two U.S. organizations seeking emergency relief from the freeze on funding for foreign assistance (AVAC v. United States Department of State). On February 11 , a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several U.S. organizations challenging the executive order and subsequent actions freezing foreign aid and dissolving USAID, and asking the court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing these actions (Global Health Council v. Trump).

, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several U.S. organizations challenging the executive order and subsequent actions freezing foreign aid and dissolving USAID, and asking the court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing these actions (Global Health Council v. Trump). On February 13 , the court, in a ruling pertaining to the February 10 and February 11 lawsuits brought by numerous U.S. organizations, issued a TRO preventing the Trump administration from “suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing the obligation or disbursement of

appropriated foreign-assistance funds in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025; or issuing, implementing, enforcing”, or “otherwise giving effect to terminations, suspensions, or stop-work orders in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025.”

, the court, in a ruling pertaining to the February 10 and February 11 lawsuits brought by numerous U.S. organizations, issued a TRO preventing the Trump administration from “suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing the obligation or disbursement of appropriated foreign-assistance funds in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025; or issuing, implementing, enforcing”, or “otherwise giving effect to terminations, suspensions, or stop-work orders in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025.” On February 14 , the parties filed a joint status report proposing an expedited preliminary injunction briefing schedule.

, the parties filed a joint status report proposing an expedited preliminary injunction briefing schedule. On February 18 , the government filed a required status report stating that, despite the TRO, it had the authority to cancel contracts and suspend grant awards.

, the government filed a required status report stating that, despite the TRO, it had the authority to cancel contracts and suspend grant awards. This was followed by a February 19 request by the February 10 plaintiffs (AVAC v. Department of State) for an emergency motion to enforce the TRO and to hold the defendants in civil contempt.

request by the February 10 plaintiffs (AVAC v. Department of State) for an emergency motion to enforce the TRO and to hold the defendants in civil contempt. The defendants filed a required response on February 20 , stating that they have not violated the TRO and should not be held in contempt, which was again opposed by the plaintiffs. Also on February 20, the February 11 plaintiffs (Global Health Council v. Trump) filed a response to the defendant’s status report with a motion to enforce the TRO. The court reaffirmed the TRO on February 20 (but did not hold the defendants in contempt), stating it was prepared to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motions in both cases by March 4, 2025 and that the TRO would be in place through March 10, 2025, or the date the Court resolves the preliminary injunction motions, whichever is sooner.

, stating that they have not violated the TRO and should not be held in contempt, which was again opposed by the plaintiffs. Also on February 20, the February 11 plaintiffs (Global Health Council v. Trump) filed a response to the defendant’s status report with a motion to enforce the TRO. The court reaffirmed the TRO on February 20 (but did not hold the defendants in contempt), stating it was prepared to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motions in both cases by March 4, 2025 and that the TRO would be in place through March 10, 2025, or the date the Court resolves the preliminary injunction motions, whichever is sooner. The plaintiffs filed an emergency order to enforce the TRO on February 24 , due to continued lack of payment, and the court issued a motion to enforce on February 25 . The government appealed, (asking for a stay pending appeal) but this was denied by the court. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted a stay until February 28 while the case was considered.

, due to continued lack of payment, and the court issued a motion to enforce on . The government appealed, (asking for a stay pending appeal) but this was denied by the court. The government March 5 , the Supreme Court On, the Supreme Court denied the government’s request to vacate the federal district court’s TRO, sending the order back to the district court to clarify the government’s obligations for ensuring compliance with the TRO.

March 6 , the federal district court judge ordered the government to release all payments that were due to plaintiffs as of February 13, by Monday, March 10 at 6pm, and on March 10 , the federal district court judge On, the federal district court judge ordered the government to release all payments that were due to plaintiffs as of February 13, by Monday, March 10 at 6pm, and on, the federal district court judge preliminarily enjoined the government from taking certain actions related to the foreign aid freeze.

March 10 , Secretary Rubio On, Secretary Rubio announced that a six-week review had been completed and that 83% of programs at USAID (5,200 contracts) had been cancelled. That same day, the court preliminarily enjoined the government from enforcing actions taken to implement the foreign aid freeze (requiring it to reverse any terminations, suspensions, and stop-work orders and to pay for any work completed by February 13). The court stated that the government was “enjoined from unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and shall make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024.”

On April 1 , the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the preliminary injunction issued on March 10.

, the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the preliminary injunction issued on March 10. On April 17 , the administration extended the foreign aid review for another 30 days from the original deadline of April 20, 2025.

, the administration extended the foreign aid review for another 30 days from the original deadline of April 20, 2025. On May 2 and May 30 , the White House released information on its budget request for FY 2026, proposing significant decreases, and in some cases eliminations, of funding for global health activities. However, Congress will determine the final funding levels.

and , the White House released information on its budget request for FY 2026, proposing significant decreases, and in some cases eliminations, of funding for global health activities. However, Congress will determine the final funding levels. On June 3, the administration asked Congress to rescind previously appropriated funds for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including $8.3 billion in foreign assistance, of which at least $1.2 billion was designated for global health. However, Congress will need to approve any potential rescissions. The 90-day review of foreign assistance was initially supposed to go through April 19, 2025, however, has been granted a 30-day extension.

America First Policy Directive To The Secretary Of State, January 20, 2025

PURPOSE: To put core American interests first in foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States “shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.” “As soon as practicable, the Secretary of State shall issue guidance bringing the Department of State’s policies, programs, personnel, and operations in line with an America First foreign policy, which puts America and its interests first.” What Happens Next/Implications: The State Department is responsible for the supervision and overall strategic direction of foreign assistance programs administered by the State Department and USAID, which includes the vast majority of global health assistance. It also directly oversees PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, and many aspects of global health diplomacy for the U.S. Priorities and approaches for these and other global health programs are likely to be shaped by how the White House and State Department leadership define “America First” foreign policy and American interests, and how that definition is implemented in practice. In the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026, the request proposes eliminated funding for several global health activities, including family planning and reproductive health (FPRH), neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and nutrition, stating these are “programs that do not make Americans safer”. However, Congress will determine final funding levels and whether to include these eliminations in its appropriations bills.

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government, January 20, 2025

PURPOSE: To define sex as an immutable binary biological classification and remove recognition of the concept of gender identity. The order states that “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and directs the Executive Branch to “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality”. Elements of the order that may affect global health programs are as follows: Defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”. States that “sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity” and that gender identity “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in the order within 30 days.

Directs each agency and all Federal employees to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes, including when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.

Directs each agency and all Federal employees, when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, to use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable Federal policies and documents.

Directs agencies to remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages “that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology”, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Directs agencies to take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.

Requires that Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology and directs agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.

Rescinds multiple executive orders issued by President Biden, including: “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” (13988) and “Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals” (14075). What Happens Next/Implications: This order is broad, directed to all federal agencies and programs. Because PEPFAR, and some other U.S. global health programs, serve people who are members of the LGBTQ community, guidance and implementation could affect the ability of these programs to reach individuals and organizations and provide them with services. In addition, the order will likely result in the removal of existing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which had been provided in agency guidance for global health and development programs. Implementation guidance has been issued and all federal agencies must comply.

PURPOSE: To reinstate Mexico City Policy and direct review of programs per the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. Revokes President Biden’s Presidential Memorandum of January 28, 2021 for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad)

Reinstates President Trump’s Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2017 for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (The Mexico City Policy).

Directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.

Directs the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. What Happens Next/Implications: The Mexico City Policy is a U.S. government policy that – when in effect – has required foreign NGOs to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S. funds) as a condition of receiving U.S. global family planning assistance and, when in place under the Trump administration, most other U.S. global health assistance. First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines since; it was widely expected that the President Trump would reinstate it in his second term. The new memorandum calls for the implementation of a plan to extend the requirements to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies; until the plan is ready, the scope of the new memorandum is unknown. The new memorandum also directs the Secretary of State to review programs under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, a provision of U.S. law that states that no U.S. funds may be made available to “any organization or program which, as determined by the [p]resident of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” It has been used in the past to prevent funding from going to UNFPA. See: KFF Mexico City Policy explainer and related resources and Kemp-Kasten explainer.

Renewed Membership in the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family, January 24, 2025

PURPOSE: To rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration. The United States informed signatories of the Geneva Consensus Declaration of its intent to rejoin immediately. Established in 2020, the declaration, led by the United States, has the following objectives: “to secure meaningful health and development gains for women; to protect life at all stages; to defend the family as the fundamental unit of society; and to work together across the UN system to realize these values.” What Happens Next/Implications: The Geneva Consensus Declaration, initially crafted and signed by the U.S. – along with 31 other countries at the time – was meant to enshrine certain values and principles related to women’s health and family, including a rejection of the “international right to abortion.” The Biden administration withdrew from the Consensus in 2021.

Review of and Changes to USAID, January 27, 2025

Withdrawing the United States From and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations, February 4, 2025

PURPOSE: To review United States participation in all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties and to withdraw from and end funding to certain United Nations (U.N.) organizations. The U.S. “helped found” the U.N. “after World War II to prevent future global conflicts and promote international peace and security. But some of [its] agencies and bodies have drifted from this mission and instead act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism.”

States that the U.S. “will reevaluate our commitment to these institutions,” including three organizations that “deserve renewed scrutiny”:

the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC; the U.S. will not participate in and withhold its contribution to the budget of the body),

the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO; the U.S. will conduct a review of its membership in the body within 90 days), and

the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA; reiterates that the U.S. will not contribute to the body). Requires that within 180 days: the Secretary of State, with the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the U.S. is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States and whether such organizations, conventions, or treaties can be reformed; and

the Secretary of State to report the findings of the review to the President, through the National Security Advisor, and provide recommendations as to whether the U.S. should withdraw from any such organizations, conventions, or treaties. What Happens Next/Implications: With a long history of multilateral global health engagement, the U.S. is often the largest or one of the largest donors to multilateral health efforts (i.e., multi-country, pooled support often directed through an international organization). It provided $2.4 billion in assessed or core contributions in FY 2024 – 19% of overall U.S. global health funding – as well as more funding in voluntary or non-core contributions. The U.S. is also a signatory or party to numerous global health-related international conventions, treaties, and agreements; these include those that played a role in the global COVID-19 response (such as the International Health Regulations). It often has participated in negotiations for new international instruments, although the Trump administration indicated in a Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order, listed above, that the U.S. would no longer engage in the Pandemic Agreement (sometimes called the “Pandemic Treaty”) negotiations. This Executive Order will have immediate impacts via the ordered actions related to the three U.N. organizations specified, much as the impacts of the Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order on the World Health Organization (WHO, which initiated U.S. withdrawal from membership and halted U.S. funding) are already being seen. Beyond these, additional impacts of this Executive Order will be determined by the findings and recommendations of the international organizations and conventions review, particularly if U.S. support for or membership in some international organizations is recommended to be reduced or eliminated and if it recommends the U.S. withdraw from any international agreements. Congressional notification and oversight of any proposed changes will also be important to watch, including debates about whether advice or consent or congressional notification periods are or may be required prior to withdrawing the U.S. from international instruments such as treaties. The administration has already signaled plans to discontinue support for several international organizations in its budget request for FY 2026 by proposing eliminated funding for Gavi, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). However, Congress will determine final funding levels and whether to include these eliminations in its appropriations bills. The 180 day review of all international intergovernmental organizations goes through August 3, 2025.

Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies, February 6, 2025

PURPOSE: The memorandum seeks to “stop funding Nongovernmental Organizations that undermine the national interest and administration priorities”. The memorandum: States: it is Administration policy “to stop funding NGOs [Nongovernmental Organizations] that undermine the national interest.”

Directs heads of executive departments and agencies to review all funding that agencies provide to NGOs and “to align future funding decisions with the interests of the United States and with the goals and priorities of my Administration, as expressed in executive action; as otherwise determined in the judgment of the heads of agencies; and on the basis of applicable authorizing statues, regulations, and terms.” What Happens Next/Implications: This memo aligns with other Executive actions that target federal funding for global health and foreign assistance programs. Implementation of this memo could result in the Administration halting funding to global health NGOs they determine “do not align with administration priorities.” No criteria for how this determination will be made has been provided. The majority of U.S. global health assistance is channeled through NGOs. In FY22, for example, 62% of U.S. global health funding was provided to NGOs as prime partners (45% to U.S.-based NGOs and 17% to foreign-based NGOs) and others are likely sub-recipients of U.S. assistance.* As such, this Order could have a significant impact on NGOs if it is determined that they do not align with administration policies. *Source: KFF analysis of data from www.foreignassistance.gov.

Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa, February 7, 2025

Donald Trump Federal agencies Congressional news Chronic diseases See all topics Follow

A Senate committee report by minority staff, and obtained by CNN, slams the Trump administration for terminating some funding for research, firing thousands of federal workers and removing certain scientific data from government websites.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s minority staff report, released Tuesday and authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, says that in the first three months of this year, the Trump administration cut $2.7 billion in National Institutes of Health funding for research. That figure is much higher than some separate estimates that previously suggested targeted grant terminations have affected more than $1.8 billion in NIH funding.

The new report, which describes the Trump administration’s actions as a “war on science,” is based on analyses conducted by Senate HELP Committee minority Staff, involving NIH grant funding data as well as HHS self-reported spreadsheets and other sources.

The 15-page report warns that the administration’s actions “will lead to fewer breakthroughs for diseases like cancer, a weaker public health response against future infectious disease threats, and a continued decline in trust in public institutions,” and it calls for an end to the research funding cuts.

In a post on X on Tuesday, HHS called Sanders’ report “unequivocally false” and “a politically motivated distortion that undermines the thousands of dedicated public health professionals across HHS, who remain steadfast in their commitment to delivering results for the American people.” The post added that HHS is “streamlining programs, eliminating redundancies, and—above all else—prioritizing gold standard science.”

The committee is publishing the report the day before it will hold a hearing with US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to discuss President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for the US Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 2026.

One analysis finds that federal funding to support cancer research was cut 31% from January through March compared with the same timeframe last year.

“The American people do not want us to slash cancer research in order to give more tax breaks for billionaires,” Sanders said in an emailed statement about the new report.

“Let’s be clear. Trump’s war on science is not making America healthy again. It is making Americans and people throughout the world sicker,” he said. “This must end. Congress, the scientific community, and the American people must stand up and fight back.”

According to the new report, some of the canceled NIH grants were intended to support not only cancer research but Alzheimer’s disease research, cardiovascular disease studies, diabetes science and infectious disease clinical trials.

The categories of infectious disease, mental and behavioral health, neurology and aging, maternal and reproductive health, and cancer account for nearly $700 million of NIH funding that has been terminated, according to the new report.

The Trump administration has been conducting a restructuring of HHS as well as a review of funding, resulting in the abrupt pause or cancellation of some NIH research grants. Part of the restructuring involves consolidating the 28 agencies of HHS into 15 new divisions, including the new Administration for a Healthy America. The transformation of HHS also shifts the department’s focus to addressing chronic diseases in the US.

“At HHS, we are dedicated to restoring our agencies to their tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science. As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it’s important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in an email. “We will leave no stone unturned in identifying the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic as part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”

Many of the NIH grant pauses and terminations have been tied to the Trump administration’s orders for research and institutions to comply with its rules around diversity, equity and inclusion in order to receive federal funding. Just hours into his second term, Trump signed an anti-DEI mandate declaring diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and language to be discriminatory.

Concerns around staffing, data

The new Senate committee minority report also raises concerns about access to scientific data and reductions in HHS staffing.

An analysis in the report finds that, since January 20, at least 175 public health datasets from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website and 135 datasets from a central HHS data portal have been deleted.

In February, the organization Doctors for America filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking a temporary restraining order to restore websites and datasets. A judge granted the motion for a temporary restraining order, but Trump officials have added a disclaimer to the websites, “falsely suggesting the datasets are inaccurate,” according to the new report.

The report also notes that, based on public reports, “at least 10,000 employees at HHS agencies have been terminated and an additional 10,000 have retired, quit, or been forced out by the administration.”

When plans for the restructuring of HHS were announced in late March, Kennedy described them as an effort to allow the department to do more at a lower cost to taxpayers.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” he said at the time. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves.”

Trump administration officials have not provided the Senate HELP Minority Staff with “any details in writing about the mass firings” at the agencies, according to the new report.