logo
NIH grantees may face long waits for restored money

NIH grantees may face long waits for restored money

Axios5 days ago

A federal judge's order to restore hundreds of millions of dollars of NIH grants marked a big win for scientists last week — but it doesn't mean they can immediately get back to work.
The big picture: Researchers haven't yet been able to access funds covered by the ruling as part of the order, and the likelihood that the government will appeal or seek to halt the order leaves the outlook murky.
"My best guess is it will be after all stays and appeals are resolved," said Shalini Goel Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy and an attorney for the researchers and groups who sued the federal government.
"This tap is not just automatically turned on right now."
The cancellations focused on projects the administration said were connected to "diversity, equity and inclusion" or "gender ideology" that it alleged were discriminatory and clashed with its agenda.
State of play: HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon said the agency will comply with the order from District Court Judge William Young.
But he said the agency is exploring legal next steps, including appealing the case and moving to stay the order.
"HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people," Nixon said in a statement.
If and when researchers do get to collect payments on the grants, they'll face other hurdles restarting idled projects.
Some researchers wrote in declarations to the court that they've had to discard biological specimens. Others said that they won't be able to reach meaningful conclusions based on the data they've collected so far, and that study participants won't return because they've lost trust in the process.
Katie Edwards, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said some of her staff left in pursuit of more stable jobs. Her lab has had to reduce working hours for others.
Edwards said the team has worked hard to ensure they won't have too many disruptions when they can resume their projects. But if the legal process drags on, problems will be impossible to avoid.
For example, one of the terminated grants required researchers to follow up with participants every six months.
"If this draws out [for] months, there probably will be some of our studies that are going to be, quite frankly, really hard to salvage, unless the NIH allows us reduce our sample size," she said.
Between the lines: Heidi Moseson, a senior research scientist with another of the plaintiffs in the case, Ibis Reproductive Health, told Axios that her team is ready to resume work testing new research methods to improve the accuracy of reproductive health data as soon as its legally able — even if it means having to stop again later in the legal process.
Still, that could affect the team's research outcomes. The research project would also fill a gap in the evidence on the reproductive health needs of transgender and gender-diverse people, she said.
"Access to gender-affirming health care for trans and gender-diverse folks is exceptionally politicized right now, and any stops and starts in [our survey] will mean that we are collecting data in slightly different political environments, which makes it harder to draw inference," she said.
"We will launch this research somehow, once we can find funding," Moseson said. But "it's so much harder than it should have been. It's been so harmfully disrupted by this process."
The bottom line: Last week's ruling brought relief and validation for many researchers who see the Trump administration's actions as degrading to patient groups and the scientific process, they told Axios. But they emphasized that the issue is not settled.
"There are a lot of grants that haven't been covered by this order. There is still a trial ahead, and there is so much more work to do to make sure that the NIH adheres to the letter and the spirit of this ruling," said Noam Ross, a computational researcher who's been tracking NIH grants canceled and frozen this year.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A public lands sell-off is struck from the Republican bill
A public lands sell-off is struck from the Republican bill

Boston Globe

time41 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

A public lands sell-off is struck from the Republican bill

'Over the past several weeks, I've spent a lot of time listening to members of the community, local leaders and stakeholders across the country,' Lee wrote on the social platform X on Saturday. 'While there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation -- and in some cases, outright lies -- about my bill, many people brought forward sincere concerns.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The provision would have required the Bureau of Land Management to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of public property in 11 Western states. Proponents had argued that the region has a severe shortage of affordable housing and that developers could build new homes on these tracts. Advertisement In his post, Lee said that, because of the strict rules governing the budgetary process that Republicans are using to pass the bill, he was 'unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families -- not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.' Advertisement It was not immediately clear whether the budgetary process would have allowed Lee to prohibit certain businesses or foreign countries from purchasing land. The process, known as reconciliation, allows bills that affect government revenues to pass the Senate on a simple majority vote, avoiding a filibuster. Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press A spokesperson for Lee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The four Republicans who opposed the plan were Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana and Jim Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho. While opponents acknowledged the housing shortage as a serious problem, they rejected a public lands sell-off as a solution. 'One of the greatest gifts we've ever had in America is the public lands that have been passed down generation to generation,' Sheehy said in an interview Saturday before the proposal was struck from the package. 'Especially for us in Western states, it's our way of life for hunting and fishing,' he continued. 'I believe Mike Lee knows that, too, and I don't believe he's acting in bad faith at all.' A previous version of Lee's plan had called for the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public lands. But the provision was stripped from the bill by the Senate's parliamentarian, the nonpartisan official who enforces the chamber's rules. The latest version of the plan would have allowed individuals and companies to buy up to 2 square miles of land at a time, with no limit on how much property they could ultimately purchase. Only land within 5 miles of a population center would have been eligible to be sold. Advertisement In addition to the four Republican senators who opposed the plan, five House Republicans said Thursday that the land sell-off was a 'poison pill' that would cost their votes for the package. The opponents in the House included Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., who led the Interior Department during Trump's first term. Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son and an avid hunter and outdoorsman, had been publicly silent on Lee's plan while it was under consideration. But Sunday morning, he wrote on X that the proposal's withdrawal was a 'huge win for our public lands!' Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., celebrated the plan's demise while warning other lawmakers not to attempt to resurrect it. 'To those already plotting to go after our public lands another way: Don't. Unless you like losing,' Heinrich said in a statement Saturday. This article originally appeared in

Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling 'dangerous'
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling 'dangerous'

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling 'dangerous'

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'

Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store