Connect with us

Science

Judge halts Trump's NIH cuts that support medical research after California and 21 states sue

Published

on

Judge halts Trump's NIH cuts that support medical research after California and 21 states sue

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Monday blocked the Trump administration from making billions of dollars in NIH funding cuts hours after California and 21 other Democratic-run states sued, saying the action would hurt Americans who benefit from life-saving medical discoveries into cancer, diabetes and other major diseases.

In granting a temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley suggested that she agreed, for the time being, with arguments in the lawsuit saying the drastic cuts would cause irreparable harm to medical research at the University of California, California State University and other institutions.

The states, backed by university presidents, alleged in the suit that a $4 billion loss of funding would “result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory closures.”

The halt only applies to the 22 states — including Arizona, Michigan, New York, Hawaii and Massachusetts — that sued. No states with Republican governors joined.

Kelley’s ruling is not final but applies as the case continues in court. The judge ordered the states to report back within 24 hours on the status of their funding and follow up every two weeks to verify the cash-flow. The next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21.

Advertisement

In a statement, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said he was pleased with the court decision. “My fellow attorneys general and I will be closely monitoring to ensure that the Trump Administration follows the court’s order,” he said.

UC officials said in a statement that they were “grateful for the judge’s order…. The University of California is committed to working with the new administration to ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent on innovations and lifesaving research.”

UC is a major recipient of NIH research funding. It is not party to the suit but filed a declaration in support of the case.

The NIH policy announced Friday night reduces more than half of its spending for overhead costs tied to research grants. Called “indirect funding,” the money pays for research supplies, building maintenance, utilities, support staff and other costs.

The lawsuit argues the NIH cuts run counter to federal law. It cites part of a 2018 appropriations act that prohibits the NIH from making unilateral “deviations from negotiated rates” in its overhead funding to institutions. That portion of the budgetary rule “has remained in effect through every appropriations law governing HHS to this day,” the suit says, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services under which NIH operates. It also cites the Administrative Procedure Act, passed in 1946, regarding changes to federal agency rules.

Advertisement

The Trump administration is “violating the law” and wants to “eviscerate funding for medical research,” Bonta said of the suit, which was filed against the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH.

The NIH directed The Times to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment about the suit. An HHS official declined to comment because on pending litigation and did not reply to a follow-up question about the judge’s order.

The NIH awards more than $35 billion in annual funding for a wide range of medical research on Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, strokes and studies on military veterans and trauma, among other health conditions.

California universities are among the largest awardees of NIH grants in the nation and UC receives more than half of the NIH distributions in the state. Stanford, Caltech, USC and CSU also receive significant research grants.

What the NIH cuts target

Beginning Monday, NIH-sponsored indirect funding was to be capped at 15% of grants, down from the 57% that many UCLA research projects receive and the 64% given at UC San Francisco, which has the highest rate in the UC system.

Advertisement

The new policy would affect grants supporting ongoing research and new ones.

In announcing the cuts, the NIH implied on a social media post and on its website that universities with large endowments were spending too much taxpayer money on overhead costs.

A graphic posted to the NIH X account showed the multibillion-dollar endowments of Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins next to their indirect funding rates. Harvard’s was the highest at 69%. As a comparison, NIH cited private foundations, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Gates Foundation, saying their overhead costs are 15% or lower.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in guidance posted to its website. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

In an email to The Times Monday, HHS spokesman Andrew G. Nixon said “most of these higher education institutions already have endowments worth billions of dollars.” He also said the department had authority to make universities pay back “the excess overhead they have previously received” but decided to not do so.

Advertisement

The department will “continue to assess” the payback “policy choice and whether it is in the best interest of the American taxpayer” the email said.

Why researchers say the funds are essential

University leaders and medical researchers say the money, despite being labeled “indirect funding,” is essential to their work and pays to keep lifesaving science going — from ensuring the proper storage of biological samples to keeping alive animals for medical trials.

In an email to UC researchers Monday, Katherine S. Newman, UC system provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, elaborated on how the funding is used.

She said indirect money pays for “personnel who assure the safety of adults and children enrolling in clinical trials” and the ethics teams working on trials. Budgets, she wrote, are “carefully audited.” Newman also noted that the reductions would “disrupt a critical relationship to the pharmaceutical and device industry partners who rely on our independent research and clinical trials to establish the efficacy of emerging treatments.”

The lawsuit echoes such concerns.

Advertisement

“In order to conduct research, a university needs buildings, and needs to maintain those buildings and supply them with heat and electricity,” the suit says. “A university also needs the infrastructure necessary to comply with legal, regulatory and reporting requirements. These facilities costs cannot be attributed to any particular research project, but are still necessary for any research to occur.”

The lawsuit said university administrative support, including clerical staff, IT support, cybersecurity and data servers, “help make research possible without being attributable to any specific grant or project.”

The funding rates are negotiated in agreements between the government and universities, the suit says, but have now been unilaterally changed.

“No statute allows NIH to unilaterally alter all current grants retroactively,” the filing 0. “No such power was conveyed by Congress here. Indeed, Congress has explicitly limited the NIH’s authority to modify indirect cost rates retroactively.”

The suit adds that the Department of Health and Human Services also has its own regulations that bar the NIH from making “indiscriminate changes” to the grants. The suit alleges that the NIH has “acted beyond its statutory authority.”

Advertisement

What’s at risk in California

The NIH provided $2.6 billion of UC’s $4.2 billion in federal awards last year, with its San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles campuses receiving the bulk of the funding.

Stanford was awarded $613 million in the same period. USC took in more than $356 million in NIH funds last year. At CSU’s 23 campuses, the NIH awards totaled $158 million last year. CalTech received more than $62 million.

UC President Michael Drake said Monday the cuts, if realized, would be a “devastating blow” and the university is “ready to fight.”

“Like scores of institutions across the country, the University of California has relied on NIH grants to pursue life-saving research that benefits Americans nationwide,” Drake said. “Cuts of this magnitude would deal a devastating blow to our country’s research and innovation enterprise, undermine our global competitiveness, and, if allowed to go forward, will ultimately delay or derail progress toward treatment and cures for many of the most serious diseases that plague us today.”

“This is not only an attack on science, but on America’s health writ large,” Drake said.

Advertisement

In a statement, USC officials said the changes placed its medical research “in jeopardy” and that “we are working closely with partner organizations to address this evolving environment so that we continue our work on behalf of the public good.”

Jason Maymon, a CSU spokesman, said in a statement that the cuts threaten “the future of student innovation and scientific progress.”

“Federal grant funding is vital to the CSU’s teaching and research mission, which addresses some of society’s most urgent challenges in healthcare, agriculture, water, fire prevention and cybersecurity,” Maymon said.

In a statement Saturday, Stanford leaders said the cuts would amount to $160 million annually at the university, affecting the “construction of laboratory space, the purchase and maintenance of scientific tools, and research computing.”

“Indirect costs are the way the government invests in research infrastructure for the nation and are vital to our research activities,” said a campus message signed by Provost Jenny Martinez, medical school dean Dr. Lloyd Minor and Vice Provost and Dean of Research David Studdert.

Advertisement

Science

Why new dads shouldn’t panic about low testosterone

Published

on

Why new dads shouldn’t panic about low testosterone

Three months after his son was born, Kevin Maguire felt alone.

It was 2019. He had recently moved to Barcelona with his wife and daughter and was working on marketing projects for Fortune 500 companies. The birth of his son, Bodhi, should have been a joyous event. But Maguire, now 43, became sad and irritable, and didn’t want to be around his newborn. He withdrew from family and friends, often playing video games late into the night or finding excuses to get out of the house.

“I would take the dog out for a walk,” Maguire said. “I wanted to get far away enough that I wouldn’t bump into anyone I knew and I would just sit and cry.”

Desperate for answers, he entered his symptoms online. Maguire, author of the recently published book “The New Fatherhood: Why Everything They Told You About Being a Dad Is Wrong, and How Embracing It Will Transform Your Life,” knew to look for signs of the “baby blues” in his wife. But he was surprised by articles that said men could experience postpartum depression too. The diagnosis resonated and he began writing about his condition and the trials of fatherhood on Substack.

Advertisement

New dads face psychological pressures, from sleepless nights to sky-high bills, which can contribute to postpartum depression. So can shifting hormone levels.

“One thing I found in my lab’s research is that when new dads have really low levels of testosterone, they might report more symptoms of postpartum depression,” said Darby Saxbe, a professor of psychology at USC and author of the recently published “Dad Brain: The New Science of Fatherhood and How It Shapes Men’s Lives.”

While hormonal shifts can create challenges, they also help men adapt to fatherhood, Saxbe explained. Several hormones can spike in men when they become dads, including oxytocin, linked to better relationship quality; vasopressin, associated with emotional bonding; and prolactin, which promotes lactation in women and caregiving behavior in guys.

New dads can also experience a decline in testosterone. According to a 2011 paper from University of Notre Dame professor Lee Gettler, part of the largest study on fatherhood and testosterone ever conducted, men averaged around a 25% drop in testosterone after becoming fathers.

While dads have reasons to be concerned by plummeting levels of testosterone, a modest dip isn’t necessarily a disaster — in fact, it can make men better parents and partners.

Advertisement

“We often get invested in the idea that men should always have the highest possible levels of testosterone,” Saxbe said. “What the research tells us is a little more nuanced. You really want flexibility. You want a hormonal system that can adapt to the different demands of your life.”

The prospect of a decline might scare soon-to-be fathers, especially those on TikTok and Instagram, where accounts push the idea that having “high T” is the key to being a “real man,” according to a recent study in the journal Social Science & Medicine.

Influencers stand to profit persuading men there’s a widespread “masculinity crisis,” the researchers found, noting that 72% of the accounts they analyzed had a stake in testosterone supplements and treatments.

But studies show more testosterone isn’t always better. “We found that when dads have higher testosterone, even before birth, they’re less invested [than men with lower testosterone] in co-parenting a few months after birth,” Saxbe said. High T fathers were more stressed from parenting than their lower T counterparts, and had partners who were less satisfied in their romantic relationships.

This jibes with the challenge hypothesis, which says, in multiple species, testosterone levels rise when males battle for attention from potential mates and go down when it’s time to take care of the young.

Advertisement

While a small decline can be adaptive, dads face mental health risks when their testosterone drops too low.

There is no “normal” level of testosterone, said Dr. Jesse Mills, director of the Men’s Clinic at UCLA Health. Experts recommend that men should consider treatment if their levels dip below 300 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dL). But men metabolize testosterone in different ways, meaning a healthy level for one might be low for another.

“If a new dad comes to me and his testosterone is 298 [ng/dL], he’s below the threshold,” Mills said. “But if he has zero symptoms and everything else is going great — he’s over the moon with his new child, he’s so happy — that’s not somebody I’m going to treat with testosterone.”

He notes that the drop in testosterone fathers experience can partly be attributed to the stresses that come with a new kid: less sleep, a poor diet and fewer trips to the gym. That means there are precautions that expectant fathers can take that don’t involve testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

Still, while some guys with low testosterone levels might not need TRT, others in the “normal” range could benefit from treatment. (Dads who want another kid soon, beware. Mills notes that testosterone replacement therapy can take a man’s sperm count to zero.)

Advertisement

Both Mills and Saxbe stress that men should be paying attention to symptoms of low testosterone — such as depression and low libido — rather than trying to reach or maintain an ideal number. They also agree that tending to mental health concerns is hugely important for new fathers.

Eventually, after Maguire researched his condition, he recovered after time spent meditating, exercising and bonding with his son.

“A lot of new dads don’t realize how much they’re struggling because they feel ashamed or because they don’t realize it’s common shortly after the birth of a baby,” Saxbe said.

When they struggle, fathers can fixate on testosterone because that’s what modern culture tells them will make them feel better. And sometimes testosterone replacement therapy works. But Saxbe stresses a lot of men could use psychotherapy or support groups that bring dads together, as well as more time bonding with loved ones in general.

“The thing that predicts a man’s well-being and longevity is the quality of his relationships with other people,” said Saxbe. “You can be the world’s best weightlifter. You can have a low body-fat percentage. You can be killing it at work. Those things don’t predict how happy you’re going to be at 80.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

Published

on

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

new video loaded: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

transcript

transcript

NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

“I am excited to welcome you as the next crew in the Artemis journey to successfully return to the moon — this time to stay.” “I’m honored by the role that I’ve been given. I’m also very humbled by the task in front of us. But first and foremost, I’m grateful.” “So with that, the Artemis II crew, comrade, hands you the baton. You got the controls.” “As you know, we had a significant anomaly at our Launch Complex 36A on May 28. We’ve redoubled our efforts and are moving forward.”

Advertisement
NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 9, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Published

on

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Scientists feared the Santa Monica Mountains’ last remaining steelhead trout were dead, smothered by debris flows unleashed by the Palisades fire.

But the endangered fish surprised them: A team of biologists recently spotted 30 of the rare trout — and 21 babies — in Topanga Creek.

“There was a lot of happy dancing in the creek,” said Rosi Dagit, principal conservation biologist for the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, which works with public and private landowners to conserve natural resources.

That’s because the steelhead here are endangered, at both the state and federal levels. Once, they swam in most streams of the Santa Monicas, but their numbers plummeted amid overfishing and coastal development. Increasingly frequent wildfire has further stressed their habitat. Topanga Creek, a biodiversity hot spot, is home to their last known population in the mountains that stretch from the Hollywood Hills to Point Mugu in Ventura County.

The trout that were spotted, including this one, are part of a distinct Southern California population that’s listed as endangered at the state and federal levels.

Advertisement

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife spearheaded a complex mission to rescue trout threatened by the Palisades fire that sparked in January 2025.

Time was of the essence. The fire hadn’t yet been fully contained. But rain was on the way, which would sweep massive amounts of sediment from the denuded hillsides into the water. Fish are often killed this way.

Crews stunned the fish with electricity, scooped them up in buckets, trucked them to a hatchery and ultimately moved them to Arroyo Hondo Creek in Santa Barbara County.

Advertisement

Within days, Topanga Creek was choked with mud. Some assumed the fish left behind were goners.

But in March, the conservation district’s team found four. The following month, when water conditions were clearer, they saw more.

“These fish continue to amaze me,” said Kyle Evans, environmental program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, who had seen the damage to the creek. “I had seen populations get wiped out in similar situations. So when I heard, I was thrilled.”

Evans surmises the fish that survived were in an area of the creek where less charred material and sediment were swept in.

“These fish likely hunkered down, were hiding under some rocks or places to try to get away from the main concentration of flow,” he said. “And luckily they weren’t buried.”

Advertisement

The ones that were spotted were fairly small, around 6 to 14 inches. Rainbow trout and steelhead trout are the same species, but with different lifestyles. If the fish remain in freshwater, they’ll be considered rainbows. However, they can migrate to the ocean and become steelhead, where they typically grow larger before returning to their natal waters to spawn.

Topanga Creek hasn’t fully recovered from the damage it sustained, but scientists say it’s looking better. Surveys last year were “so depressing,” Dagit said, with very few animals, and stretches that were essentially transformed into flat roads from all the sediment buildup. Some of the riparian canopy burned right down to the creek.

Then came 32 inches of rain over the last nine months, scouring out and moving sediment, creating deeper pools. Dagit said they recently found newt egg masses for the first time in years, as well as a few adult newts and many frogs. Plants that provide cover are starting to recover.

She provided photos comparing certain pools last year and this year, some dramatically transformed. In September 2025, the Shrine Pool could have been an overgrown hiking trail. This April, it was filled with shallow water.

Shrine Pool, Sept. 2025, left, and the same location, April 2026, right.

The Shrine Pool in September 2025, left, and the same location in April 2026, right, with RCDSMM’s Isaac Yelchin donning a wetsuit.

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

Advertisement

Topanga Creek is home to another endangered fish, the small but hardy northern tidewater goby, often described as cute. Not long before the trout operation, Dagit led a rescue of hundreds of these fish too. Many were repatriated to the lagoon at the mouth of the creek in a moving ceremony last June.

There’s still the matter of what to do with the trout that were moved to Santa Barbara County last year. Evans would like to bring them home to the Santa Monicas at some point, but isn’t sure if it will happen. On one hand, they could bolster the small, genetically isolated surviving population. On the other, they might inadvertently bring in a disease or bacteria. There is some time to decide. Evans estimates the creek still needs to recover for two to three more years.

For now, the fish are functioning fine in their adopted creek. Experts worried the trauma wrought by the move would disrupt their spawning process, but they had babies that spring. This year, they spawned again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending