Senators grill NIH director on massive budget cuts
National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya faced critical questions from both Republican and Democratic senators Tuesday as he sought to defend the Trump administration's sweeping plans to reorganize the agency and slash budgets for medical research.
Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-ME) swiftly criticized the current budget cuts and proposed changes, including a nearly 40% reduction to the National Institute of Aging's spending and 40% overall cuts to the agency's institutes.
'As the senator representing … the oldest state in the nation, this is a particular concern,' Collins said. 'I know personally what it means to so many American families.'
The senator also said caps on indirect spending for universities are 'so poorly conceived' and have harmed U.S. medical research. 'It is leading to scientists leaving the United States for opportunities in other countries. It's causing clinical trials to be halted and promising medical research to be abandoned.'
A federal court has paused the 15% cap on payments for indirect costs, but the administration assumed savings from the change in its 2026 fiscal year budget.
Bhattacharya defended certain administrative changes while distancing himself from others, such as a pause on Northwestern University's grant funding, saying certain terminations happened before he assumed his role.
In answering Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) about overall cuts, Bhattacharya took responsibility for other sweeping grant cancellations. 'There's changes in priorities at the NIH to move away from politicized science, I made those decisions,' he said.
The hearing room was filled with purple-garbed advocates for Alzheimer's disease research and representatives of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network dressed in light blue.
Baldwin harshly criticized the proposed $18 billion reduction to the NIH's total spending, saying cuts will resonate as the NIH funds 15,000 fewer medical research projects.
'While I think Congress will reject your budget request, it clearly shows the administration's intent,' Baldwin said. 'How is this proposal anything but intentionally sabotaging biomedical research?'
Bhattacharya said he is 'happy to work with Congress' on the budget and more flexible spending on medical research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US evacuates 79 staff and family from embassy in Israel as more Americans ask how to leave
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. evacuated 79 staff and families from the U.S. Embassy in Israel on Friday as the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies and growing numbers of private American citizens seek information on how to leave Israel and Iran. An internal State Department memo says the military flight, the second known to have occurred this week, left Tel Aviv for Sofia, Bulgaria, where some or all of the passengers were to get a connecting charter flight to Washington. The document, which was obtained by The Associated Press, also said that more than 6,400 U.S. citizens in Israel had filled out an online form on Friday alone asking for information about when and if the U.S. government would organize evacuation flights. An additional 3,265 people, some of whom may also have competed the form, called an emergency number seeking assistance. The document estimated that between 300 and 500 people per day could need evacuation assistance should the U.S. decide to offer flights or ships to get Americans out, as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has said is being considered. There are some 700,000 Americans in Israel, many of them dual nationals, according to estimates, although the exact number at any given time is unclear because U.S. citizens are not required to notify the embassy if they are there or when they might leave. Earlier Friday, before the memo was distributed, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters that more than 25,000 Americans had reached out for information on leaving Israel, the West Bank and Iran. She told reporters that those people had sought 'information and support' and were 'seeking guidance' on departing. She would not give a breakdown of where the queries had come from and would not comment on embassy evacuations. In Iran, the document said that at least 84 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, or Green Card holders, had crossed into neighboring Azerbaijan by land since the conflict began and that an additional 774 had been granted permission to enter as of Friday. Nearly 200 American citizens and Green Card holders are awaiting permission to travel overland from Iran to neighboring Turkmenistan, it said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Where US troops in Mideast are most at risk of Iran strike
The Big Story Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within Iran's striking distance should President Trump decide to wade into Israel's conflict with Tehran and directly attack the country. © Alex Brandon, Associated Press More than 40,000 American service members and civilians — as well as billions of dollars in military equipment — are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel's bombing campaign, experts say. 'If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,' retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. 'They move very quickly.' Israel last week unleashed a barrage of airstrikes on Iran that set off the largest conflict ever between the two regional adversaries, with Tehran responding with its own attacks. The war has threatened to pull in the U.S., which says it supports Israel's right to defend itself but has not directly involved itself in the bombing. Trump has not yet decided on possible American military action against Iran, telling reporters through his top spokesperson that he would make his decision within two weeks. But Iran has already threatened to directly attack U.S. forces should they enter Israel's war campaign, with the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning Wednesday that 'Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage.' Tehran's threats aren't idle, as the country has retaliated against Washington in the past, most notably in January 2020, when Trump in his first term ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike, which happened as Soleimani traveled to Baghdad, prompted a swift response from Iran, which days later hammered Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq and another U.S. base in Erbil with 13 ballistic missiles. While no Americans were killed in the largest ballistic missile attack ever against U.S. forces abroad, more than 100 were later diagnosed and treated for traumatic brain injuries. Now, with Trump reportedly considering using the GBU-57 — known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or so-called bunker buster bomb — to damage Iran's Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, a similar attack from Tehran could soon be at hand. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: Trump: 'Hard' for Israel to stop strikes now President Trump said Friday it would be difficult for Israel to stop strikes on Iran at this point, a week into the intense conflict between the two nations and two weeks out from the president's decision on U.S. involvement. 'I think it's very hard to make that request right now,' he said when pressed about the Iranian foreign minister saying that the U.S. would call on Israel to stop airstrikes if Trump is serious about … Democrat: Trump 2-week Iran deadline 'not a bad thing' Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) tepidly praised President Trump on his handling of the ongoing military conflict between Israel and Iran, after the president said he would wait two weeks to decide whether to take direct action against Iran. 'The fact that we're not reading about a U.S. attack on Iran right now actually gives me a little bit of comfort,' the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told independent … Israel, Iran trade strikes as Trump weighs US military involvement Israel and Iran traded strikes on Friday as President Trump weighs the possibility of U.S. involvement and European officials seek to revive nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Israel said it hit 60 Iranian aircrafts early Friday morning along with the headquarters of the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, which carries out nuclear weapons research, according to the Associated Press. Iranian media said Israel's … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: DHS places new limits on lawmakers visiting ICE facilities The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is placing new limitations on lawmakers seeking to visit detention facilities, releasing guidelines in the wake of visits from Democrats that have turned confrontational. Members of Congress have the legal right to make unannounced visits to U.S. Immigration … On Tap Monday Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: Senate parliamentarian knocks pieces out of Trump's megabill Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that several key pieces of the massive bill to implement President Trump's agenda run afoul of … Read more Supreme Court rules against FDA, EPA 12:30 Report is The Hill's midday newsletter. Subscribe here or using the box below: Close Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you next week! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
San Francisco Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
