Former NIH scientist sues Trump administration, alleging illegal firing over research cuts

A former leading scientist at the National Institutes of Health filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday, alleging she was illegally fired after warning that abrupt research funding cuts could endanger patients and public health. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, claims the dismissal violated whistleblower protections and public-interest safeguards. Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, a prominent HIV expert who led the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was placed on administrative leave last spring after publicly challenging NIH officials about the scope and pace of the funding cuts. Her lawyers say the firing was retaliation for exposing concerns about the integrity of federally funded science.

The NIH has cut billions of dollars in research projects since President Donald Trump took office in January, bypassing the usual scientific funding process. The cuts affected clinical trials testing treatments for cancer, brain diseases and other health problems; a recent report said more than 74,000 people enrolled in those trials were impacted. The lawsuit says the move imperiled trial participants and undermined public health and infectious disease and vaccine research.

In September, Marrazzo filed a complaint alleging whistleblower retaliation with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and publicly disclosed her concerns. Weeks later she was fired by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Maryland. The filing asserts violations of whistleblower protections and seeks remedies including reinstatement or damages.

In a statement issued by her lawyers, Marrazzo said the lawsuit is about protecting not just her right to expose abuses and fraud by the government but those rights for all federal employees, so we can safeguard essential public health priorities and the integrity of scientific research. A spokesman for Kennedy's Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the filing, and the department has not provided a detailed public response.

The case adds to ongoing questions about how NIH research funding is allocated and the potential impact on clinical trials and public health if funding decisions bypass customary peer-reviewed processes. Supporters of rapid funding action argue it aligns with shifting national priorities, while critics contend abrupt cuts can jeopardize patient care and the advancement of medical science.