Judge orders HHS to restore $12 million in funding to AAP

The Trump administration has been ordered by a federal judge to restore nearly $12 million in funding to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). This funding includes support for rural health care and early identification of disabilities in young children. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction late Sunday, stating that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services likely had a “retaliatory motive” when it terminated grants to AAP in December.

The terminated grants supported various public health programs, such as preventing sudden unexpected infant death, enhancing pediatric care in rural areas, and aiding teens facing substance use and mental health issues. AAP claimed that the cuts were made in response to the group speaking out against the Trump administration’s policies. On the other hand, HHS stated that the grants were cut because they no longer aligned with the department’s priorities and denied allegations of retaliation.

AAP has been vocal about its support for pediatric vaccines and has opposed HHS positions. The group also advocates for access to gender-affirming care and has criticized HHS for interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. Judge Howell emphasized that AAP would likely suffer irreparable harm from the funding cuts and that the public interest favored allowing the programs to continue during the lawsuit.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represents AAP in the lawsuit, stated that the ruling signifies that no administration can silence doctors, undermine public health, or jeopardize children’s well-being. A spokesperson for HHS declined to comment on the matter, and attorneys representing HHS in the lawsuit did not respond to inquiries.

Overall, the court’s decision to restore funding to AAP underscores the importance of supporting public health initiatives and ensuring that organizations focused on improving children’s health can continue their vital work. This ruling serves as a reminder that public health policy debates should not be chilled through retaliatory actions by the federal government.