Focus on the BIG picture.
Thursday, Dec 25, 2025
Outside the box.
American Academy of Pediatrics Sues HHS, Alleging Retaliatory Grant Cuts Threaten Child Health Programs
Pediatricians’ association seeks federal court intervention after abrupt termination of nearly $12 million in grants tied to policy disputes
The American Academy of Pediatrics has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asserting that the abrupt cancellation of nearly $12 million in federal grants was retaliatory and jeopardises essential child health initiatives.
The lawsuit, lodged on December 24 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to block the termination of seven grants that had underpinned a range of public health programmes, including newborn hearing screenings, sudden infant death prevention, rural paediatric care and adolescent mental health services.
The organisation argues that the sudden funding loss will force layoffs and undermine critical outreach unless the awards are reinstated.
In its complaint, the American Academy of Pediatrics contends that the grant cuts followed its vocal public opposition to policy positions taken by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., particularly on vaccines and gender-affirming care.
The lawsuit alleges that senior officials at HHS retaliated against the association for exercising its First Amendment rights and for its stances on scientific and clinical matters that diverge from the department’s recent policy directions.
The lawsuit further asserts violations of equal protection and the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that the department’s justification for terminating the awards — including claims that the association’s use of “identity-based language” conflicted with departmental priorities — lacks legal basis and masks a politically motivated decision.
American Academy of Pediatrics leadership emphasised the broader ramifications of the cuts, saying that the grants supported programmes that save young lives and strengthen health systems in underserved communities.
Without federal funding, the association warned that it would be forced to curtail or eliminate services that families and healthcare providers rely upon.
HHS officials have declined extended comment on the lawsuit, maintaining previously that the grant awards being terminated no longer align with the department’s mission or evolving priorities.
The dispute highlights deepening tensions between professional medical organisations and federal health policy leadership as debates over immunisation guidance and other clinical policies continue to unfold.
The legal battle now turns to the federal judiciary, where the association seeks both immediate relief to protect ongoing programmes and a ruling on whether the department’s actions exceeded statutory and constitutional authority.
The lawsuit, lodged on December 24 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to block the termination of seven grants that had underpinned a range of public health programmes, including newborn hearing screenings, sudden infant death prevention, rural paediatric care and adolescent mental health services.
The organisation argues that the sudden funding loss will force layoffs and undermine critical outreach unless the awards are reinstated.
In its complaint, the American Academy of Pediatrics contends that the grant cuts followed its vocal public opposition to policy positions taken by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., particularly on vaccines and gender-affirming care.
The lawsuit alleges that senior officials at HHS retaliated against the association for exercising its First Amendment rights and for its stances on scientific and clinical matters that diverge from the department’s recent policy directions.
The lawsuit further asserts violations of equal protection and the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that the department’s justification for terminating the awards — including claims that the association’s use of “identity-based language” conflicted with departmental priorities — lacks legal basis and masks a politically motivated decision.
American Academy of Pediatrics leadership emphasised the broader ramifications of the cuts, saying that the grants supported programmes that save young lives and strengthen health systems in underserved communities.
Without federal funding, the association warned that it would be forced to curtail or eliminate services that families and healthcare providers rely upon.
HHS officials have declined extended comment on the lawsuit, maintaining previously that the grant awards being terminated no longer align with the department’s mission or evolving priorities.
The dispute highlights deepening tensions between professional medical organisations and federal health policy leadership as debates over immunisation guidance and other clinical policies continue to unfold.
The legal battle now turns to the federal judiciary, where the association seeks both immediate relief to protect ongoing programmes and a ruling on whether the department’s actions exceeded statutory and constitutional authority.
