On Tuesday, a former leading scientist at the National Institutes of Health filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming she was illegally dismissed after warning that abrupt research cuts were endangering patients and public health. The suit, filed in a Maryland court, alleges retaliation for her whistleblowing and violations of federal whistleblower protections. Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, a prominent HIV researcher, said the lawsuit is about protecting not only her own rights but those of all federal employees.
The lawsuit
The complaint was filed on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, in federal court in Maryland. It asserts that Dr. Marrazzo was terminated by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after she challenged the NIH’s budget cuts. According to the filing, the dismissal was unlawful because it was a direct response to her whistleblowing about the cuts. The suit claims that the administration violated federal statutes designed to protect employees who expose wrongdoing.
NIH budget cuts
Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the National Institutes of Health has reduced billions of dollars from research projects. The cuts were made without following the usual scientific funding process, according to the lawsuit. The decision to slash funding affected a wide array of studies, including those that rely on patient participation. The abrupt changes were described by the plaintiff as a threat to the integrity of scientific research and to the safety of those involved.
Impact on clinical trials
One of the most visible consequences of the budget cuts was the impact on clinical trials testing treatments for cancer, brain diseases, and other health problems. A recent report cited in the lawsuit said that more than 74,000 people were enrolled in the affected experiments. The reduction in funding threatened to halt data collection, jeopardize patient safety, and delay the development of new therapies that could benefit millions of Americans.
Dr. Marrazzo
Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo is a highly respected HIV scientist who previously led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Her career has focused on understanding the immune system and developing vaccines for infectious diseases. Marrazzo’s expertise and leadership made her a key figure within the NIH community. Her decision to speak out about the cuts was driven by a commitment to protect both patients and the scientific enterprise.
Administrative leave
Last spring, after publicly challenging the NIH leadership about the scale of the budget cuts, Dr. Marrazzo was placed on administrative leave. The move came shortly after she raised concerns that the cuts would jeopardize ongoing research and patient safety. She said the administrative leave was a punitive measure designed to silence her whistleblowing. The lawsuit alleges that the leave was part of a broader retaliation strategy by the administration.
Her objections
Marrazzo’s objections centered on the potential harm to clinical trial participants and the broader public health implications of the funding cuts. She warned that certain reductions would directly endanger patients enrolled in trials, while other cuts to infectious disease and vaccine research could compromise the nation’s preparedness for future outbreaks. Her statements reflected a concern that the administration’s decisions were undermining the scientific integrity that safeguards public health.
Whistleblower complaint
In September, Dr. Marrazzo filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, alleging retaliation for her whistleblowing. The complaint documented her concerns about the NIH cuts and the administrative leave she received. By filing with the Office of Special Counsel, she sought federal protection against retaliation, a process designed to safeguard employees who expose wrongdoing within the government. The lawsuit references this complaint as part of the evidence supporting her claim of unlawful dismissal.
Firing by Health Secretary
Following the complaint, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. terminated Dr. Marrazzo’s employment. The lawsuit states that the firing occurred weeks after her whistleblower complaint and administrative leave. The dismissal is presented as a retaliatory act aimed at silencing her concerns about the NIH budget cuts. The suit argues that the administration’s decision violated federal whistleblower statutes that protect employees who report wrongdoing.
Lawsuit claims
The lawsuit alleges that the firing violated whistleblower protections and that Dr. Marrazzo was illegally dismissed for exposing abuse and fraud by the government. It further claims that the administration’s actions were a direct response to her whistleblowing about the NIH budget cuts. The suit seeks to hold the administration accountable for violating federal statutes designed to protect employees who bring misconduct to light and to prevent retaliation.
Lawyers statement
In a statement issued by her lawyers, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo said the lawsuit “is about protecting not just my right to expose abuse and fraud by our government but those rights for all federal employees, so we can safeguard essential public health priorities and the integrity of scientific research.” The statement emphasizes that her legal action is a broader defense of whistleblower rights and the essential public health priorities that depend on transparent scientific research.
Department of Health and Human Services response
A spokesperson for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the lawsuit and the allegations it contains. The spokesperson did not address the claims of retaliation or the alleged violations of whistleblower protections. The lack of comment has left the lawsuit’s accusations unchallenged in the public record, leaving the legal dispute to be decided by the courts.
Pending case
The lawsuit is currently pending in federal court in Maryland. The court will review the evidence presented by Dr. Marrazzo’s attorneys, including her complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, the timeline of her administrative leave, and the circumstances surrounding her firing. The decision will determine whether the administration’s actions violated federal whistleblower statutes and whether the dismissal was unlawful. The outcome could set a precedent for how federal employees can challenge retaliatory actions within the NIH.
Tension between budget and science
The case underscores the tension that arises when executive budget decisions collide with the established scientific funding framework. The NIH cuts bypassed the usual peer-review and grant-review processes that safeguard scientific integrity and patient safety. By allegedly retaliating against a scientist who raised concerns, the administration could be undermining the mechanisms that protect the public health priorities that rely on robust, transparent research. The lawsuit highlights the importance of whistleblower protections in preserving scientific accountability.
Key takeaways
- Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo sued the Trump administration for unlawful firing after warning about NIH budget cuts.
- The lawsuit alleges that the cuts impacted over 74,000 clinical trial participants and violated whistleblower protections.
- The case highlights the tension between executive budget decisions and the scientific funding framework that safeguards patient safety and public health.
Closing
As the lawsuit proceeds, the scientific community, federal employees, and patients will closely monitor the court’s decision. The outcome will determine whether the administration’s actions violated whistleblower statutes and whether the NIH’s funding practices can be challenged when they threaten patient safety. The case serves as a reminder that transparency, accountability, and the protection of whistleblowers are essential to maintaining the integrity of scientific research and safeguarding public health.
