Skip to content 
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ordered the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to temporarily restore nearly $12 million in federal grant funding to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), finding the Trump administration likely violated the group’s constitutional rights by cutting off money in what the court viewed as retaliation for protected speech, Reuters reports.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell granted a preliminary injunction, a fast-moving court order that freezes the government’s action while the underlying lawsuit proceeds.
The decision forces HHS to reinstate funding tied to programs ranging from efforts to reduce sudden unexpected infant deaths to initiatives supporting rural pediatric care and teen mental health.
At the center of the dispute is the AAP’s public opposition to major public health shifts under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including policy moves involving vaccinations and the administration’s posture toward gender-affirming care for trans youth.
“Clear Animus” and a First Amendment Warning
Howell’s order is a blunt judicial rebuke of what she described as an effort to punish a medical organization for taking positions the government did not like.
Reuters reported Howell pointed to “pejorative” statements by HHS officials and concluded the record showed “clear animus” toward the AAP.
According to the reports, the judge also warned about the broader impact of using government power to force silence in scientific and medical debates. In one of the ruling’s most pointed lines, Howell wrote that when “force and coercion replace reason,” the public loses access to high-quality information.
The injunction does not end the case. It signals the court believes the AAP has a strong chance of proving its core claim: that the grant terminations likely crossed constitutional lines by retaliating against speech protected under the First Amendment.
What Funding Was Cut, and What It Supports
The dispute involves seven federal grants that had supported child health work conducted by, or tied to, the AAP.
In reporting by the Associated Press, the programs include initiatives focused on:
- Rural pediatric care
- Infant death prevention
- Teen mental health
- Other children’s public health efforts
Earlier Reuters reporting said the canceled grants included projects aimed at reducing sudden infant death syndrome and supporting early screening efforts, alongside other pediatric public health work.
AAP leaders argued the termination was not a routine administrative move but a sudden funding shock that threatened “irreparable harm” to programs serving children and families.
AAP Says It Was Punished for “Defending Evidence-Based Care”
View this post on Instagram
The AAP sued after HHS ended the grants in December 2025. The lawsuit was backed by Democracy Forward, which argued the government pulled funding to penalize the organization for speaking publicly against administration decisions it viewed as harmful to children’s health.
In its own reporting, AAP News framed the dispute in similar terms, describing the cuts as retaliation and emphasizing the stakes for children’s health programs.
Howell’s injunction requires HHS to restore the funding while the litigation continues, effectively blocking the government from enforcing the cancellations for now.
The Political and Policy Conflict Behind the Lawsuit
The public clash between the AAP and Kennedy has been unfolding for months, with the pediatric organization criticizing changes it says undermine vaccine confidence and weaken long-standing public health guidance.
Reuters reported the AAP diverged from federal policy by continuing to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for young children and opposing steps that would reduce routine immunizations.
The administration, for its part, described the terminations as a matter of shifting priorities. In December, Reuters reported that an HHS spokesperson said the grants no longer aligned with department priorities.
But Howell treated the context as inseparable from the legal issue: whether federal money was weaponized against an organization because it refused to adopt the administration’s messaging.
The AAP’s public positions on gender-affirming care also sit in the background of the conflict, with both Reuters and AP noting it as a flashpoint cited in court coverage of the dispute.
What Happens Next
The ruling is an early-stage order, not a final judgment. The government can still fight the lawsuit on the merits and can pursue appeals and other procedural moves.
For now, Howell’s injunction restores the flow of funding while the court case proceeds, and it plants a clear marker about constitutional limits on how an administration can use grant power against critics.
HHS declined to comment to Reuters and AP following the injunction.
The AAP, meanwhile, leaves court with immediate relief and a ruling that frames the dispute as more than a budget battle, calling it a direct test of whether the federal government can punish medical organizations for dissenting in public.
The case continues in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
