Nearly two dozen states sued the Trump administration and the National Institutes of Health on Monday to block a $4 billion cut to research funding that scientists say would cost thousands of jobs and eviscerate studies into treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and a host of other ailments.The funding cuts were to take effect Monday. The attorneys general of Massachusetts and 21 other states filed the suit, arguing the Trump administration’s plan to slash overhead costs — known as “indirect costs” — violates a 79-year-old law that governs how administrative agencies establish and administer regulations.“Without relief from N.I.H.’s action, these institutions’ cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,” the lawsuit said.On Capitol Hill, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the chairwoman of the chamber’s Appropriations Committee, strongly objected to what she called “these arbitrary cuts.” Ms. Collins, a Republican, said that when she called President Trump’s nominee for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to complain, he promised to “re-examine this initiative” if confirmed.The filing is the latest in a string of lawsuits challenging Mr. Trump’s policies. Also on Monday, a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to “immediately restore” trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, including from the N.I.H., that had been frozen under a sweeping directive the president issued, and later rescinded, late last month.Scientists, medical researchers and public health officials have felt under siege since Mr. Trump became president. In addition to freezing grant dollars and slashing overhead costs, the administration has blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from publishing scientific information on the threat of bird flu to humans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

28 minutes agoAsha PatelBBC News, Nottingham

At cardiology conferences and diabetes meetings, doctors can’t help noticing that thin seems to be very in.When Dr. C. Michael Gibson, a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, goes to heart disease meetings, he can’t help noticing a change.“We will sit around at dinner and halfway through the meal, we will simultaneously push our plates away,” Dr. Gibson said. “We look at each other and laugh and say, ‘You, too?’”They share what is becoming an open secret: They tried for years to control their weight but are now taking the new obesity drugs manufactured by Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.Dr. Robert Califf, the former chief of the Food and Drug Administration, says he hardly recognizes his colleagues. So many are now so thin.“Looking good,” he says he tells his fellow cardiologists at conferences and meetings.There are no studies documenting the percentage of doctors taking the drugs. But physicians “are a good litmus test for drugs that are highly effective,” Dr. Califf said. If doctors who read the papers describing clinical-trial results are rushing to get a new drug, that is an indication that it’s really promising.His colleagues’ use of Wegovy and Zepbound reminds him of the use of statins, drugs that lower cholesterol, in their early days. Cardiologists, who were most familiar with the consequences of high cholesterol levels, were among the first to take the drugs in large numbers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

9 hours agoMark Daly and Jax SinclairBBC Scotland Disclosure

The recall, which was initiated on Jan. 7 and upgraded on Wednesday, includes several Dunkin’ products, federal safety officials said.About two million baked goods, including some doughnuts and coffee rolls sold at Dunkin’, were recalled over concerns of potential contamination with the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes, federal safety regulators said.The manufacturer FGF Brands, which distributes baked goods in the United States and Canada, issued the voluntary recall because of the “potential for contamination with Listeria monocytogenes,” according to a report released on Wednesday by the Food and Drug Administration.The recalled products include a mix of chocolate, raspberry and Bavarian doughnuts; French crullers; éclairs; and coffee rolls. Some of the goods were sold at Dunkin’, and were produced before Dec. 13, 2024, the F.D.A. said. The suspected source of the contamination was not identified.The recall, which went into effect on Jan. 7, was upgraded on Wednesday to a Class II, which is defined by the F.D.A. as “a situation in which use of, or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.”The agency did not say what steps consumers should follow regarding the recall and did not say if there had been any illnesses related to the recalled baked goods. FGF Brands and Dunkin’ did not immediately respond to inquiries on Sunday.Listeria is the third leading cause of death from food-borne illness in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Infections from listeria, which is bacteria that can contaminate foods, are rare but can cause potentially serious illnesses.Typical symptoms include fever and headaches. Most people who ingest food contaminated with listeria do not get sick, but pregnant women, older people, newborns and people with weakened immune systems can become seriously ill or die, according to the C.D.C.Each year in the United States, an estimated 1,600 people are infected with listeria, and about 260 people die from those infections, the C.D.C. said.The most recent recall related to listeria took place in December, when Braga Fresh announced it had recalled a single lot of packages of ready-to-eat broccoli florets sold at Walmart stores.

29 minutes agoJames GallagherEmma Lynch/BBCIt is a cold morning in the depths of winter.

The collapse of U.S.A.I.D. at the hands of President Trump and Elon Musk is already leaving gaping holes in vital health care and other services that millions of Africans rely on for their survival.For decades, sub-Saharan Africa was a singular focus of American foreign aid. The continent received over $8 billion a year, money that was used to feed starving children, supply lifesaving drugs and provide wartime humanitarian assistance.In a few short weeks, President Trump and the South African-born billionaire Elon Musk have burned much of that work to the ground, vowing to completely gut the U.S. Agency for International Aid.“CLOSE IT DOWN!” Mr. Trump wrote on social media on Friday, accusing the agency of unspecified corruption and fraud.A federal judge on Friday halted, for now, some elements of Mr. Trump’s attempt to shutter the agency. But the speed and shock of the administration’s actions have already led to confusion, fear and even paranoia at U.S.A.I.D. offices across Africa, a top recipient of agency funding. Workers were being fired or furloughed en masse.As the true scale of the fallout comes into view, African governments are wondering how to fill gaping holes left in vital services, like health care and education, that until recent weeks were funded by the United States. Aid groups and United Nations bodies that feed the starving or house refugees have seen their budgets slashed in half, or worse.By far the greatest price is being paid by ordinary Africans, millions of whom rely on American aid for their survival. But the consequences are also reverberating across an aid sector that, for better or worse, has been a pillar of Western engagement with Africa for over six decades. With the collapse of U.S.A.I.D., that entire model is badly shaken.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Cursing is coursing through society. Words once too blue to publicly utter have become increasingly commonplace. “Language is just part of the whole shift to a more casual lifestyle,” said Timothy Jay, a professor emeritus of psychology at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, Mass.Dr. Jay has spent a career studying the use of profanity, from what motivates it to the ways in which it satisfies, signals meaning and offends. Although officially retired, he has continued to edit studies on profanity and he recently offered an expert opinion in an ongoing legal dispute in Michigan over whether the phrase “Let’s go Brandon” (a euphemism used to denigrate former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.) should be reasonably interpreted as “profane.” (It should not, Dr. Jay opined.)Dr. Jay posits that the increasingly casual nature of the spoken word derives in part from the way people communicate on social media. One study, published in 2014 by other researchers in the field, found that curse words on Twitter, now known as X, appeared in 7.7 percent of posts, with profanity representing about 1 in every 10 words on the platform. That compared to a swearing rate of 0.5 to 0.7 percent in spoken language, the study found.If that data troubles you, Dr. Jay has some thoughts on how to dial back the profanity. F*@%-free February, anyone?Tis interview has been condensed and edited for clarity, and scrubbed of some of the vernacular that Dr. Jay conceded he regularly uses on the golf course.Why does social media contribute to more casual use of language?People are remote, so they can be aggressive without any physical retaliation. By and large, you’re anonymous, so there’s no personal consequence. It’s also part of a larger shift to a more casual lifestyle. What kids are wearing to school these days would have been disgraceful in my day.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Grief and “dizzying chaos” struck communities around the globe as networks for delivering medicine, nutrition and maternal care were abruptly shut down.Funds from the world’s richest nation once flowed from the largest global aid agency to an intricate network of small, medium and large organizations that delivered aid: H.I.V. medications for more than 20 million people; nutrition supplements for starving children; support for refugees, orphaned children and women battered by violence.Now, that network is unraveling. The Trump administration froze foreign aid for 90 days and has planned to gut the U.S. Agency for International Development to just 5 percent of its work force, although a federal judge paused the plan on Friday. Given wars and strapped economies, other governments or philanthropies are unlikely to make up for the shortfall, and recipient nations are too hamstrung by debt to manage on their own.Even the largest organizations are unlikely to emerge unscathed. In interviews, more than 25 aid workers, former U.S.A.I.D. employees and officials from aid organizations described a system thrown into mass confusion and chaos.A tower of blocks may take hours to build, but “you pull one of those blocks out and it collapses,” said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the H.I.V. prevention organization AVAC, which relied on U.S.A.I.D. for 38 percent of its funding.“You’ve gotten rid of all of the staff, all of the institutional memory, all of the trust and confidence, not only in the United States but in the dozens of countries in which U.S.A.I.D. works,” Mr. Warren said. “Those things have taken decades to build up but two weeks to destroy.”Small organizations, some with as few as 10 employees, have folded. Some midsize organizations have furloughed up to 80 percent of their employees. Even large organizations — including Catholic Relief Services and FHI 360, among the biggest recipients of U.S.A.I.D. funding — have announced large layoffs or furloughs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

22 hours agoAdam Eley and Alison Holt, social affairs editorBBC News