Appeals Court Upholds Prohibition on Trump’s Medical Research Cuts

​

“A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the Trump administration could not drastically cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. The ruling prevents the administration from capping overhead costs for medical research grants, which would have significantly impacted universities and hospitals. The decision reaffirms that Congress controls deviations from agreed-upon funding rates for federal grants.

​

The ruling on Monday upheld a lower court’s judgment in April that the Trump administration could not drastically slash funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Jan. 5, 2026

A federal court of appeals ruled that the Trump administration could not cut federal funding given out by the National Institutes of Health.Hailey Sadler for The New York Times

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that the Trump administration could not make drastic cuts to the federal funding supporting much of the country’s medical and scientific research, reaffirming a lower court’s ruling from early last year.

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that one of the Trump administration’s earliest attempts to kneecap universities, through proposed reductions to grants from the National Institutes of Health, was unlawful. The proposal brought an outpouring of opposition from hundreds of universities and hospitals, which warned that the cuts could cost them billions and make it impossible to continue studies in areas like cancer, genetics and infectious disease.

The sharp cuts took aim at the pre-negotiated rates in thousands of federal grants that set aside money for overhead costs in medical research, such as facility upkeep, laboratory technology and support staff. Scores of universities and hospitals affected by the cuts said the funding for those indirect costs was often shared, with a single grant helping cover the costs of multiple laboratories and experiments simultaneously. That meant that a loss of funds could threaten not just research directly covered by the grants but a broad range of other work.

In an announcement in February, the Trump administration proposed capping the money that could be allocated for overhead costs to 15 percent of any given grant, while the rates previously agreed upon often surpassed 30 or 40 percent.

In an opinion explaining Monday’s decision, Judge Kermit V. Lipez, a Clinton appointee, wrote that lawmakers had laid out a “carefully circumscribed procedure that controls any deviation” from agreed-upon funding rates in federal grants.

“Congress went to great lengths to ensure that N.I.H. could not displace negotiated indirect cost reimbursement rates with a uniform rate,” he wrote.

Judge Lipez noted President Trump’s attempt in his first term to similarly cap reimbursement of overhead costs at 10 percent in a budget proposal in 2017. Congress rejected the proposal.

The possibility of such a sudden funding cut raised deep concern in the medical research community that a considerable number of facilities across the country might shutter, causing permanent losses in advanced research.

Three separate coalitions of universities, medical organizations and Democratic-led states filed suit in February, arguing that the possible setbacks to research institutions in their states could be insurmountable, and that many institutions lacked the financial reserves to cover the shortfall. A New York Times analysis of N.I.H. grant data estimated that $9 billion of $32 billion, or more than 25 percent of grant dollars distributed in fiscal year 2024, had been set aside to cover overhead costs.

In court and in dozens of sworn declarations, the groups suing documented a hefty list of possible consequences on both individual experiments and public health more generally. Those included paused clinical trials on new drugs and the loss of veterinary technicians who oversee animal research.

In April, Judge Angel Kelley of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts permanently barred the Trump administration from capping the funding, and the proposal remained stalled throughout last year.

Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 6, 2026, Section A, Page 17 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Can’t Sharply Cut Medical Research, Court Says in Upholding a Ruling.”

Trump LOSES IT as EMERGENCY UN Meeting CONDEMNS HIM

Venezuela Live Updates: Maduro Arrives at U.S. Courthouse as Trump Threatens Other Countries - The New York Times

"Nicolás Maduro, the ousted Venezuelan leader, and his wife were set to be arraigned on drug trafficking and other charges. President Trump’s suggestion of U.S. action against Colombia and Greenland drew sharp responses from their leaders."

Venezuela Live Updates: Maduro Arrives at U.S. Courthouse as Trump Threatens Other Countries - The New York Times

Top 10 Countries Where Being Black Is a Serious Challenge

‘Naked imperialism’: how Trump intervention in Venezuela is a return to form for the US | US foreign policy | The Guardian

‘Naked imperialism’: how Trump intervention in Venezuela is a return to form for the US

"Most of the Americas have suffered from interference from their powerful northern neighbour – and are usually the worse off for it

Tiago Rogero

An American M113 armoured personnel carrier on guard outside a laundry in Panama during the second day of Operation Just Cause in December 1989. Photograph: Pictorial Press Ltd/Alamy

The US bombardment of Venezuela and the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro, follow a long history of interventions in South and Central America and the Caribbean over the past two centuries. But they also mark an unprecedented moment as the first direct US military attack on a South American country.

At a press conference after Maduro’s capture, Donald Trump said that “American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again”.

But since the mid-19th century, the US has intervened in its continental neighbours not only through economic pressure but also militarily, with a long list of invasions, occupations and, in the case most closely resembling the current situation, the capture of Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989.

US agents place chains around the waist of Panama’s then president Manuel Noriega onboard a C-130 transport plane on 4 January 1990. Photograph: AP

Covert actions helped topple democratically elected governments and usher in military dictatorships in countries such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina, but overt US military operations have historically been confined to closer neighbours in Central America and the Caribbean.

The first direct US military attack on a South American country “signals a major shift in foreign and defence policy – one that is made explicit in the new national security strategy published by the Trump administration a few weeks ago”, said Maurício Santoro, a professor of international relations at the State University of Rio de Janeiro.

That strategy called for an “expansion” of the US military presence in the region in what it describes as a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe doctrine – the “America for Americans” foreign policy set out in 1823 by President James Monroe and later used to justify US-backed military coups in South and Central America.

While Saturday’s action was “in line” with many past operations, it is “shocking because nothing like this has happened since 1989”, said Alan McPherson, a history professor at Temple University and author of A Short History of US Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean.

“One might have thought that this era of naked imperialism – of the US getting the political outcomes it wants in Latin America through sheer military force – would be over in the 21st century, but clearly it is not,” he added.

Almost every country in the region has experienced some form of US intervention, overt or covert, in the past decades. Below are a few examples.

Mexico

A hand-coloured woodcut depicts Gen Winfield Scott leading US forces into Mexico City to end the Mexican-US war in 1847. Illustration: North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy

The annexation of Texas, a former Mexican territory, sparked border disputes that led to a US invasion of Mexico, with American troops occupying the capital, Mexico City, in 1847. The war ended only with the signing of a treaty in 1848 that forced Mexico to cede 55% of its territory – an area encompassing what are now the states of California, Nevada and Utah, as well as parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming.

Cuba

Col Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders after capturing Kettle Hill in Cuba in July 1898. Photograph: Alamy

In 1898, the US helped Cuba in its war of independence against Spain. After the victory, the US received control of Puerto Rico and occupied Cuba until 1902, when an agreement granted the US navy perpetual control of Guantánamo Bay. US troops later occupied the island in from 1906 to 1909 and again from 1917 to 1922. After Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution, the CIA backed the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 in an attempt to trigger an uprising.

Haiti

US marines board the USS Connecticut at Philadelphia’s League Island navy yard en route for Port-au-Prince, Haiti in 1915. Photograph: Bettmann Archive

Under the pretext of “stabilising” the country and protecting US business interests after domestic unrest that led to the repeated overthrow of Haitian leaders, the US invaded Haiti in 1915, taking control of customs, the treasury and the national bank until 1934. When an attempted rebellion threatened the dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier in 1959, the CIA worked behind the scenes to secure his survival, viewing him as an ally in containing the influence of Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution.

Brazil

Brazil’s then president João Goulart (right) receives full military honours as he arrives for talks with President Kennedy. Lt Col Charles P Murray Jr is in the centre. Photograph: Bettmann/Bettmann Archive

Although it ultimately never intervened, a US naval taskforce was positioned off Brazil’s coast to intervene in case there was resistance to the military coup that overthrew the democratically elected leftwing president João Goulart in 1964. In the 1970s, the CIA and the FBI directly advised the repressive apparatus of dictatorships in countries such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina in the persecution and assassination of dissidents under what became known as Operation Condor.

Panama

Children cheer US marines during ‘Operation Just Cause’, when the US invaded Panama to remove Manuel Noriega in December 1989. Photograph: New York Daily News/Getty Images

The US militarily backed the separatist movement that led to Panama’s break from Colombia in 1903 and, after independence, Washington retained significant influence over the Central American country. In 1989, President George HW Bush ordered Panama’s invasion by about 27,000 US troops to capture the dictator Noriega – a former CIA ally who had been indicted on drug-trafficking charges in US courts.

Hours after the strikes, in which an estimated 200-500 civilians were killed, along with about 300 Panamanian soldiers, the US installed the declared winner of the election, Guillermo Endara, as president.

It remains unclear whether a similar outcome will follow in Venezuela, which Trump has said would be “run” by the US until a “proper transition can take place”.

McPherson said it is “very rare” for US interventions in the region to be followed by “peace, tranquillity, stability and democracy”.

“US interventions almost always create long-term problems of succession,” he added."

‘Naked imperialism’: how Trump intervention in Venezuela is a return to form for the US | US foreign policy | The Guardian

The U.S. Indictment of Maduro Cites Cocaine Smuggling. Venezuela’s Role in the Trade Is Believed to Be Modest.

​

“The U.S. unsealed an indictment against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, charging him with narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. The indictment alleges that Maduro and his allies worked with major drug trafficking groups to move cocaine to the U.S., though experts say Venezuela is a minor transit country for cocaine, with most of the flow heading to Europe. The indictment also claims Maduro used drug profits to secure loyalty from military officials and party leaders.

​

Experts have said that Venezuela is not a major drug producer but a minor cocaine transit country, with most of the cocaine flowing through it headed to Europe.

Published Jan. 3, 2026Updated Jan. 4, 2026, 6:54 a.m. ET

U.S. Military Action in Venezuela

Nicolás Maduro making a speech in Caracas last year.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times

The United States unsealed an indictment on Saturday against Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, that charges him with narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The four-count indictment also charges Mr. Maduro’s wife, his son, two high-ranking Venezuelan officials and an alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua group, a gang that the Trump administration designated as a terrorist organization last year. President Trump has said that Tren de Aragua operates in conjunction with Mr. Maduro’s government, a conclusion that U.S. intelligence agencies have contradicted.

The indictment states that Mr. Maduro and his allies worked for decades with major drug trafficking groups to move large quantities of cocaine to the United States.

It follows months of a steadily escalating pressure campaign against Mr. Maduro, which culminated in his capture by the U.S. military in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital. He arrived in New York on Saturday afternoon and will be flown in a helicopter to Manhattan for prosecution.

The pressure campaign began in September with lethal attacks by U.S. forces on small vessels that the Trump administration has said were carrying drugs from Venezuela to the United States. The administration has justified the attacks by saying the United States was in an armed conflict with drug cartels and vowed to destroy trafficking networks. Many experts say these strikes are illegal.

President Trump has asserted that the campaign is targeting drugs killing Americans, but most U.S. overdoses involve fentanyl, which doesn’t come from South America, experts say.

Fentanyl, which causes tens of thousands of overdoses per year, is almost entirely produced in Mexico using chemicals from China, according to U.S.authorities, and Venezuela plays no known role in its trade, nor does any other South American country.

The indictment unsealed Saturday focuses almost entirely on Venezuela’s decades-long role in the cocaine trade. It accuses Mr. Maduro and co-conspirators of working closely with some of the region’s largest drug trafficking groups, in Colombia and in Mexico. They include groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by its Spanish acronym FARC, and the Sinaloa Cartel, which are also designated by the United States as terrorist organizations.

Experts, however, have said Venezuela is not a major drug producer and have described it as a minor cocaine transit country, with most of the cocaine flowing through Venezuela heading to Europe, not the United States.

The majority of the cocaine bound for the United States is believed to move not through the Caribbean but through the Pacific, according to data from Colombia, the United States and the United Nations. Venezuela does not have a Pacific Coast.

While the indictment states that Venezuela was shipping 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine a year by around 2020, that represents only about 10 percent to 13 percent of the global cocaine trade. Other countries play a much larger role. In 2018, 1,400 metric tons passed through Guatemala, according to U.S. data.

There is evidence that Mr. Maduro has benefited from the drug trade to stay in power. Both the indictment and experts say he also used profits from drug trafficking to secure the loyalty of military officials and leaders in his party.

Annie Correal is a Times reporter covering Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.“ 

 

A Pardon and a Prosecution in New York Show Trump’s Personal Geopolitics

​

“The contrasting fates of Juan Orlando Hernández and Nicolás Maduro, both charged with drug trafficking, highlight President Trump’s use of the justice system for personal geopolitical purposes. Despite similar charges and investigations, Trump pardoned Hernández, viewing him as a victim of unfair treatment, while Maduro was captured and extradited to the U.S. This disparity underscores Trump’s selective application of justice, aligning with his foreign policy views and personal interests.

​

The facts in the cases of Nicolás Maduro and Juan Orlando Hernández are strikingly similar. The men’s fates are not.

Jan. 3, 2026

U.S. Military Action in Venezuela

When President Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras was extradited in 2022, his nation’s capital celebrated. President Trump pardoned him last month anyway.Jorge Cabrera/Getty Images

Two Latin American strongmen were charged in Manhattan with corrupting their governments, using state power to import hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States.

One, the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, was abruptly pardoned by President Trump last month.

The other, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, was captured on Saturday in a military raid that the secretary of state characterized as a law enforcement operation. He was brought to the United States to face fresh allegations of narco-terrorism.

The divergent fates of the two men accused of similar crimes by the same prosecutor’s office underscores the way President Trump and his aides are using the federal justice system to conduct a highly personalized geopolitics.

Mr. Trump, when asked on Saturday about his December pardon of Mr. Hernández in light of the operation against Mr. Maduro, made no attempt to disguise his feelings about Mr. Hernández: He saw himself in the imprisoned president.

“The man that I pardoned was, if you could equate it to us, he was treated like the Biden administration treated a man named Trump,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “This was a man who was persecuted very unfairly. He was the head of the country.”

The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York has long been the most prominent federal prosecutors’ office in the country and for years was known for its independence from Washington. It took on Wall Street, prosecuted high-ranking political officials from both parties and, in 2022, charged the ex-president of Honduras in what authorities would later characterize as “one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.”

Two years later, prosecutors asked a judge to ensure that Mr. Hernández died in prison, saying that he had abused his power, had connections to violent traffickers and was responsible for the “unfathomable destruction” cocaine had caused in the United States. Mr. Trump pardoned him nonetheless.

“Trump thinks he can use federal criminal prosecutions for any purpose, which is to say to promote his foreign policy views, to promote his vendettas, to promote his self-interest and to promote his perceived political interests,” said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor who teaches legal ethics at Fordham Law School in New York.

Both the Hernández and Maduro cases began as Drug Enforcement Administration investigations around 2010, were investigated by the same D.E.A. unit and were handled by the same investigative unit in the Southern District.

Each prosecution was led at various stages by Emil Bove III, who eventually rose to lead the office’s terrorism and international narcotics unit. After leaving the office, Mr. Bove became a criminal defense lawyer for Mr. Trump and then a top Justice Department official. He is now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The factual similarities in the cases are striking. It is not just that the charges resemble one another; prosecutors also accused both men of overseeing key way stations in the same hemispheric trade.

Taken together, the indictments provide a bird's-eye view of the supply chain that for years has brought processed cocaine from Colombia and Venezuela to shipment points in Honduras and, ultimately, to the United States.

Mr. Hernández was charged in 2022 with conspiring to import cocaine into the U.S. and using machine guns as part of that conspiracy. The charges unveiled against Mr. Maduro on Saturday also include a cocaine importation conspiracy and possession of machine guns as part of it. The combination of the trafficking and gun charges makes the potential penalties in such prosecutions more severe.

In 2020, Mr. Maduro was one of six defendants charged with participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy, with prosecutors accusing him of leading a drug-trafficking organization known as Cártel de los Soles. Venezuelans have used the phrase for years, a reference to a sun insignia that high-ranking Venezuelan military personnel wear on their uniforms.

Mr. Maduro, that indictment said, “coordinated foreign affairs with Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug-trafficking.” The newly unsealed indictment was even more specific, saying that the shipment points in Honduras — as well as in Guatemala and Mexico — relied on a “culture of corruption,” in which traffickers paid off politicians for protection and help.

One of those politicians, prosecutors persuaded a jury, was Mr. Hernández. Jurors in 2024 convicted him of having received millions from drug-trafficking organizations throughout the region.

When Mr. Hernández was extradited, Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, erupted in celebration, and, after his conviction, expatriates rejoiced outside the Manhattan courthouse. But after pardoning Mr. Hernández last month, Mr. Trump defended the decision, saying it was the will of Hondurans.

“The people of Honduras really thought he was set up, and it was a terrible thing,” he said.

Mr. Hernández’s wife has said he would not immediately return to Honduras, where authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest.

David Smilde, a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans who has studied Venezuela for decades and lived in the country part-time until last year, said that the prosecution of Mr. Maduro might be perceived differently by the eight million Venezuelans who live outside the country, compared with the roughly 30 million who are still there.

The diaspora, he said, might thrill to the prosecution, viewing Mr. Maduro as a Saddam Hussein-like figure whose capture could bring an end to the Venezuelan regime.

People who live in the country, Mr. Smilde said, were likely to be less moved, given that several Venezuelans were prosecuted in recent years, only to be returned to their home countries by the Biden administration. They include two nephews of Mr. Maduro’s wife who were convicted on drug charges in 2015 but released in exchange for Americans.

“With the U.S. justice system and its inconsistency in recent years, it’s not as big a deal as it used to be,” Mr. Smilde said.

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in the New York region for The Times. He is focused on political influence and its effect on the rule of law in the area's federal and state courts.“

1968 Olympics: Black Power Salute Got Athletes Banned But Inspired Millions

Times Square erupts in protest over US strikes on Venezuela

Donald Trump’s War in Venezuela (Congratulations to the Winners of the “Fell for it Again Award”)

What are the implications of the US capture of Nicolas Maduro? | Inside ...

Visiting Israel MADE Me ‘Anti-Zionist,’ Says Holocaust Survivor

'Who's driving this?': Trump clueless as U.S. drifts toward war with Ven...

 

Bondi says Maduro and his wife to face a fresh indictment in Manhattan.

​

“Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are expected to face new drug and weapons charges in New York. The charges, similar to those in a 2020 indictment, accuse Maduro of leading the Cartel de los Soles and conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. The indictment alleges that Maduro used his position to enrich himself and his administration while prioritizing the distribution of cocaine in the U.S.

​

Jan. 3, 2026, 9:01 a.m. ET3 hours ago

Venezuela Live Updates: Trump Says U.S. Will ‘Run the Country’ After Capture of Maduro

Watch Live: President Trump Speaks After U.S. Captures Maduro

Here’s the latest:

• President Trump said the United States would “run” Venezuela until there can be a proper transition of power following the military operation that captured the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.

• Mr. Trump said the couple was being taken to New York to face drug and weapons charges. A newly unsealed indictment of Mr. Maduro and his wife is similar to one handed up against the Venezuelan leader in 2020.

• Mr. Maduro has led Venezuela since 2013 and his capture raised questions about the future of his government. María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, called for unity.

President Nicolás Maduro, prosecutors say, is the head of the so-called Cartel de los Soles.Alejandro Cegarra for The New York Times

Nicolás Maduro, the captured president of Venezuela, is expected to face charges in the Southern District of New York, where prosecutors had targeted him for years, the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, said on Saturday.

Ms. Bondi posted the news on social media, adding that Mr. Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, who was not included in the original indictment, had also been charged. Both, she said, “will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.”

Mr. Maduro was indicted in Manhattan in 2020. With those charges pending, Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to Mr. Maduro last year as a “fugitive from American justice.”

That indictment, based on an investigation by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, accused Mr. Maduro and five others of narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine, among other charges.

Federal prosecutors often return what is known as a superseding indictment to add defendants or charges to an existing indictment. In this case, Ms. Bondi’s post on X said Mr. Maduro’s wife would also be charged, suggesting that a new indictment had been filed under seal.

The 2020 indictment said that Mr. Maduro had come to head a drug trafficking organization, the Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, as he gained power in Venezuela. Cartel de los Soles has been an ironic nickname for the Maduro administration’s military officers, who wear suns on their epaulets.

Under Mr. Maduro’s leadership, the indictment charged, the organization sought not only to enrich members and enhance their power, but also to “flood” the United States with cocaine “and inflict the drug’s harmful and addictive effects on users in this country.” The indictment said Maduro and others had “prioritized using cocaine as a weapon against America.”

Prosecutors in the Southern District had long targeted Mr. Maduro, and the investigation that led to his 2020 indictment was overseen by Emil Bove III, a prosecutor who years later became one of President Trump’s criminal defense lawyers and whom the president this year appointed to the federal bench. One of the other prosecutors was Amanda Houle, who now leads the office’s criminal division.

Though the circumstances of Mr. Maduro’s capture in a military raid were extraordinary, the American legal system has experience in arresting South American leaders and putting them on trial. Manhattan prosecutors have a saying — “you can’t suppress the body” — meaning that once a person is in custody, a case tends to move forward regardless of the circumstances of the arrest.

In 1989, the United States invaded Panama and compelled the surrender of Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, Panama’s military leader, who was taken to Florida and arrested by D.E.A. agents. Three years after his surrender, Mr. Noriega was tried, convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

In 2022, the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, was arrested by law-enforcement officials from his own country in connection with an extradition request from the United States. He, too, was brought to the United States, where he was tried, convicted and sentenced.

Late last year, Mr. Trump abruptly pardoned Mr. Hernández, saying that the case against him — which had also been overseen by Mr. Bove and had been built over several presidential administrations — “was a Biden administration setup.”

The case against Mr. Hernández and the 2020 charges against Mr. Maduro bear a significant resemblance. Both leaders were accused of using their governments as vehicles for the exporting of cocaine into the United States. Both were charged with conspiring to possess machine guns, which, when combined with drug trafficking charges, carries potentially lengthy prison sentences.

Mr. Maduro’s 2020 indictment has been pending in the Manhattan federal court before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, a veteran of nearly three decades on the Southern District bench.

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, the judge is best known for having overseen the many lawsuits filed after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, by families of the dead and workers at ground zero.

More recently, Judge Hellerstein, 92, has presided over Mr. Trump’s attempts to move his Manhattan criminal conviction into federal court, a matter that is pending“