View this email .
American Dental Education Association

Volume 3, No. 69, February 12, 2025

NIH Announces New Funding Policy Effective Monday, Feb. 10

 

LATE UPDATE: On Monday, Feb. 10, three Federal lawsuits were filed challenging NIH’s authority to change this rule without notice and such a fashion. They were all filed in Massachusetts, Association of American Medical Colleges, et. al. v. NIH, Association of American Universities, et. al. v. HHS, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et.al. v. NIH All suits requested a Temporary Restraining Order. The judge in the Massachusetts, et. al. v. NIH case (which includes 21 other states) issued a TRO late Monday night pending a hearing on Friday, Feb. 21.

 

On Friday, Feb. 8, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a that limits funding for indirect costs in medical research grants to 15%, significantly reducing financial support for universities, medical schools and research institutions. Indirect costs cover essential expenses, such as building maintenance, equipment and support staff salaries. The NIH justifies this change by arguing that most private foundations provide lower indirect cost rates, and universities accept such grants. The agency also emphasizes its responsibility to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently to benefit the American people.

 

This policy change affects both current and future grants, raising concerns among researchers. Initially, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suggested that the rule could apply retroactively, requiring institutions to return previously allocated funds. However, according to National Public Radio (NPR ), HHS officials clarified to NPR that, for now, they will to ease implementation. Despite this, the agency stated that it will continue to evaluate whether a retrospective application of the rule would be beneficial for taxpayers.

 

The NIH, which spent over $35 billion in the 2023 fiscal year on nearly 50,000 grants, allocated $9 billion specifically for indirect costs. The new funding cap is expected to have a major impact on research institutions, which rely on these funds to maintain infrastructure and operations. Many researchers are criticizing the policy, warning that it could hinder scientific progress and innovation.

 

The change, which took effect on Monday, Feb. 10, marks another significant move by the Trump administration in reshaping federal support for scientific research.

FDA Issued Proposed Rule on Nicotine Levels

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a to establish a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products. The proposal builds on the FDA’s 2018 advance notice of proposed rulemaking and aims to significantly reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products, excluding premium cigars and waterpipe tobacco. The maximum nicotine level would be set at 0.7 milligrams per gram of tobacco, marking a substantial reduction from current levels. However, the rule would not apply to non-combusted products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), smokeless tobacco or nicotine pouches.

 

The primary goal of this rule is to combat nicotine addiction, which the FDA identifies as a major contributor to preventable deaths in the United States, with 480,000 deaths annually attributed to smoking-related diseases. The proposed rule emphasizes the dangers of combusted tobacco.

 

The proposed rule would also require tobacco manufacturers to implement new compliance procedures, such as testing nicotine levels, batch sampling, using a manufacturing code and recordkeeping. Several methods for reducing nicotine content, including genetic engineering, chemical extraction and alternative farming techniques, have been suggested.

 

The effective date of any final rule based on this proposed rule would be two years after the final rule is published, providing tobacco manufacturers with some time to get into compliance with the final rule’s requirements, sell remaining stock of finished tobacco products and subject applications for new tobacco products that comply with the finalized product standard.

 

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted until Sept. 15, 2025.

 

Please be aware that the new administration may withdraw this proposed rule.

 

Trump Administration Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze

 

A federal judge, U.S. District Court John McConnell, District of Rhode Island, stated his readiness to enforce his blocking the Trump administration from freezing federal grants, loans and financial assistance. Democratic-led states raised concerns that funding was still being withheld despite the judge's temporary restraining order issued on Jan. 31. States reported that state agencies were still struggling to obtain funds and that federal officials claimed certain funds, including those from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, were not covered under the court order.

 

During a virtual court hearing, Judge McConnell acknowledged that state agencies were rightfully worried about their inability to access the funds, even after the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded its directive announcing the freeze. The judge justified his order by citing evidence that the funding freeze remained in effect, despite the OMB’s official reversal, which he suggested might have been done to avoid legal consequences.

 

Judge McConnell maintained that his order was clear and reaffirmed his commitment to enforcing it. He expressed frustration that federal agencies were not fully complying and scheduled a follow-up hearing for Feb. 21 to determine whether a longer-lasting preliminary injunction should be issued.

 
Utah House Passes Bill Banning Fluoride in Public Water Systems

 

The Utah House has passed a bill that would prohibit adding to public water systems, following a recent federal court ruling that urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address potential health risks linked to fluoridation.

 

Supporters of HB81, including sponsor Gricius, argue that fluoridation poses potential health risks and that individuals—not the government—should decide whether to consume fluoride. They also highlight the cost of fluoridation, with some municipalities spending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain the process. Critics of fluoridation also contend that public water is not the appropriate means to distribute what they consider a medical treatment, as dosage cannot be tailored to individual needs.

 

Opponents, including dentists and public health experts, warn that banning fluoride could have serious consequences, particularly for low-income communities with limited access to dental care. They argue that fluoridation has been instrumental in reducing tooth decay for decades and emphasize that Utah law requires any decision to add or remove fluoride from public water systems to be made through a vote of the people, not legislative action.

 

The bill has been sent to the Senate for consideration.

 

For more resources about fluoride, please refer to .

 

Florida Passes Sweeping Immigration Bill, Including In-state Tuition Ban, Setting Up Clash With DeSantis

 

Florida have passed the , an expansive immigration package that would remove undocumented students’ eligibility for in-state tuition at public colleges. If signed into law, the measure would take effect July 1. The legislation has heightened tensions between state Republican lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) as they compete to align with former President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies.

 

For the past decade, Florida has allowed undocumented students to pay in-state tuition if they attended high school in the state for three years and enrolled in college within two years of graduation. The proposed rollback, initially introduced by Republican State Sen. Randy Fine in December 2024, was later prioritized by DeSantis during a special legislative session in January. The bill ultimately advanced without his full backing. DeSantis has criticized the bill as inadequate and vowed to veto it unless lawmakers adopt stricter measures.

 

With Republicans holding a veto-proof supermajority, the bill’s fate remains uncertain. Lawmakers could amend the legislation to meet DeSantis' demands, or they could attempt to override his veto.

 

Mississippi House Passes Bill to Ban DEI in Public Schools and Colleges

 

The Mississippi House passed , which seeks to ban DEI initiatives in public schools and colleges, with a 74-41 vote strictly along party lines. The bill faced fierce opposition from House Democrats, who it promotes discrimination and ignores the state’s history of racial inequities. State House Minority Leader Robert Johnson (D) criticized the measure as a political move that undermines protections for minority groups.

 

Bill sponsor State Rep. Joey Hood (R) defended the legislation, stating it aims to create an inclusive environment. Despite attempts by Democrats to delay the vote and introduce amendments, all proposed changes failed. The bill now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers are expected to take up their own version of the legislation in the coming days.

 

ADEA Advocacy in Action

This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.

 

Issues and Resources

  • ADEA on teledentistry
  • ADEA on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
  • ADEA policy regarding overprescription of antibiotics
  • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click .

The is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.

 

©2025

American Dental Education Association

655 K Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-289-7201

Website:

twitter
Unsubscribe

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA

ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer

 

Bridgette DeHart, J.D.

ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy

 

Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.

ADEA Senior Director of State Relations and Advocacy

 

Contact Us:
Higher Logic