A former prominent federal health official has taken legal action against the Trump administration, claiming her dismissal was a result of opposing the government’s “reckless actions.”

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who previously led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), filed a 31-page lawsuit in Maryland’s federal court. She asserts that once the new administration assumed power in January, they compromised “scientific integrity” in favor of “unscientific and unsupported political biases.” Marrazzo believes her outspoken criticism led to her removal from this esteemed position.

Appointed as NIAID director in August 2023 following Dr. Anthony Fauci, Marrazzo’s selection was reportedly celebrated by the scientific community. Her complaint highlights her success in the role, evidenced by receiving “the highest possible performance ratings.”

The landscape shifted earlier this year when President Donald Trump reassumed office and appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

According to Marrazzo, new leadership at HHS and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which oversees NIAID, began to stifle scientific research. She accuses them of prioritizing political preferences over scientific integrity, thereby undermining NIH’s mission to advance research. The most significant shift involved the stance on vaccines, with new policies promoting an “anti-vaccine” agenda in stark contrast to “decades of incontrovertible scientific evidence.”

HHS also began cutting research funding for grants that contained the words “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion” — actions in line with Trump’s executive agenda but which Marrazzo deemed “reckless” and representing a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.” The decisions significantly affected her work, she recounts, as “the majority of NIH grants and contracts canceled in 2025 were in the area of infectious diseases.”

But Marrazzo did not intend to keep her disagreements — and fears — to herself. Rather, she became a whistleblower — “object[ing] to the censorship of scientific research” and destruction of scientific integrity “for political reasons” in emails, conversations, and meetings with her bosses in NIH and HHS.

As she tells it, her opposition to the new administration’s priorities resulted in a “blatantly retaliatory act.” She was removed from her position as NIAID director and placed on administrative leave pending a reassignment to the Indian Health Service (IHS). She had been shut out, she says: directed not to return to work, barred from NIH facilities and equipment, and never actually reassigned.

But Marrazzo, again, did not relent. On Sept. 4, months after her proposed reassignment, she appealed to the U.S. Office of the Special Counsel (OSC), alleging that “HHS retaliated against her for her protected whistleblowing by placing her on administrative leave.” She also spoke with national media outlets, both in print and on television, about her complaints and concerns with where public health was heading.

On Sept. 26, the relegated NIAID leader received a letter from Kennedy. She had been fired.

Marrazzo maintains that the government officials acted unlawfully against her in numerous ways. For one thing, she says, they violated her First Amendment rights because they fired her over her “protected speech.” For another, they violated the Fifth Amendment because they terminated her without due process, she alleges.

She is seeking to be reinstated to her position and receive back pay.

One section of Marrazzo’s complaint summarizes the perceived wrongs she faced.

“HHS removed Dr. Marrazzo from her position as NIAID Director and terminated her employment because she raised concerns—both internally within HHS and externally to the OSC and the media—about government actions that she reasonably believed constituted a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; and censorship related to scientific research or the integrity of the scientific process,” reads the filing. “The concerns she raised constitute protected activity under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”), and her disclosures to the OSC and the media about matters of public concern are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Law&Crime has reached out to HHS for comment on the lawsuit.