A vocal critic of the Trump administration’s actions at the National Institutes of Health, Jenna Norton, was unexpectedly placed on administrative leave this week. Norton, a program official at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), received an email on Thursday informing her of the decision without providing a specific reason for the move.
The email, sent by the NIH human resources office, stated that Norton would be placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits effective November 13, 2025, at 2:00 PM EST. Her email access was also cut off as part of the administrative leave process.
According to a Department of Health and Human Services official familiar with the matter, Norton was placed on leave because of her constant criticism of the administration instead of focusing on her job to promote gold standard science. The official, who chose to remain anonymous, mentioned that Norton’s actions were deemed inappropriate for someone in her position.
In response to her sudden placement on administrative leave, Norton expressed a mix of emotions including sadness, anger, and relief. Despite feeling the toxicity of the work environment, she remains determined to speak up against injustices. Norton believes that the decision to put her on leave was intended as a threat to silence her, but she is even more resolute in her commitment to advocacy.
Norton’s dismissal was initially reported by The New York Times, shedding light on her role in organizing opposition to the Trump administration’s policies. She has been actively involved in raising concerns about grant terminations and changes within the agency, including her participation in the “Bethesda Declaration” signed by over 300 agency staffers.
While some signers of the declaration have faced no repercussions for their criticism, Norton’s outspokenness led to her abrupt administrative leave. Her work at NIDDK focused on health disparities research, an area that has been significantly impacted by grant terminations and funding uncertainties.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding her future at the agency, Norton remains steadfast in her commitment to advocating for scientific integrity. She believes that the current administration’s actions have hindered the progress of meaningful research and is unsure if she will be able to resume her role as a program officer at NIH.
The case of Norton’s administrative leave mirrors previous incidents involving dissenting voices within the agency, such as the prolonged administrative leave of leaders like Jeanne Marrazzo and the eventual firing of Kathleen Neuzil. These instances highlight the challenges faced by those who speak out against policies that undermine scientific integrity.
As Norton navigates through this challenging period, her determination to stand up for what she believes in serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding principles of transparency and accountability within scientific institutions.
