The July 2025 edition of FDA in Flux highlights five significant developments shaping the regulatory landscape for medical, life sciences, and consumer product sectors.

In May 2025 the Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division published its enforcement priorities, and the Civil Division has now followed suit with a memorandum of its own (the “Civil Division Memo”).  It outlines five policy objectives that President Trump and Attorney General Bondi have directed the Civil Division to prioritize in their investigative and enforcement work: 

(1) combatting discriminatory practices and policies; 

(2) ending antisemitism;

(3) protecting women and children; 

(4) ending sanctuary jurisdictions; and 

(5) prioritizing denaturalization. 

Each section identifies the Executive Order(s) and DOJ Memoranda that set forth the Trump Administration’s policy objective(s) in each priority area and describes the types of conduct that will be subject to enforcement, as well as some of the tools that DOJ might use in those efforts.  This article focuses on the Administration’s stated objective of “protecting women and children,” which relates to several Executive Orders regarding gender identity and gender-affirming care and a related directive from Attorney General Bondi that the Civil Division describing DOJ’s intent to investigate certain manufacturers and distributors of puberty blockers, sex hormones, and other drugs.

Welcome to FDA in Flux – A Mintz newsletter tracking rapid changes in policy and agency actions that impact medical, life sciences, and consumer product investment decisions and development strategies.

Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia filed a federal Complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on May 5, 2025 alleging that the Trump Administration’s recent activities to downsize and restructure the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are unlawful under both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The coalition of states, led by New York, is asking the judicial branch for declaratory and injunctive relief “to prevent the unconstitutional and illegal dismantling of the Department.” In addition to New York and the District of Columbia, states joining the lawsuit comprise Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin (together, the Plaintiff States). This is but one among multiple legal challenges to the ongoing programmatic and research cuts within HHS and its sub-agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

Over the past few weeks, we have been closely following the Trump Administration’s restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the major reduction in the department’s workforce (RIF), and its broader deregulation strategy. A recently leaked Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Budget “passback” memorandum to HHS, which outlines proposed amounts for the President’s HHS budget request for fiscal year 2026 (the “Leaked Budget”) as well as departmental restructuring plans, provides additional insights into the Administration’s priorities for HHS and the agencies under its purview. In addition, on May 2, 2025, the Administration submitted to the Senate Committee on Appropriations the President’s “skinny” FY 2026 budget request (the “Skinny Budget”), which will be followed in the coming weeks by a more complete FY 2026 federal budget request. 

It’s no secret that President Trump, his Cabinet, and other executive branch leaders are prioritizing deregulatory activities over more historical federal governance approaches. Indeed, one of President Trump’s earliest executive orders – issued on January 31, 2025 – is entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” and states that for each new regulation issued, at least ten prior regulations must be identified for repeal (and it defines the term “regulation” broadly to include memoranda, guidance documents, and policy statements, among others). In addition to this new 10-for-1 directive, on February 19, 2025, President Trump issued executive order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative” (EO 14219). The president’s order directs all executive agency heads, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Team Lead, to review all existing regulations for “consistency with law and Administration policy” and, within 60 days, to identify regulations that fall under certain categories.

As spring arrived in the mid-Atlantic region, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. followed through with a previously announced Reduction in Force (RIF) that reduced the department’s workforce by a reported 10,000 employees and started the process of restructuring the organization as a whole. Now that the dust is starting to settle, we are beginning to analyze the RIFs and how they could impact key health care stakeholders, including Medicare Advantage Plans, providers, and biopharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. This post provides a brief overview of the restructuring to date, HHS’s reduction in workforce, and their potential impacts. We will continue to monitor these developments and provide future updates to Mintz clients and friends.

The obvious result of the legal shootout between the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and clinical laboratory trade associations, the American Clinical Laboratory Association and the Association for Molecular Pathology, in the Eastern District of Texas to determine whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permits the agency to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs) is a complete victory for clinical laboratories. The U.S. district judge’s decision, issued on March 31, 2025, vacated the May 2024 final rule through which FDA sought to specify that LDTs are agency-regulated in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs) and to describe a plan for phasing-in enforcement of existing medical device regulations for such products over four years (see our previous posts on the LDT final rule here and here). In adopting the plaintiffs’ arguments wholesale, however, the judge created some incongruities in the relevant regulatory frameworks, as well as several quandaries for FDA and the clinical laboratory industry going forward. These inconsistencies could have greater consequences down the road if the Trump administration decides not to appeal the ruling.