The termination of some National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants by the Trump administration was illegal, a U.S. court has ruled.
The grants, many of which focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, were found to have been unlawfully terminated by the Massachusetts District Court.
Judge William Young ordered their restoration and condemned the administration’s actions as politically motivated and detrimental to underrepresented communities.
Highlights
- A U.S. court ruled the Trump administration's termination of some NIH grants was illegal and discriminatory.
- Judge William Young condemned the cuts as politically motivated racial and LGBTQ discrimination, calling it unprecedented.
- The NIH and HHS defended the cuts, claiming they prioritized scientific rigor over ideological agendas.
- The decision follows a lawsuit by researchers and groups, emphasizing research must be evidence-based, not political.
The Trump administration illegally cut some NIH funding grants
Image credits: The White House
He said it was “palpably clear” that the government was fuelled by “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”
After four decades on the bench, Judge Young, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, remarked: “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
He concluded Monday’s hearing with a pointed question: “Have we no shame?”
“You [the Trump administration] are bearing down on people of color because of their color,” Judge Young said, according to NBC News.
Image credits: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
“The Constitution will not permit that.”
The judge also pressed government attorneys to clearly define what constituted DEI, challenging how funding could be revoked on those grounds — especially when certain grants focused on health disparities that aligned with congressional mandates, AP reports.
In a statement to AP, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH’s parent agency, said the government was “exploring all legal options.”
“HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,” he said in an email.
Image credits: The White House
Last week, dozens of NIH employees signed a letter protesting the cuts.
They said the agency had revoked 2,100 research grants, totaling about $9.5 billion, and cut an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since Donald Trump took office in January, Reuters reports.
In February, the NIH initiated a sweeping rollback of federal grants, abruptly suspending application processes and removing funding opportunities from its website.
Hundreds of research projects were then canceled, with researchers saying no reasonable explanation was given.
A lawsuit challenging cancellations was filed back in April
Image credits: Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
Peter Lurie was working on a project with the potential to expand access to urgently needed HIV prevention significantly.
He said an NIH termination letter claimed the project grant was “based on gender identity” and it no longer aligned with “agency priorities.”
Lurie is just one of the hundreds of researchers who cited insufficient evidence for canceling the grants.
In April, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Protect Democracy, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a lawsuit.
It was on behalf of individual researchers and groups, including the American Public Health Association, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and Ibis Reproductive Health.
Image credits: The White House
The lawsuit challenged the abrupt cancellations, and two cases have now been successful in court, with the judge yet to rule on others.
However, the ruling is interim and subject to appeal.
The reinstatement criteria also only apply to the specific grants cited in the lawsuit while legal processes continue.
“Today’s decision is a crucial step in protecting public health and safeguarding critical research that helps us understand, prevent, and treat life-threatening diseases,” said plaintiff Dr. Brittany Charlton, associate professor at Harvard Chan School of Public Health.
“Scientific research must be guided by evidence, not political agendas, and this ruling rightly restores important research projects that should never have been disrupted.”
Trump has moved to eliminate federal DEI programs, calling them “dangerous” and “immoral.”
His administration issued an executive order to shut down DEI offices, ban related training for federal contractors, and promote a “colorblind, merit-based” approach.
There are significant concerns that the move could weaken anti-discrimination efforts.