Federal Court Reinstates Over $1 Billion in NIH Grants Cut by Trump Administration

On June 16, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Young ruled that the Trump administration's termination of over $1 billion in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants was illegal and discriminatory. The cuts primarily affected research projects related to diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender identity.

Judge Young criticized the administration's actions as "arbitrary and capricious," highlighting the unprecedented nature of such discrimination in his 40-year tenure. He stated, "In my four decades on the bench, I have never seen such a blatant disregard for the principles of equality and fairness." The ruling mandates the reinstatement of the affected grants, though it is subject to appeal.

In early 2025, the Trump administration initiated a series of executive orders aimed at eliminating DEI programs and research related to gender identity within federally funded institutions. Executive Order 14151, signed on January 20, 2025, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," sought to dismantle DEI initiatives across federal agencies. Subsequently, Executive Order 14173, signed on January 21, 2025, titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," revoked previous orders that mandated non-discrimination in federal contracting based on various factors, including gender identity.

Following these orders, the NIH, under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), began terminating grants that were perceived to align with DEI principles or focus on gender identity. This led to the cancellation of approximately 367 grants, totaling nearly $3.8 billion, with Massachusetts institutions losing over $1.2 billion. The cuts reportedly targeted research related to DEI and LGBTQ+ health, including projects at Harvard University.

In response to the grant terminations, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, public health groups, and scientists filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the administration's actions. The plaintiffs argued that the terminations were indiscriminate and harmful, potentially impacting patient care.

Judge Young, presiding over the case, ruled that the administration's actions were "arbitrary and capricious," violating the Administrative Procedure Act. He highlighted the unprecedented nature of such discrimination in his 40-year tenure, stating, "In my four decades on the bench, I have never seen such a blatant disregard for the principles of equality and fairness." The ruling mandates the reinstatement of the affected grants, though it is subject to appeal.

The court's decision has significant implications for the scientific community and public health research. The reinstatement of these grants is expected to resume critical studies addressing health disparities, mental health, and minority group health issues. Researchers and institutions affected by the terminations have expressed relief and optimism. Dr. Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and one of the plaintiffs, stated, "Ending these NIH grants wastes taxpayer money and years of hard work to answer the world's most pressing biomedical questions. This is an attack on scientific progress itself."

The Department of Health and Human Services defended the cuts, asserting they were based on scientific merit rather than ideology. However, critics argue that the terminations were indiscriminate and harmful, with some studies potentially impacting patient care.

The NIH is the world's largest public funder of biomedical research, with a budget of $48 billion. In 2024, every $1 in NIH funding generated $2.56 in economic activity, supporting over 400,000 jobs. The administration's actions have raised concerns about the politicization of scientific research and the potential chilling effect on studies addressing sensitive or controversial topics.

Judge Young's ruling not only mandates the reinstatement of vital research funding but also highlights the broader implications of political interventions in scientific endeavors. As the case may proceed to appeal, the scientific community and policymakers alike will be closely monitoring the developments, recognizing the profound impact such decisions have on public health and the advancement of knowledge.