A federal judge delivered a significant ruling on Monday, declaring that the Trump administration’s termination of numerous grants by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was ‘void and illegal.’ As a part of this ruling, many of the canceled grants will be reinstated, covering projects highlighted by ProPublica in recent reports.
The case was initiated through two lawsuits: one filed by a coalition of attorneys general from various states, and another spearheaded by the American Public Health Association in conjunction with several organizations and researchers.
District Judge William G. Young stated in his ruling that the directives leading to the termination of these grants were ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and had ‘no force and effect.’ The judge emphasized that his decision mandates the restoration of funding for the grants specifically identified by the plaintiffs.
Judge Young did not hold back in his condemnation of the government’s actions, pointing out that they represented clear instances of racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.
“This represents racial discrimination, and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community,” he stated. “That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out, and I do so.”
The Trump administration had imposed a ban on NIH funding for grants connected to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” claiming that such research might be discriminatory. ProPublica had previously reported that this ban resulted in the cancellation of more than 150 grants, including research aimed at understanding health risks in specific populations, such as women and minorities.
Judge Young remarked, “I have never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable,” reflecting on his 40 years of experience on the bench. “I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years, and I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this, and I confine my remarks to this record, to health care.”
The judge also pointed out the adverse impact on LGBTQ+ research due to the administration’s actions. “It is palpably clear these directives and the set of terminated grants here also are designed to frustrate, to stop research that may bear on the health — we are talking about health here — the health of Americans, of our LGBTQ community,” he stated. “That’s appalling.”
Recent coverage by ProPublica has shed light on the consequences of the NIH grant cancellations, with over 150 researchers, scientists, and investigators voicing their concerns about the implications of these terminations. Many described how years of federally funded research could go unpublished, leaving critical treatments undeveloped and potentially harming millions of patients.
One affected researcher, Ethan Moitra, an associate professor at Brown University, expressed frustration over the abrupt halt to his research grant focused on mental health treatment for LGBTQ+ individuals. “Two and a half years into a three-year grant, and to all of a sudden stop and not fully be able to answer the original questions, it’s just a waste,” he said.
In response to the ruling, White House spokesperson Kush Desai criticized the judge, claiming it was “appalling” for a federal judge to express political views during court proceedings. Desai defended the administration’s policies regarding ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ asserting that they were based on “flawed and racist logic.”
He further insisted that the administration remains committed to “restoring the Gold Standard of Science,” which he claimed prioritizes the recognition of biological differences between male and female sexes. Desai contended that NIH funding is being redirected to address chronic disease issues instead of funding what he termed “ideological activism.”
Andrew G. Nixon, the director of communications for the Department of Health and Human Services, reiterated the department’s stance, expressing support for the decision to halt funding for research that allegedly prioritized ideological agendas over scientific accuracy. Nixon indicated that the agency was considering all legal options, including the possibility of an appeal and seeking a stay of Judge Young’s order.
Experts have noted that the mass cancellation of NIH grants in response to political policies represents an unprecedented departure from established practices. Previous investigations revealed that the Department of Government Efficiency guided these cutbacks through its cost-cutting directive, raising serious concerns about the rationale behind the terminations.
The judge’s ruling fits into a broader trend of legal decisions that have sought to curtail or reverse the administration’s directives, with reports indicating over 180 rulings have paused various actions by the Trump administration. However, it remains uncertain whether the administration will comply with this latest ruling, as past actions by the NIH indicate a willingness to disregard federal court orders regarding grant terminations.
Judge Young underscored his determination to ensure compliance with the ruling, stating, “If the vacation of these particular grant terminations, the vacation of these directives, taken as a whole, does not result in forthwith disbursement of funds, the court has ample jurisdiction.”
image source from：https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-nih-grant-terminations-illegal
