Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Cancellation of NIH Grants Illegal, Cites Racial and LGBTQ Discrimination

President Donald Trump, from left, speaks as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., during an event in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, May 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)\\\ (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it abruptly canceled several hundred National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants, many of which focused on gender identity, racial health disparities, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The decision, issued Monday by U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts, marks a major legal setback for the former administration’s efforts to scale back DEI-related funding.

Judge Young, a longtime federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, found that the government’s process for terminating the grants was “arbitrary and capricious” and did not follow established federal protocols. The cancellations targeted research projects deemed to align with DEI principles, but the court found no legitimate scientific justification for the cuts.

During a hearing on two lawsuits seeking to restore the grants, Young pressed government attorneys to define DEI, noting that several canceled projects aligned with Congressional directives to address health disparities. He questioned how such research could be dismissed wholesale under the guise of ideology.

Young further denounced what he described as a “darker aspect” of the funding cuts. “It is palpably clear that racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community is behind these actions,” he said, adding, “In 40 years on the bench, I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.” He closed the hearing with the remark: “Have we no shame?”

The decision applies directly to two cases filed this spring by 16 state attorneys general, public health advocates, and affected scientists. These lawsuits challenged the cancellation of specific NIH-funded projects and alleged that the government issued generic termination notices without reviewing the scientific merit of each grant.

Although the original lawsuits did not explicitly claim racial or LGBTQ-based discrimination, plaintiffs argued that the administration used ideological reasoning to stifle research into socially and medically relevant issues. Projects terminated included studies on cardiovascular health, sexually transmitted infections, mental health, Alzheimer's disease, underage alcohol abuse, and suicide treatment.

Some grants specifically examined how medications affect people from ancestrally diverse populations, raising concerns about long-term harm to public health and scientific advancement.

In its defense, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees NIH, stated that it would explore “all legal options,” including a possible appeal or a request to stay the judge’s ruling. “HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,” said spokesperson Andrew Nixon.

Government attorneys argued that the NIH has wide latitude to fund—or cancel—projects based on evolving priorities and claimed that some projects were terminated for lacking scientific merit. They cited 13 minority health-related grants that remained active during the same period as evidence that decisions were not discriminatory.

Judge Young’s ruling mandates that the funding be restored but leaves room for further legal action, including a likely appeal. His written order is expected soon, and the broader legal implications could affect NIH funding policies and future political interference in scientific research.

NIH remains the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, and the outcome of this case could have significant consequences for how the agency balances scientific freedom with political oversight.