Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up and receive the biggest story as soon as it’s published.
What happened: A federal judge determined Monday that the end of the National Institutes of Health’s hundreds of grants from the Trump Administration was “blank and illegal” and ordered some of them to be revived, including many whose profiles were featured by Propobrica in recent months.
District Judge William G. Young has ruled in two cases challenging the Trump administration’s direction and cancellation. One case was brought by attorney generals in more than a dozen states, and the other was led by the American Public Health Association, along with several other organizations and researchers.
In Monday’s ruling, the judge found the directive that led to the end of the grant was “arbitrarily and whimsical,” and said it was “ineffective and ineffective.” The judge’s decision ordered funds to be restored. It covers only grants identified by the plaintiff in the case.
Smashed Science: Research lost as Trump targeted NIH funds
What the judge said: After Young found the agency’s orders and dismissals were illegal, he pointed out that government practices were discriminatory.
“This represents racism and discrimination against the American LGBTQ community,” he said. “That’s this. I’ll be blind to not calling it out. My duty is to call it, and I will.”
This year, the Trump administration banned funding grants that have links to “diversity, equity and inclusion,” arguing that such research could be discriminatory. Propublica previously was a study that was caught up in a massive end and found that some groups, including women and sexual, racial, or ethnic minorities, focused on why certain disorders and diseases are at higher risk.
“I’ve never seen a record of racism being so obvious,” Young said at a hearing Monday. “I’ve been sitting on this bench for 40 years and have never seen such government racism. This record limits my statement to healthcare.”
He also looked at the administration’s targeting of LGBTQ+ research. “These directives are clearly clear, and the set of scheduled grants here are designed to be frustrating and to stop research that can withstand health. We’re talking about health here – American health, health in the LGBTQ community “It’s chilling.”
Background: Over the past few months, Propublica has been responsible for the sacrifice of NIH grant cancellation. Over 150 researchers, scientists and researchers reached out to Propublica to share their experiences and revealed how the termination is dramatically changing the country’s biomedical and scientific enterprises.
They explained how the federally funded research from the year, never published, how important treatments are developed, and how millions of patients can be harmed.
“It’s just a waste to not be able to fully answer the original question with two and a half years of three years of grants and all of the sudden suspension,” said Ethan Moitra, an associate professor at Brown University.
Answer: White House spokesman Kush Desai said he was “horrified that federal judges will use court cases to express his political views and preferences,” adding that “the judge is not administered when judges explicitly control based on his political ideology.”
Desai also defended the administration’s policies aimed at “diversity, equity and inclusion,” calling it “flawed racist logic.” He also said the administration is committed to “restoring the gold standard of science,” but he argued that it includes a perception of “the biological reality of gender for men and women.” He said the NIH is changing “research spending not to validate ideological activity but to address the chronic disease crisis instead.”
Andrew G. Nixon, Director of Communications at the Department of Health and Human Services, told Propoblica that the agency “supports the decision to end funding for research that prioritizes the ideological agenda over American scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes,” and that “explores all legal options, including submitting appeals and maintaining order.”
Why it matters: There is no historical precedent for large-scale cancellation of grants in response to changes in political policy, experts told Propublica, showing an extraordinary departure from the institution’s established practices. Propublica previously revealed that government efficiency (the administration’s cost reduction initiative) will give instructions on what to reduce, why and raise questions about the source of the termination.
The judge’s decision adds to an increase in legal decisions to halt or reduce the administration’s actions. As of Monday, there were more than 180 rulings that “at least temporarily suspend” the administration’s practices, according to the New York Times.
But whether or not the administration will comply with Monday’s ruling remains an open question. As Propublica reported, the NIH had previously terminated research grants, even after federal judges blocked such cuts, and the administration ignored several other rulings.
“If the leave for the termination of these specific grants is not immediately paid for the funds, Young said at Monday’s hearing that “the court has sufficient jurisdiction.”
Have you been terminated, suspended or delayed due to a cancellation of federal funds, participated in a clinical trial, study, or participated in a service? Our reporters want to hear from you. To share your experience, contact our reporting team [email protected].
Asia Fields contributed the report.
