The NIH canceled over $780 million in medical and scientific research after President Trump’s executive actions targeting DEI initiatives and programs. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, the NIH has now announced it will be reviewing medical research grant applications based on scientific evaluation and not DEI considerations.
How Did Trump’s Executive Order Affect NIH Funding?
Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” directed government agencies to remove DEI topics on federal websites and in museums, eliminate federal DEI programs and departments, and prohibited federal funding to the arts and sciences that promote DEI initiatives.
This order directly affected the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which gives federal grants for scientific research and innovation. Based on internal guidance, the NIH abruptly withheld over $780 million in research funding and stopped reviewing grants that related to research involving gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, LGBTQ studies, and vaccine hesitancy.
This impacted ongoing and promising research for some underrepresented groups. For example, grants for sickle-cell research were curtailed. Sickle-cell anemia is an inherited blood disorder among African, Caribbean, Middle Eastern, Indian, and Mediterranean populations. Additionally, it stopped Alzheimer’s research for marginalized groups.
What Was the Response From the Scientific Community?
In response, the American Public Health Association (APHA), unions and public health organizations, scientists, and research groups filed suit against the NIH, Health and Human Services (HHS), and federal officials in the Trump Administration for cutting off funding for medical and public health research.
What Were the Plaintiff’s Arguments?
The lawsuit, filed in a federal Massachusetts court, claimed that the NIH and the federal government had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Fifth Amendment right to due process, and had usurped congressional power.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The APA governs how administrative agencies create and issue regulations to be fair and consistent. The plaintiffs argue that under the APA, federal agencies must rule with “reasoned decision making” and adhere to their own procedures. They claim that the NIH acted arbitrarily and capriciously in banning DEI categories that were not clearly defined, did not give a scientific policy or explanation in their actions, and disregarded long-standing grants with scientific merit.
Fifth Amendment Due Process
Due process under the Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to provide notice and a hearing before taking life, liberty, or property. Under the APA, government agencies must provide fair procedures, including notice, an opportunity to comment, and reasoned decisions. The plaintiffs alleged that the NIH cancelled grants without explanation and did not provide an opportunity to respond, thereby violating their constitutional due process rights.
Violation of Separation of Powers
The plaintiffs also claimed that the NIH contradicted Congress’s mandates to fund research on health disparities and underserved populations (such as LGBTQ). By refusing funding, they exceeded their authority and violated the separation of powers.
The Result
The federal court held that the NIH’s grant cancellations were “breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the NIH to reinstate the terminated grants and review new grants. The government appealed to the First Circuit court and asked for a stay on the lower court’s order.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals refused the NIH’s request for a stay and agreed with the lower court’s decision in evaluating the APA. However, this case went to the Supreme Court, which issued a split verdict. The Court held that while the NIH’s actions were unlawful under the APA, the trial court did not have the power to reinstate grants. As it stands, the NIH cannot lawfully rely on DEI directives in evaluating scientific grants and must provide legal justification when making scientific judgments.
That is not to say that grant funding focused on underrepresented or marginalized groups will or will not be funded, but rather that the NIH should evaluate research based on its scientific merit, rather than DEI-related criteria.
Related Research
- Find an Administrative Lawyer Near Me (FindLaw Attorney Directory)
- What Are Executive Orders? What Are Their Limits? (FindLaw Law and Daily Life)
- Procedural Due Process Under the Fifth Amendment (FindLaw U.S. Constitution)
