The Trump administration illegally cancelled National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants funding research on disfavored topics and communities.

For nearly 100 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has worked to improve public health by directing most of its budget to thousands of researchers at universities, medical schools, and other institutions in all 50 states. Guided by congressional mandate, regulatory requirements, and scientific expertise when determining what research to fund, NIH’s operations were upended by an abrupt and unlawful policy change in February 2025 that led to the immediate cancellation of millions in grants already awarded to researchers. The government justified its actions by asserting the work is “unscientific” because it is based on “gender identity” or “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (“DEI”), which it declares “unscientific.” The government has also canceled research related to “vaccine hesitancy,” and “COVID” among other disfavored topics.

Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs are researchers, public health associations, unions, and a reproductive research organization whose research in the areas of Alzheimer’s, drug treatment, pain management, sexual violence, HIV, cancer therapies, and suicide intervention were improperly cancelled by NIH. They are:

• The American Public Health Association, which has 23,000 public health professional members
• IBIS Reproductive Health, which partners on research to advance sexual and reproductive autonomy
• International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers (UAW), which represents about 120,000 workers in higher education
• Dr. Brittany Charlton, associate professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and founding director of the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. She is a leading scholar of LGBTQ health inequities, particularly in cancer and reproductive health.
• Dr. Katie Edwards, professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work. Dr. Edwards’ research focuses on preventing sexual and related forms of violence among minority communities, using evidence-based, affirming, and culturally-grounded approaches.
• Dr. Peter Lurie, an experienced research physician and the President and Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which advocates for improving public health through science-based policies and promoting scientific integrity. From 2014–17, he was an Associate Commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, where he worked on the regulation of over-the-counter drugs, among other projects.
• Dr. Nicole Maphis, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine. Her research explores how alcohol usage affects the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. She is the first and only person in her family to graduate college and comes from a low-income background.

Background

Protect Democracy, along with the ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a lawsuit on their behalf against NIH and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for terminating over $2.4 billion in NIH grant funding—research that includes LGBTQ individuals, women, and people of color; that seeks to understand the reasons for disparities in health outcomes; and the causes of vaccine hesitancy. By terminating these grants, the Trump Administration isn’t merely breaking the law, it is corrupting knowledge and access to health care for marginalized communities and ultimately damaging scientific inquiry in institutions critical to our democracy. It is also surrendering the American public to infectious diseases, delivering a devastating blow to our nation’s world-leading scientific research establishment, throwing away the taxpayer-funded investment of $1.3 billion in projects that have been shuttered midway, and casting countless communities across the country into economic uncertainty.

The termination of grants is illegal because: 

The administration recklessly purged these grants not for any scientific reason, or to make government research more efficient, or to save more lives. The decision was made in animus, because, in the administration’s view, those who might benefit from the research are persona non grata. Hate is not health care.

Case Documents

Featured Press

‘I’m a scientist — here’s why I’m suing RFK Jr.

April 5, 2025

Let me set the record straight: I’m not promoting radical ideology, woke ideology, gender ideology or any kind of ideology at all. I’m a scientist. I work to keep people healthy.

Read more

‘An attack on scientific progress itself’: Health researchers sue to overturn NIH funding cuts

April 2, 2025

A group of health researchers and labor unions, including a Harvard University professor, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts by the National Institutes of Health.

Read more

Scientists Sue NIH, Saying Politics Cut Their Research Funding

April 2, 2025

A group of scientists and health groups sued the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday, arguing that an “ideological purge” of research funding is illegal and threatens medical cures.

Read more

Harvard researcher among plaintiffs suing federal government over NIH terminations

April 2, 2025

Researchers and several national organizations are suing the Trump administration for its abrupt cancellation of grants from the National Institutes of Health. The complainants claim funding was quashed for research on “disfavored topics and populations.”

Read more

Updates