In a closely watched decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to let the Trump administration proceed with controversial cuts to federal biomedical research grants tied to diversity and transgender health issues.
According to Newsmax, the ruling allows the administration to eliminate funding for NIH projects focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender identity, overturning a lower court’s order while lawsuits challenging the move continue.
The Department of Justice had asked the high court to overturn a June injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Young that halted the grant cancellations. Judge Young had argued that the administration’s actions were unlawfully arbitrary and lacked a clear basis in federal law.
The Supreme Court’s order temporarily clears the way for the National Institutes of Health to stop funding initiatives it now labels as “low-value and off-mission,” including projects linked to public health outreach, mental health, and research focused on specific minority communities.
This decision aligns with President Donald Trump’s broader federal restructuring efforts, which, upon his return to the White House in January 2025, have targeted what the administration terms ideological or identity-based programs across multiple agencies.
Shortly after resuming office, President Trump signed executive orders aimed at eliminating federal support for programs promoting diversity-related goals and gender-related research. The NIH responded by prioritizing cuts in areas flagged under this new policy framework.
Among the programs facing elimination are research efforts focused on HIV prevention, breast cancer in marginalized groups, suicide prevention, and health disparities in Alzheimer’s and depression. Many of these projects were previously funded under initiatives designed to broaden access and representation in medical research.
Critics of the administration’s actions have said the cuts appear ideologically driven. They argue that the criteria being used to eliminate funding are too vague and mask politically motivated intentions. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits say the decision targets certain communities and perspectives under the guise of fiscal policy.
Two lawsuits are currently challenging the legality of the grant cuts. One was filed by 16 states led primarily by Democratic administrations, and the other by a coalition that includes the American Public Health Association and several individual researchers.
Both suits argue that the federal government terminated essential research programs that aid vulnerable populations. They say the cuts will cause long-lasting harm to public health, particularly in underserved communities that benefit from inclusive health studies.
Judge Young, who initially blocked the cuts in June, ruled that the administration's decision violated federal administrative procedure laws. He described the ruling as "breathtakingly" lacking in logical or legal justification.
The Biden-appointed 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston had denied an emergency request from the Trump administration in July to pause the district court’s decision. That led the administration to elevate the request to the Supreme Court.
The administration argued that allowing the lower court ruling to stand would force the NIH to continue funding approximately $783 million in grants. These, they said, ran counter to current federal policy objectives and were an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
Justices accepted a previously used legal reasoning on federal jurisdiction, maintaining that the suits challenging funding terminations belong in the Court of Federal Claims, a venue for monetary disputes against the government. This argument had been successfully used earlier this year in a similar case involving teacher training grants.
The NIH is recognized as the largest funder of biomedical research worldwide. The cuts, while budgetary in nature, also affect the landscape of scientific inquiry in the United States by reshaping which topics receive federal backing.
Under this ruling, federal support may shift away from community-level and identity-specific health interventions, leaving institutions and researchers scrambling to secure private funding or restructure their projects entirely.
Some researchers voiced concern about the chilling effect the decision could have on scientific innovation. Projects that aim to address disparities or that include marginalized identities might now be seen as risky or “off-mission” for federal support.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuits have compared the recent cuts to a political cleanse of federally sanctioned science. They argue that the grant decisions are not based on scientific merit but rather on the exclusion of certain social perspectives.
One of the legal filings described the cuts as an “ongoing ideological purge.” The plaintiffs say that critical medical challenges cannot be addressed adequately if certain populations and health behaviors are left out of federally supported research.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has consistently sided with recent Trump administration policies this year. The ruling adds to a growing list of decisions reflecting a narrower view of DEI-related government activity.
Although the Supreme Court allowed the policy to remain in place for now, the legal proceedings continue in lower courts. Future rulings in those cases could still alter or reverse the funding changes depending on final legal interpretations.
Federal agencies and public health experts will be closely watching these developments, which could set a precedent for how administrative decisions affecting scientific research are reviewed and challenged in the court system moving forward.
As the legal process plays out, institutions tied to NIH research are expected to adjust their grant expectations and realign their project goals to conform with the administration’s current priorities.
