State Attorneys General Sue Trump Administration Over NIH Grant Cancellations
In a notable legal challenge, sixteen state attorneys general initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration. This lawsuit revolves around the administration’s recent termination of numerous research grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Details of the Lawsuit
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the lawsuit claims that the cancellation of these grants is “unlawful.” The attorneys general are seeking relief for what they describe as unreasonable and intentional delays affecting the grant application process.
Defendants Named in the Case
The lawsuit identifies several defendants, including:
- The NIH and its 27 institutes and centers
- NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
- The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Statements from Legal Representatives
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs, expressed strong concerns regarding the situation, stating, “Once again, the Trump administration is putting politics before public health and risking lives and livelihoods in the process.” She emphasized the crucial role of research institutions in providing treatments and cures for various diseases.
In her statement, she continued, “The decision to cut these funds is an attack on science, public health, and medical innovation — and I won’t stand for it.”
Impact of Grant Cancellations
The lawsuit highlights that recent cancellations have disproportionately affected research related to LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity, and initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. The NIH reported that over 900 grants worth millions of dollars have been terminated in recent weeks, as per an official who opted for anonymity when discussing sensitive information.
NIH’s Rationale for Terminations
In letters sent to grant applicants, the NIH articulated that projects focusing on gender identity are often “unscientific” and lack a considerable return on investment. The letters also claimed such studies overlook “biological realities,” and reaffirmed that the NIH’s priority is not to support these research programs.
Potential Consequences of the Cancellations
The attorneys general argue that the terminations could lead to “direct, immediate, significant, and irreparable harm” to both the plaintiffs and the public research institutions involved. They are requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction that would compel the defendants to address the delayed grant applications and halt further cancellations.
Related Legal Actions
This filing follows a separate lawsuit brought by researchers whose grants were also canceled by the NIH. This earlier suit aims to prevent any additional cancellations from occurring.
Institutional Responses
The NIH declined to comment on ongoing litigation, while the HHS has yet to respond to inquiries regarding the lawsuit.
