A coalition of 16 state attorneys general has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) termination of research grants.
The suit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contends that the cancellations are “unlawful” and seeks relief from “the unreasonable and intentional delays currently plaguing the grant-application process.”
The defendants named in the lawsuit include the NIH, nearly all of its 27 institutes and centers, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The NIH declined to comment on pending litigation, while HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In a public statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs, criticized the administration’s actions, stating, “Once again, the Trump administration is putting politics before public health and risking lives and livelihoods in the process.” She emphasized the reliance of millions of Americans on research institutions for treatments and cures.
In recent weeks, the NIH has terminated active research grants related to LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity, and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), asserting that these topics do not align with the administration’s priorities.
Termination letters reviewed by ABC News stated, “Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.”
The plaintiffs argue that these terminations could cause “direct, immediate, significant, and irreparable harm” to public research institutions. They are seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions to compel the defendants to review delayed applications and to prevent further grant terminations.
This legal action underscores the escalating tension between state authorities and the federal government over the direction and priorities of publicly funded medical and public health research. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the future of research funding and the autonomy of academic institutions in the United States.
