The Trump administration urged the US Supreme Court to allow it to carry out major funding cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, arguing that current diversity-related programmes are “undisputedly counter to the administration’s priorities.”
The move is the latest in President Donald Trump’s ongoing push to reduce federal spending and eliminate government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — including those related to biomedical research and transgender healthcare.
The Justice Department filed an emergency request to the court, seeking to lift a June order by U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston. That ruling blocked the administration’s plan and ordered the government to restore access to more than $783 million in NIH grant funding. The lawsuit was brought by researchers and 16 Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts.
In its filing, the Justice Department argued that the district court’s injunction forces the government to “continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the administration’s priorities.”
The NIH, considered the world’s largest biomedical research funder, has come under increasing pressure since Trump’s return to the presidency in January. Critics say his administration’s broad effort to dismantle diversity and health equity programs is politicizing science and jeopardizing public health.
“The cuts harm the health of Americans and people across the globe,” warned an open letter signed in June by dozens of NIH scientists and staff. The signatories accused the agency of turning its back on inclusive research and of being complicit in “a political agenda that undermines evidence-based health policy.”
The Trump administration has frequently turned to the Supreme Court — now dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority — to clear legal roadblocks to its sweeping policy changes. So far, the high court has largely sided with the administration on most contested issues since January.
The request in the NIH case could have long-term consequences for government-funded research programs, particularly those aimed at addressing racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ disparities in health outcomes.
Young’s ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an “ongoing ideological purge” of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI “or other vague, now-forbidden language.” The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led.
– Ends
With inputs from Reuters