Lawsuit over Trump rejecting medical research grants is settled
Settlement forces NIH to review grants previously rejected on ideological grounds.
Well, that’s settled
Settlement forces NIH to review grants previously rejected on ideological grounds.
On Monday, the ACLU announced that it and other organizations representing medical researchers had reached a settlement in their suit against the federal government over grant applications that had been rejected under a policy that has since been voided by the court. The agreement, which still has to be approved by the judge overseeing the case, would see the National Institutes of Health restart reviews of grants that had been blocked on ideological grounds. It doesn’t guarantee those grants will ultimately be funded, but it does mean they will go through the standard peer review process.
The grants had previously been rejected without review because their content was ideologically opposed by the Trump administration. That policy has since been declared arbitrary and capricious, and thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
How’d we get here?
Immediately after taking office, the Trump Administration identified a number of categories of research, some of them extremely vague, that it would not be supporting: climate change, DEI, pandemic preparedness, gender ideology, and more. Shortly thereafter, federal agencies started cancelling grants that they deemed to contain elements of these disfavored topics, and blocking consideration of grant applications for the same reasons. As a result, grants were cancelled that funded everything from research into antiviral drugs to the incidence of prostate cancer in African Americans.
Researchers whose funding was affected, along with organizations that represented them, sued. The suit ended up split into two partly overlapping cases: one for the people who already had funding and saw it cancelled, another for researchers who had submitted grants and had them pulled from consideration.
The case regarding cancelled grants moved relatively quickly. By June, a District Court judge declared that the federal policy “represents racial discrimination” and issued a preliminary order that would have seen all the cancelled grants restored. In his written opinion, Judge William Young noted that the government had issued its directives blocking DEI support without even bothering to define what DEI is, making the entire policy arbitrary and capricious, and thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. He , and ordered the funding restored.
