In a sharply worded rebuke from the bench, a federal judge in Boston has declared that the Trump administration’s decision to cancel National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants tied to diversity research was not only unlawful—but steeped in discrimination.
The ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of public health organizations and states led by Massachusetts. U.S. District Judge William Young, no stranger to government overreach in his four decades on the bench, delivered a searing critique: “I have never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable.”
At stake were more than $1 billion in NIH research grants abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. These grants supported projects exploring issues related to race, equity, public health disparities, and LGBTQ well-being. According to Judge Young, the terminations were not just procedurally flawed but unconstitutional in their apparent intent.
“You are bearing down on people of color because of their color,” the judge said, directly addressing the government’s motivations. “This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”
His ruling reinstates the grants to affected researchers, institutions, and states—but Young hinted this may only be the beginning. A broader injunction could soon follow as the case moves forward.
The Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., stood firm in defense of the cuts. A spokesperson claimed the terminated grants promoted “ideological agendas” over rigorous science, echoing the administration’s sweeping campaign to dismantle federal DEI programs and impose restrictions on transgender-related healthcare.
Since January, the Trump administration has slashed over 2,100 research grants and contracts—totaling around $12 billion—according to a protest letter signed by dozens of NIH employees last week. Plans to eliminate 10,000 jobs across federal health agencies, including NIH, are currently on hold due to a separate court order.
Judge Young, however, was unequivocal in his stance: “Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it—and at an appropriate time, I’m going to do it.”
This legal showdown has become a flashpoint in the broader political battle over science, race, and the direction of America’s public health priorities. The courtroom, it seems, may become ground zero for deciding whether ideology or evidence will steer the nation’s research future.
