Judge presses Trump team on health research cuts over DEI

(CN) — The Trump administration “never defined” what diversity, equity and inclusion actually means when it decided to broadly terminate so-called DEI grants for the National Institutes of Health, a federal judge said Monday.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Ronald Regan appointee in Massachusetts federal court, is weighing whether to reverse grant terminations challenged by states and health groups, who say the Trump administration cut funding with vague notices targeting DEI, transgender issues, and vaccine hesitancy.

Young appeared sympathetic Monday, questioning government lawyers over letters that claimed DEI studies “support unlawful discrimination.”

“Where’s the support for that?” Young asked, begging the government for “any support, any rational explanation.” 

“Just saying it is not sufficient,” the judge continued.

The plaintiffs argue the funding cuts will hinder research into critical treatments for diseases like HIV, AIDS, COVID-19, Zika, Alzheimer’s and shingles. Young questioned the government’s claim that the targeted programs “support unlawful discrimination.”

“Point me to anywhere in the record where any particular grant or group of grants is being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race,” the judge said. “From what I can see, it’s the reverse. But point it out to me.”

Justice Department attorney Thomas Ports Jr., who is representing the defendants in this case, said there was “nothing that I can point the court to” to bolster the claim.

“DEI is never defined” in the letters, Young noted. And while the Trump administration might take the “valid government position” to scrutinize affirmative action programs, “that’s not a license to discriminate,” the judge said. 

Young expressed similar doubts in earlier hearings, telling the government he wasn’t persuaded that research on gender identity or racial health disparities is unscientific or harmful.

He didn’t issue a ruling Monday, but if he sides with the states, he could order the grants reinstated. Young also asked whether the government would comply with such an order — a question likely spurred by the Trump administration’s growing pattern of testing the limits of court injunctions.

“Yes, your honor. I would expect defendants to comply,” Ports said.

Young combined two related lawsuits — one from 16 Democratic states and another from health organizations like the American Public Health Association — for Monday’s hearing.

The complaints target several defendants, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH subagencies such as the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The states argue that Congress had already approved the grants and that the administration’s abrupt reversal has derailed key research efforts.

“Defendants’ destructive efforts have taken the form of across-the-board delays in the review and approval of otherwise-fundable grant applications and widespread terminations of already-issued grants,” the states argue. “Plaintiffs challenge both.”

The multistate coalition is comprised of the Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

It’s one of several ongoing challenges to the Trump administration’s widespread cuts to public health funding, part of the president’s broader goal to drastically reduce the size of the federal government. 

In March, another federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the administration to reverse a roughly $4 billion cut to the NIH, which would have impacted staffing and equipment in biomedical research labs around the country. That ruling was prompted by a lawsuit from 22 states and several universities, hospitals and research institutions. 

Follow @Uebey