Trump’s NIH Moves Forward with Grant Terminations Despite Court Order

Background: Executive Orders vs. Judicial Injunction

Over the past two months, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its subordinate agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have continued to terminate over 600 extramural research grants despite a federal preliminary injunction. This court order expressly barred enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Orders banning federal funding for projects that “promote gender ideology” or involve gender-affirming care. Yet internal whistleblower records, including memorandum drafts and machine-readable spreadsheets, reveal that NIH leadership pressed ahead with cuts tied directly to Executive Order 14168.

Internal Directives and the Role of DOGE

• Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Involvement: Depositions from NIH officials confirm DOGE consultants issued specific termination lists via Microsoft Teams, complete with target deadlines and boilerplate notification templates.
• Automated Grant Tracking: The NIH utilized a custom SQL-based dashboard to flag R01, R21, P50 and other activity codes tagged for “gender ideology,” “vaccine hesitancy,” or “divisive racialism.” This dashboard aggregated NIH data from the Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons system, allowing real-time monitoring of terminations.
• Spreadsheet Evidence: An internal .xlsx spreadsheet labeled “EO14168_Terminations” enumerated 37 grants in the first wave, marking each with the executive order code, cut-off dates, and agency bureau codes for audit trails.

Whistleblower Documents Unveil Procedural Details

Key documents filed in Washington state’s lawsuit demonstrate:

• Memorandum from Acting NIH Director: A March 11 memo by Dr. Matthew J. Memoli outlined 44 specific actions to align NIH with the Orders, including systematic review of active grants via robotic process automation (RPA).
• Termination Templates: Standardized letters were pre-written in HTML email templates, segmented by research category—gender identity, China collaborations, diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) studies, and climate science.
• Rapid Turnaround: NIH administrators had under 24-hour windows to implement termination directives, bypassing typical 30- to 60-day notice periods bound by 45 C.F.R. § 52.4.

Technical Implications for Biomedical Research

The abrupt cancellation of peer-reviewed grants poses multiple technical challenges:

• Disruption of Multi-Center Trials: Ongoing Phase I/II trials funded under R01 mechanisms may lose critical funding, halting data collection on biomarker validation and jeopardizing FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) applications.
• Data Integrity Risks: Forced terminations impair longitudinal studies that rely on consistent funding to support electronic data capture (EDC) systems, cohort retention, and compliance with 21 CFR Part 11 standards.
• Loss of Computational Resources: NIH supercomputing allocations on high-performance clusters (HPC) for bioinformatics pipelines are rescinded, stranding terabytes of genomic and proteomic datasets in limbo.

Legal and Constitutional Ramifications

Legal experts warn of a mounting constitutional crisis:

• Separation of Powers: Ignoring a federal injunction undermines judicial authority, echoing other high-profile defiance cases such as the mishandled deportation compliance order for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
• Contempt and Sanctions: Washington state’s motion to hold HHS in contempt remains pending. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 may lead to discovery sanctions or explicit court orders compelling internal records release.
• Administrative Law Precedent: This case may redefine limits on executive reorganization powers under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), especially regarding politically motivated budget reallocations.

Stakeholder Reactions and Expert Opinions

Responses from the research and policy community have been swift:

• Former NIH Leadership: Jeremy Berg, ex-director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called the moves “devastating” and urged Congress to enforce scientific integrity policies codified in NIH’s own 2019 Public Access Plan.
• Academic Institutions: The Association of American Universities (AAU) has requested clarity on the “arbitrary” grant cancellations and is considering collective legal action.
• OMB Budget Report: A recent Office of Management and Budget analysis forecasts a $200 million reduction in NIH obligations for FY 2026, reallocating those funds toward chronic disease epidemiology and veteran health initiatives.

Future Outlook and Next Steps

As the lawsuit moves into expedited discovery, all eyes are on:

• Court-Ordered Document Production: The next hearing, scheduled for July 2025, will determine whether HHS must produce unredacted memos, DOGE correspondence, and RPA audit logs.
• Regulatory Safeguards: Congress is considering legislation to strengthen the APA, explicitly prohibiting executive orders from targeting peer-reviewed research based on ideological criteria.
• Long-Term Research Strategy: NIH’s internal task force is drafting guidelines to prevent future politicization of grant awards, potentially integrating blockchain-based provenance tracking of grant lifecycles.

With the federal judiciary, academic stakeholders and the broader scientific community engaged, the unfolding legal battle over NIH’s compliance—or lack thereof—may set a pivotal precedent on the balance between political directives and scientific autonomy in U.S. research funding.