NIH Grants Termination
Mitchell Luo - unsplash.com.
CSPI’s Litigation Department and its co-counsel at the ACLU and Protect Democracy Project sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), challenging the new policy that led to the abrupt and unlawful cancellation of research grants and the halt of the application process for new grants.
Unlawful Termination of the Grants
NIH is the world’s leading funder of biomedical and behavioral research, responsible for the discovery of new ways to diagnose, prevent, and treat the most challenging diseases. NIH makes grant decisions following a highly competitive and rigorous process involving layers of expert scientific review over many months. Consequently, for decades, terminations of ongoing NIH grants have been exceedingly rare.
NIH has been guided by Congressional mandates, regulatory requirements, and scientific expertise when determining what research to prioritize and fund. Under several statutes (such as the Public Health Service Act, Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000, and 21st Century Cures Act), Congress has long mandated that NIH must expend its funds to promote health equity and reduce health disparities across diverse populations, and that NIH consider “biological, social, and other determinants of health that contribute to health disparities” in identifying “strategic research priorities and objectives across biomedical research.” 42 U.S.C. § 282(m).
Despite this, beginning in February of 2025, Defendants issued a series of directives to terminate large numbers of grants and refuse to consider certain categories of pending grant applications if they concerned topics that the Trump Administration declared were disfavored, such as grants allegedly related to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19, and more (“the New Directives”).
The Lawsuit
Plaintiffs are three leading health research organizations (the American Public Health Association (APHA), the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health) and four research scientists, including Peter Lurie, CSPI’s President and Executive Director, who was a consultant on a grant terminated under the New Directives. APHA and UAW brought the suit on behalf of their members, who include researchers impacted by the New Directives causing terminations. On April 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs brought this case because they have been harmed by Defendants’ unlawful New Directives causing grant terminations and midstream abandonment of the processing and advertisement of grant applications.
The New Directives are contrary to HHS’s own internal regulations, which state that NIH can terminate grants in only three limited circumstances: (1) if the grantee “fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the award”; (2) “for cause”; or (3) “with the consent of” the grantee. 75 C.F.R. § 75.372. Because the terminations did not meet these requirements, they were unlawful.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted five counts under the Administrative Procedure Act (that is, that the the New Directives and terminations were arbitrary and capricious, they were not in accordance with the law, they exceeded statutory authority, they were contrary to a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment, and pursuant to the New Directives, NIH unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed acting on the grant applications that it stopped considering). The Plaintiffs also asserted that the New Directives and terminations were an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment because they were void for vagueness. Lastly, the Plaintiffs argued that the New Directives and terminations violated the separation of powers because the Executive Branch cannot amend or repeal statutes lawfully passed by Congress.
Plaintiffs seek to have the New Directives and terminations deemed unlawful, have the terminations rescinded and the grants restored, and have the applications considered under the appropriate standards for such applications. Plaintiffs will expeditiously seek injunctive relief.