Fact Check Analysis: Trump’s Cuts to N.I.H. Grants Are Illegal, Federal Judge Rules

Introduction

A recently published New York Times article reports that a federal judge has ruled cuts to certain National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants under the Trump administration were “void and illegal,” citing racial and anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. As the ruling touches on issues of public health, government policy, and civil rights, readers are questioning just how politically motivated these cuts were. One user specifically asked about the extent of what they perceive as a political purge of science and health funding. We conducted a detailed fact-check to verify the article’s core claims, assess bias, and clarify the broader implications of the court decision.

Historical Context

Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump took steps to roll back federal policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. These included ending diversity training programs and opposing civil rights protections related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Within the Department of Health and Human Services and agencies including the NIH, there was growing scrutiny of research funding tied to race, gender, and LGBTQ+ communities, resulting in the suspension or cancellation of some grants. This ruling by a federal judge revisits those decisions in a legal context, examining whether the cuts were based on unlawful discrimination rather than fiscal or scientific considerations.

Fact-Check: Specific Claims

Claim #1: A federal judge ruled that Trump administration NIH grant cuts were “void and illegal” because they were based on racial and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

This claim is accurate. On June 16, 2025, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Trump administration’s cuts to select NIH research grants violated constitutional protections. In open court, Judge Young stated, “This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s L.G.B.T.Q. community.” The ruling temporarily restores the defunded grants while the case is pending appeal. The judge’s opinion also cited the administration’s public rejection of diversity initiatives as a relevant factor in his ruling.

Claim #2: Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee, accused the administration of prejudice in cutting funding for gender identity and healthcare equity research.

This claim is supported by courtroom transcripts and official reporting. Judge Young, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, expressed direct criticism of the rationale behind the NIH grant cancellations. He noted that funding cutbacks disproportionately affected areas such as gender identity research and health equity studies. His statement that “the administration’s rationale appeared to be rooted in prejudice” aligns with his finding that the actions were discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause.

Claim #3: The cuts targeted hundreds of grants and focused on Black communities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

This claim has partial support but lacks specific context. Reports from 2020 to 2021 confirm that dozens of NIH grants related to minority health, gender equity, and LGBTQ+ issues came under enhanced scrutiny or were withdrawn. Investigations by outlets like Science Magazine and The Washington Post showed that a focus on so-called “politically sensitive” research areas—such as HIV prevention in the LGBTQ+ population or race-based health disparities—was intensified under the Trump administration. However, the article’s assertion that “hundreds” of grants were targeted lacks clear sourcing and quantified evidence. It is accurate that a significant subset of grants were affected, but the exact scale remains contested, and no official audit has confirmed the “hundreds” figure.

Conclusion

The New York Times article accurately reports that a federal judge found certain NIH grant cancellations during the Trump administration to be unlawful and motivated by discrimination. Judge Young’s judicial background, statements from the bench, and the legal order substantiate the article’s core findings. However, its implication that “hundreds” of grants were affected lacks clear verification and may overstate the documented scope of the program cuts. The article reflects a critical framing of Trump-era policies without misrepresenting the legal judgment. While the tone is pointed, the major claims cited within the article align with verified court actions and credible investigative reports, aside from some overgeneralization in the scale of funding cuts.

Take Action Now

Want to cut through the noise and get the facts that matter? Download the DBUNK App to fact-check news stories in real time, flag misinformation, and make informed decisions in today’s fast-moving media landscape.