Introduction
A recent New York Times article has sparked significant reader interest after reporting that a federal judge declared certain Trump-era cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants illegal—labeling them as racially and LGBTQ+ discriminatory. The article stirred further attention by spotlighting that the presiding judge, William G. Young, was a Reagan appointee—implying bipartisan condemnation. Users have asked how deeply political agendas might have influenced science and health funding under the Trump Administration. We’ve examined the facts behind these explosive claims to bring clarity.
Historical Context
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the world’s foremost medical research agencies, responsible for distributing billions in research grants annually. Traditionally, NIH grant awards are driven by peer-reviewed scientific merit. However, under the Trump administration, several agencies—across education, health, and justice—faced pressure to revaluate or cut programs focusing on diversity, minority representation, and LGBTQ+ inclusion. These actions were often part of broader initiatives to roll back policies seen as left-leaning, under the banner of fighting “wokeism” in federal institutions.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: A federal judge ruled Trump-era cuts to NIH grants illegal and discriminatory
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 certain grant cancellations violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Young explicitly stated in his order that the cuts demonstrated racial and LGBTQ+ discrimination. According to court transcripts, he said, “This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ+ community.” This aligns with the article’s summary.
Our verification includes docket information and public court filings confirming that the ruling temporarily restores the previously rescinded NIH grants pending a government appeal. Therefore, this claim is supported by direct judicial records and is factually correct.
Claim #2: The grants defunded under Trump focused on Black health, women’s issues, and LGBTQ+ research
This claim is mostly accurate and supported by grant databases and testimony from impacted researchers. During President Trump’s term, over 300 previously approved or pending NIH grants encountered delays, revisions, or cancellations. Many of these studies centered on sexually transmitted disease prevention, minority mental health, gender identity, and community-based public health initiatives.
Records obtained from the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and collaborations with Science Magazine confirm that some of the affected grant proposals involved research into transgender youth, structural racism in healthcare, and public health disparities among Black Americans.
However, while the article implies a coordinated campaign solely targeting these groups, it does not account for other cuts made to unrelated research during broader audits of funding efficiency. Therefore, while the defunded topics listed were indeed disproportionately affected, the article lacks fuller context about the entire spectrum of grant cuts.
Claim #3: Judge Young was appointed by Ronald Reagan, suggesting bipartisan agreement against the cuts
This claim is accurate but may carry unintended implications. Judge William G. Young was indeed nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 and has served on the federal bench for decades. His long tenure has witnessed both conservative and liberal administrations.
While stating that a Reagan appointee ruled against policies of a Republican president may suggest bipartisan condemnation, one should note that federal judges maintain judicial independence regardless of who appoints them. The article correctly states Young’s appointment origins, but readers should be cautious about conflating judicial conduct with political allegiance. Still, framing this as a non-partisan and legally driven decision adds credibility to the ruling.
Claim #4: The Trump administration aimed to eliminate “any trace” of diversity and equity initiatives
This claim is exaggerated. While the Trump administration did take steps to scale back diversity programs, especially with Executive Order 13950 in September 2020, the language in the article—“eliminate any trace”—overstates the scope.
That executive order sought to limit certain diversity training perceived as “divisive,” particularly those referencing critical race theory or “white privilege.” While controversial and quickly rescinded by President Biden in January 2021, it primarily targeted training within federal agencies and contractors—not all diversity programs across the entire government.
Similarly, in public statements, Trump officials often criticized what they termed a “woke agenda” in academia and research. However, to claim an outright elimination of every diversity or equity initiative lacks evidence. So, while rooted in observed policy behavior, this portrayal overgeneralizes.
Conclusion
The New York Times article accurately reports a landmark judicial decision declaring certain Trump-era NIH grant cuts illegal due to discriminatory targeting. The piece is supported by official court documents and aligns with publicly available grant data confirming that cancelled programs disproportionately affected research involving Black, LGBTQ+, and women’s health. Additionally, the detail that a Reagan-appointed judge issued the ruling is accurate and meaningful, though it should not be misinterpreted as inherently bipartisan in nature.
Where the article does lean somewhat into advocacy is in its framing—especially the claim that the Trump administration aimed to “eliminate any trace” of diversity, which veers toward hyperbole. Nonetheless, the article delivers a largely factual account, with confirmed legal context and appropriate attribution of sources.
Take Action Now
Want to verify news like this yourself and avoid falling for viral disinformation? Download the DBUNK App and stay informed with trusted, nonpartisan fact-checks tailored to what’s trending.
Download the DBUNK App
