Under the Trump administration, hospitals, medical schools, and academic research centers have faced an increasing wave of legal and regulatory challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. What began as coordinated complaints to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights quickly expanded into a massive wave of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant cancellations.
According to a Congressional Research Service review of HHS data, as of November 28, 2025, the department had terminated 977 NIH grant awards, representing approximately $1.7 billion in obligated funding, pursuant to a presidential memorandum. As noted in a dissent authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, NIH grant terminations have been historically rare. From 2012 to January 20, 2025, the NIH terminated fewer than 6 grants midstream in the 13 years. However, starting in February 2025, the administration took a drastic departure from that when they terminated $1 billion in NIH grants focused on disparities research. In the termination letter from the NIH, researchers were informed that their grants were ended because the projects allegedly “harm the health of Americans,” “offer a low return on investment,” or “fail to improve health, extend or reduce disease.” Many researchers felt that their research “was not evaluated on its merits, but nixed because words like ‘race’ or ‘gender’ were in the project’s title or description.” Additionally, in August, the NIH Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, announced a new unified strategy for research priorities, stating that “research based on ideologies that promote differential treatment of people based on race or ethnicity, rely on poorly defined concepts or on unfalsifiable theories, does not follow the principles of gold-standard science.”
In June 2025, two lawsuits filed in federal court in Massachusetts challenged actions by the Trump administration and resulted in the restoration of more than 2,000 previously terminated grants. In August, the Supreme Court held that the lower court likely lacked the jurisdiction to review the termination of research grants focused on disfavored topics and populations, but declined to block the district court’s ruling. In December 2025, an additional agreement with the plaintiff required the administration to reconsider certain DEI-related research proposals, leading to the release of over 100 grants whose reviews had been on hold, and stated that decisions on additional grants would be made in the coming weeks. However, in remarks on a podcast in December last year, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya suggested that the reinstated June grants may only offer temporary relief and could be terminated in 2026. He stated that “when it comes to renewal, those grants no longer meet NIH priorities. . . So when they come up for renewal over the course of the year, we won’t renew them.”
Physicians and academic researchers worry that the NIH cuts may slow down innovation and ultimately undermine patient care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has argued that these developments threaten biomedical research and academic medicine more broadly. AAMC warns that the termination of NIH grants could risk access to treatment for clinical patients and slow scientific progress. Beyond immediate funding losses, legal scholars note that the uncertainty surrounding grant renewals, shifting research priorities, and ongoing litigation has created a chilling effect within academic medicine, prompting institutions to reevaluate compliance frameworks, research portfolios, and DEI-related programming to mitigate enforcement risk.
According to recent coverage, the researchers have now moved to remove terms related to DEI and health disparities from research grants. Additionally, organizations have compiled lists of diversity-related language based on manual reviews of grant materials, which have since been circulated among research institutions and online forums frequented by scientists. Other reports have described researchers as self-censoring their language around diversity to secure grant funding. Experts have also stated that the termination of grant programs that support students from underserved backgrounds “could close off scientific careers for individuals who wouldn’t otherwise have access to research opportunities.”
From a legal perspective, these changes represent both regulatory and funding risks. According to the AHLA Fraud and Abuse Practice Group, board and compliance officers now have toevaluate DEI programs not only under Title VI and Section 1157 frameworks, but also in light of the sustainability of the research portfolio. Compliance Officers must now review all federally funded programs to ensure eligibility requirements and documentation are in place. They must ensure that disparity-focused research is framed in scientifically and population-neutral terms. They must also closely monitor NIH statements and funding guidance updates and develop contingency plans for non-renewal scenarios.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L 119.75) rejected the Trump administration’s proposed 40% NIH cuts, instead providing an increase of $210 million. The legislation also included a provision blocking the Office of Management and Budget’s multi-year funding proposal, which contributed to 2,000 fewer NIH grants being awarded in 2025. This represents a promising sign for medical research, but it does not fully resolve the instability surrounding NIH priorities, grant renewals, and administrative overhaul. Whether courts ultimately constrain the executive branch’s authority to deprioritize entire categories of research remains unsettled. The central question moving forward is not only whether DEI-related programs will remain legally defensible, but also whether the nation’s biomedical research can continue to address documented disparities amid shifting political priorities.