[[link removed]]
SUNDAY SCIENCE: AFTER LEGAL DEAL, NIH TO REVIEW GRANT PROPOSALS
FROZEN, DENIED, OR WITHDRAWN BECAUSE OF TRUMP DIRECTIVES
[[link removed]]
Phie Jacobs
December 30, 2025
Science
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
_ Agreement requires agency to evaluate hundreds of applications
“in good faith” using its standard process _
The National Institutes of Health has agreed to settle lawsuits over
its handling of grant applications that conflicted with President
Donald Trump’s directives., Lydia Polimeni/National Institutes of
Health via AP
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has agreed in lawsuit
settlements with potential grantees and state attorneys general to
review applications that were frozen, denied, or withdrawn earlier
this year because of directives by President Donald Trump’s
administration targeting research related to topics such as
transgender health and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The
agency will evaluate each application “in good faith” using its
standard processes, stated a joint stipulation
[[link removed]]
filed yesterday with plaintiff scientists and several groups
representing them. (There is a similar settlement with the state
attorneys general
[[link removed]].)
In return, the plaintiffs in both cases agreed to drop their remaining
claims.
“This agreement offers a path, however imperfect, back to doing the
work scientists were trained to do: documenting health inequities and
developing solutions that save lives,” says Brittany Charlton, an
epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School who is a named plaintiff on
one of the suits.
That settlement, which concludes many months of litigation, is “an
unmitigated victory” for the NIH applicants, says Scott Delaney, an
epidemiologist and former attorney who created a database to track
cancellations of NIH grants but wasn’t a party to the suit. He and
Charlton remain skeptical, however, that NIH will fairly evaluate the
applications—or that the Trump administration will allow approved
grants to proceed without interference. “Political meddling is so
institutionalized now,” he says.
The deals emerged from lawsuits that began earlier this year when NIH
abruptly terminated hundreds of grants, many closely aligned with
topics such as transgender health, environmental health, vaccine
hesitancy, workforce diversity, and COVID-19. Many termination letters
were issued shortly after Trump issued executive orders banning
medical treatment for transgender youth and efforts to promote DEI. In
response, NIH staff were given guidance to kill any grants that
conflicted with those orders. NIH also stopped reviewing applications
based on the same directives.
In April, researchers and state attorneys general filed lawsuits
[[link removed]]
in a Massachusetts federal district court arguing that NIH and its
parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
failed to follow proper procedures when canceling grants or deciding
not to review submitted proposals. District Judge William Young, who
had partially consolidated the lawsuits, in June ruled that the
terminations of existing grants were unlawful and ordered NIH to
reinstate them
[[link removed]].
But the administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which in August
upheld the cancellations
[[link removed]]
and found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the
matter.
That ruling did not affect the legal tussle over grant applications
that had not yet been funded, because Young had separated them from
the terminations case. Now, NIH has agreed to review those
applications without applying the challenged directives. Some of these
grant proposals were originally pulled from review by NIH because they
were submitted in response to notices of funding opportunities the
agency has since rescinded. These applications must also be
reconsidered, the parties agreed.
The “proposed order” submitted by various sides also includes firm
deadlines by which NIH must review applications and notify researchers
of final decisions. NIH was supposed to decide on applications for
continuing existing grants, known as noncompeting renewals, by 29
December, the day the stipulation was filed. According to a
spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the
organizations that filed the April suit on behalf of several
researchers, NIH has already granted the vast majority of those
renewal applications.
Applications for new awards that have already been reviewed by NIH’s
study sections (panels of outside scientists) and advisory councils (a
mix of institute staff and outside researchers) must receive decisions
by 12 January 2026. Applications that are not that far along must
receive decisions by mid-April or late July. NIH also agreed that
although the applications were for funding in the 2025 fiscal year,
which ended on 30 September, it will still review the proposals and
make awards if necessary.
Some observers fear the applications will not be handled normally.
“I don’t think anyone knows for sure yet how they will
implement” the agreement, says Jenna Norton, a program official at
the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
who was abruptly placed on administrative leave last month after
becoming a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s handling of
NIH. Norton, who is speaking in her personal capacity, hopes the
review process will not involve new guidelines
[[link removed]] requiring
staff to comb through grants for terms that don’t align with
so-called “agency priorities” and worries reinstated grants may
end up being terminated again later on.
“This settlement offers some relief for affected grants, but it
falls far short of truly repairing the damage,” Charlton says.
“Years of research were shut down overnight, and with that, we lost
real progress that could have prevented illness and saved lives.”
“We are not able to comment on the status of individual grant
applications or deliberations,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said
in response to questions from _Science_. “The agency remains
committed to supporting rigorous, evidence-based research that
advances the health of all Americans.”
Despite the uncertainty of what NIH will do next, Delaney still
believes the deal is “vindicating. … The broader systemic concerns
are still very much present,” he says, “but I’ll take a win
where we get one.”
doi: 10.1126/science.z39yyd3
_Phie Jacobs is a general assignment reporter at Science._
_Science__ has been at the center of important scientific discovery
since its founding in 1880—with seed money from Thomas Edison.
Today, __Science__ continues to publish the very best in research
across the sciences, with articles that consistently rank among the
most cited in the world. In the last half century alone, __Science__
published:_
* _The entire human genome for the first time_
* _Never-before seen images of the Martian surface_
* _The first studies tying AIDS to human immunodeficiency virus_
_A trailblazer in online publishing as well, the Science family of
publications has grown to include online journals Science
Translational Medicine, Science Signaling, Science Immunology, Science
Robotics and the open access journal Science Advances._
_The __Science__ family of journals is published by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s
oldest and largest general science organization. The nonprofit AAAS
serves 10 million people through primary memberships and affiliations
with some 262 scientific societies and academies._
_A voice for science and scientists everywhere, AAAS fulfills its
mission to “advance science and serve society” by communicating
the value of science to the public, helping governments formulate
science policy, promoting advancements in science education and
diversity, and helping scientists develop their careers._
_Join AAAS. Be an advocate. Advance the world of science._
[[link removed]]_By joining AAAS, you're
strengthening the voice of science. Your membership means uniting STEM
professionals and enthusiasts across the globe to support new
discovery, innovation, and science education._
WHY IS THERE NO SUCH THING AS ANTIGRAVITY?
[[link removed]]ETHAN
SIEGELBIG THINK / STARTS WITH A BANGIn general relativity, matter and
energy curve spacetime, which we experience as gravity. Why can’t
there be an “antigravity” force?January 2, 2026
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* NIH
[[link removed]]
* Grant Proposal cuts
[[link removed]]
* executive orders
[[link removed]]
* scientific research
[[link removed]]
* public funding
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT
Submit via web
[[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]
Bluesky [[link removed]]
Facebook [[link removed]]
[link removed]
To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
