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settlements with potential grantees and state attorneys general to review applications that were frozen, denied, or withdrawn earlier this year because of directives by President Donald Trump’s administration targeting research related to topics such as transgender health and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 filed yesterday with plaintiff scientists and several groups representing them. (There is a similar settlement with the state attorneys general.) 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 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. But the administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which in August upheld the cancellations 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 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.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?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
