3 hours ago
Federal Judge Halts NIH Termination of LGBTQ+ Health Research Grants
READ TIME: 3 MIN.
On Friday, August 1, a U.S. District Court judge in Maryland issued an injunction blocking the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from terminating federal grants that fund research focused on the health of sexual and gender minorities, including studies critical to understanding and combating HIV. The decision comes amid a contentious legal battle over the Trump administration’s attempts to cancel more than $800 million in federal funding dedicated to LGBTQ+ health research, which plaintiffs argue would have had devastating effects on public health and scientific progress.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in May 2025 by the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights and sixteen individual researchers. The plaintiffs challenged the NIH’s decision to cancel funding for research addressing medical issues affecting LGBTQ+ communities. They alleged that the targeted cancellation violated the Equal Protection Clause, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, the Due Process Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Separation of Powers.
The legal action was prompted by executive orders from the Trump administration seeking to restrict federal support for research perceived as relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Plaintiffs asserted that these actions were ideologically motivated and undermined the NIH’s longstanding commitment to scientific rigor and public health.
In her ruling, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby questioned the legitimacy of the NIH’s process and cited a lack of evidence that the terminations followed the agency’s established scientific review procedures. The court found that the abrupt cancellation of grants—many of which support high-impact studies on HIV prevention, mental health, and health disparities among LGBTQ+ populations—posed a risk of irreparable harm to ongoing research and to the health of marginalized communities.
The injunction preserves the status quo while the case proceeds, allowing researchers to continue their work and maintain critical services for study participants. Advocates and scientists have emphasized the importance of these grants in advancing knowledge, improving health outcomes, and developing tailored interventions for communities historically underserved by the healthcare system.
LGBTQ+ rights organizations, public health experts, and research institutions welcomed the court’s decision as a necessary defense against political interference in science. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the litigation, underscored the broader stakes: “Our decision to join this lawsuit was not only about the arbitrary and hurtful termination, but also about the need for rigorous science to improve all of our lives so everyone can be healthy and build the families they choose,” stated ACLU representatives.
Experts highlighted that research funded by these grants extends beyond HIV to include mental health, substance use, reproductive health, and access to care—areas where sexual and gender minorities often experience significant disparities. Many studies also address intersectional factors such as race, income, and geography, which shape health outcomes across diverse LGBTQ+ communities.
The court’s intervention is not the final word. The underlying case will continue to move through the legal system, and the NIH’s future approach to grant funding for LGBTQ+ health research remains under scrutiny. However, for now, the injunction ensures that vital research—already reviewed and deemed “exceptionally high impact” by panels of experts—can proceed without disruption.
As the case continues, LGBTQ+ advocates and researchers are calling for renewed commitment to inclusive, evidence-based public health policy. The outcome could set important precedents for the independence of scientific research and the rights of marginalized communities to access care and information.
For now, the court’s decision is a strong affirmation that the health needs of sexual and gender minorities must not be sidelined by political agendas, and that science serving the public good deserves robust legal protection.
