Judge calls some NIH grant cuts illegal, accusing government of discrimnation
A federal judge recently ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, calling the move discriminatory. Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, described the cuts as racial discrimination and discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
Young expressed his obligation to address the discrimination, stating, “Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it, and at an appropriate time, I’m going to do it.” The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is exploring legal options, including filing an appeal to challenge the ruling.
HHS Communications Director Andrew Nixon defended the decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor. Nixon emphasized the department’s commitment to evidence-based practices and science under Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration.
In response to the ruling, White House Spokesman Kush Desai criticized Judge Young for expressing biased opinions during the court proceedings. Desai argued that a judge’s impartiality is compromised when they inject personal political views into their decisions.
The Trump administration’s stance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) was also highlighted, with the White House deputy press secretary asserting that DEI policies linking competence to racial background are flawed and racist. The administration is focused on promoting scientific integrity and addressing chronic health issues rather than endorsing ideological activism.
The controversy surrounding the NIH grants cut and the subsequent legal battle underscore the ongoing debate over the intersection of politics, science, and social issues. As the case unfolds, it raises questions about the role of the judiciary in addressing discrimination and ensuring fair treatment under the law.
This article was rewritten based on the original content from Fox News, preserving the key points and structure while presenting the information in a unique and platform-ready format.
