A federal appeals court has struck a major blow to Donald Trump’s effort to defund key scientific research, siding with a lower court that found the president’s actions unlawful and discriminatory.
In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s emergency bid to keep its cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants in place. The court refused to delay enforcement of a prior order that forces the administration to reinstate the defunded research projects, which had been targeted under executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and suppressing research into gender identity.
The administration had hoped to pause the lower court’s decision while it pursued a broader appeal, but the First Circuit wasn’t persuaded.
“The request for immediate relief is DENIED,” the panel wrote, underscoring that the government’s procedural timing played no role in the outcome. The court signaled it would review the full case in due course but saw no justification to delay the restoration of the research grants.
At the heart of the legal battle is a pair of sweeping executive orders signed by Trump earlier this year, which gutted funding for scientific projects linked to DEI and LGBTQ+ topics. The orders ignited backlash across the research community and triggered a series of legal challenges, two of which landed in front of U.S. District Judge William Young.
Young, a Reagan appointee, did not mince words during the bench trial in June. “I am hesitant to draw this conclusion — but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it — that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community,” he said from the bench. “That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out.”
The judge’s written orders followed suit. On June 23, he issued a blunt ruling that declared the NIH’s funding clawbacks “OF NO EFFECT, VOID, ILLEGAL, SET ASIDE AND VACATED.”
A more detailed opinion followed on July 2, slamming the administration’s actions as a politically motivated assault on scientific freedom and due process. “The new Administration began weaponizing what should not be weaponized – the health of all Americans through its abuse of HHS and the NIH systems,” Young wrote, calling the campaign an effort to “blacklist certain topics” with no scientific or legal justification.
The government, meanwhile, has been fighting back on technical grounds. In a July 3 appeal, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued that the case should be tossed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, citing the Tucker Act of 1887, which governs lawsuits over federal contracts.
That argument didn’t sway the appeals court either—at least not yet. The panel made no ruling on jurisdictional issues Friday but noted it would take them up when it reviewed the full appeal.
For now, the grants stand reinstated, and the Trump administration has been dealt a sharp rebuke by both trial and appellate courts. The First Circuit gave plaintiffs until July 8 to respond to the government’s broader stay request, with a final decision on that front expected soon after.
The message from the courts is clear: science is not a political pawn—and the law won’t tolerate attempts to turn it into one.
