Trump administration agrees to drop anti-DEI criteria for stalled health research grants
The James H. Shannon Building (Building One), on the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)
The Trump administration will review frozen grants to universities without using its controversial standards that discouraged gender, race and sexual orientation initiatives and vaccine research.
InΒ a settlement agreement filed in Massachusetts federal court Monday, the National Institutes of Health and a group of Democratic attorneys general whoβd challenged the new criteria for grant funding said the NIH would consider grant applications made up to Sept. 29, 2025, without judging the efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, or vaccines.
The settlement provides an uncontested path for the agency while courts decide whether the administration can use its controversial analysis. The administration did not agree to permanently ditch its campaign to evaluate health research funding decisions based on schoolsβ DEI programs.
NIH officials βwill complete their consideration of the Applications in the ordinary course of NIHβs scientific review process, without applying the Challenged Directives,β the settlement said, adding that the agency would βevaluate each application individually and in good faith.β
The settlement was signed by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
In a Tuesday statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the agreement commits the Department of Health and Human Services to resume βthe usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline.βΒ
The 17 attorneys general sued in April over $783 million in frozen grants.Β
A trial court and appeals court in Massachusetts sided with the states, but the U.S. Supreme CourtΒ ruled in August that the trial judge lacked the authority to compel the grants to be paid, especially in light of a similar decision involving the Education Department.