Federal Judge Overrules Trump Admin: NIH Must Fund Trans and Diversity Programs

Federal Judge William Young ruled that the Trump administration’s decision to cut diversity-related NIH grants violated the Constitution. The judge reinstated the grants, claiming the cuts discriminated against minorities and LGBTQ groups.

Key Facts:

U.S. District Judge William Young ruled that Trump-era NIH grant cuts were unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The NIH began canceling grants in March that were tied to transgender healthcare, vaccine hesitancy, and DEI research.
Democratic-led states and organizations sued after the NIH terminated the funding.
Judge Young claimed the funding cuts targeted “people of color” and LGBTQ individuals.
The judge was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan.

The Rest of The Story:

The National Institutes of Health, under directives from the Trump administration, began canceling certain research grants in March.

These grants had previously funded studies related to racial diversity, transgender healthcare, and vaccine hesitancy.

The administration argued these projects no longer aligned with its policy goals of cutting unnecessary spending and ending DEI-focused initiatives.

U.S. District Judge William Young, presiding in Boston, disagreed with the administration’s approach.

He sided with the states and organizations that sued, claiming the cuts amounted to discrimination.

“Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it,” Judge Young stated during the ruling.

Young further said the decision to end funding for diversity-related projects was “bearing down on people of color because of their color,” and called the level of discrimination “palpable.”

BREAKING: A federal judge in Massachusetts just declared that the Trump administration's NIH gender ideology and DEI cuts are illegal and void and has ordered them to be restored.

Judge William Young is a traitor to America. pic.twitter.com/p7fnLlnWrU

— George (@BehizyTweets) June 16, 2025

Commentary:

This ruling sets a troubling precedent—one where a judge oversteps constitutional boundaries to dictate how taxpayer money must be spent.

The executive branch, under the President’s leadership, has the authority to set funding priorities for federal agencies like the NIH.

If the administration decides to cut off taxpayer funding for DEI and transgender projects, that decision falls squarely within its right.

What’s even more alarming is the judge’s assertion that halting these programs is in itself discriminatory.

By that logic, any government defunding of a politically charged initiative could be reversed if the right group feels “excluded.”

That’s not law—it’s activism from the bench.

Congress holds the power of the purse, not the judiciary.

The President manages the agencies that spend those funds.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say judges can force the government to maintain grants for social experiments or activist agendas.

This is not just a misinterpretation of discrimination law—it’s a misappropriation of constitutional authority.

Judge Young’s remarks, particularly his emotional phrasing about “palpable” discrimination, suggest a personal bias overriding legal reasoning.

That he was appointed by Reagan doesn’t negate his overreach—it underscores how deeply this ideology has permeated the bench, even among once-principled appointees.

By restoring these grants, the court effectively demands that taxpayers fund controversial projects regardless of whether those programs serve a national interest or align with elected leadership’s priorities.

This approach not only removes accountability from the agencies but imposes an ideological straitjacket on how federal dollars must be spent.

And let’s be clear: this isn’t about equality.

It’s about entrenching progressive dogma within the federal research apparatus.

Transgender medicine and DEI-based science are not sacred pursuits.

They are policy choices—and those choices should be left to the people through their elected officials, not activist judges.