A federal judge has recently determined that the Trump administration cannot withdraw federal health grants solely because they are associated with “gender ideology” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
This announcement comes from U.S. District Judge William Young—a Reagan appointee, to be precise—who deemed the action unlawful and instructed that the funds be reinstated immediately.
In February, the NIH rescinded grants related to LGBTQ research, gender identity, and DEI initiatives. Unsurprisingly, organizations such as the ACLU, the American Public Health Association, and Ibis Reproductive Health promptly took legal action—and achieved the ruling they sought.
“The ideologically driven directives to terminate grants purported to involve DEI, ‘gender ideology,’ or other prohibited subjects were, in reality, arbitrary and capricious, and have now been deemed unlawful,” stated Peter G. Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Georges Benjamin, executive director of the APHA, also expressed his satisfaction. “We are certainly very pleased with the judge’s ruling, and indeed the manner in which he characterized it as discrimination. I believe that is straightforward; the administration was attempting to undermine the health and well-being of these populations,” he remarked to “The Hill.”
What happens next? While the Biden appointees may be celebrating, the Trump administration is not finished. The federal government has indicated its intention to appeal the ruling or halt it altogether.
“HHS maintains its position to terminate funding for research that favors ideological agendas over scientific integrity and significant outcomes for the American populace,” stated HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon.
“Under the guidance of Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration, HHS is dedicated to ensuring that taxpayer funds support programs based on evidence-based practices and top-tier science, rather than being influenced by divisive DEI mandates or gender ideology,” he added.
Nevertheless, despite the court’s ruling, critics argue that this administration is adept at playing the long game and can deliberately delay compliance when it chooses to do so.
“The spigots have been reopened, yet this administration has sought to discover methods to hinder progress, effectively placing obstacles in the path of disbursing funds,” Benjamin remarked. “Observe the actions of the administration with one hand while they are engaged in different activities with the other. They have been quite cunning in their attempts to circumvent judicial mandates.”
In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi terminated federal lawsuits that the Biden administration had initiated against local police and fire departments concerning their merit-based hiring practices.
Under the Biden administration, the DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights took legal action against local first responders for favoring merit in hiring over race-based considerations.
“In the absence of any proof of intentional discrimination—merely statistical differences—the previous administration labeled the aptitude tests involved in these cases as discriminatory to promote a DEI agenda,” the DOJ stated in a press release.
“Furthermore, it aimed to pressure cities into implementing DEI-based hiring practices and to allocate millions of taxpayer dollars for compensations to former applicants who had performed poorly on the tests, irrespective of their qualifications,” the press release continued.
President Donald Trump enacted executive orders that abolished Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies within the federal government. Bondi’s recent decision signifies the latest advancement in the ongoing initiative to reverse DEI programs under the current administration.
Bondi’s office asserted that DEI policies endanger public safety and suggested that the dismissal of these cases is an “initial step towards eliminating unlawful DEI preferences throughout the government and in the private sector.”
“American communities are entitled to have firefighters and police officers selected based on their expertise and commitment to public safety, rather than to fulfill DEI quotas,” stated Bondi.