ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) New York Attorney General Letitia James and 15 other state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on Friday against the Trump administration for cutting millions for the National Institutes of Health. The suit, filed in Massachusetts federal court, accused President Donald Trump and several officials of violating the law to delay and cancel grants, including for projects at the State University of New York.

“Once again, the Trump administration is putting politics before public health and risking lives and livelihoods in the process,” AG James said. In the lawsuit—which you can read at the bottom of this story—the attorneys general ask the court to order the Trump administration to restart and complete the NIH review process, reinstate terminated grants, and issue final decisions on pending and renewal applications.

A U.S. government agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH funds health research at universities and hospitals, helping scientists study diseases, develop vaccines, and create new treatments. It also trains new researchers and supports projects that improve public health.

The agency became highly politicized during COVID, with Dr. Anthony Fauci—then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases within the NIH—drawing intense scorn over lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. That politization continued under the second Trump administration, with prominent anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy taking the reins as HHS Secretary.

The lawsuit names three Trump executive orders signed on January 20 that directed agencies like NIH to cut grants related to controversial topics.

• Executive Order 14151 targeted DEI
• Executive Order 14168 targeted gender ideology
• Executive Order 14173 targeted discrimination

NIH grants support not only medical breakthroughs but also local economic growth. In fiscal year 2024, NIH awarded billions in funds, including $237.5 million to SUNY for almost 900 projects. But since January, NIH cited disfavored topics like transgender issues, vaccine hesitancy, and diversity, equity, and inclusion to cancel hundreds of grants.

NIH halted review meetings and canceled already approved grants for studies on Alzheimer’s disease in diverse populations, substance abuse risks for LGBTQ+ youth, cardiovascular disease in LGBTQ+ individuals, HIV treatment in Ghana, and vaccine hesitancy, according to the lawsuit. In one example, SUNY lost more than $4.5 million in research grants, including funding for a center in Buffalo that trained health equity researchers.

And instead of following the established review process, per the lawsuit, the agency justified the cancellations with flippant, one-line termination template letters. Documents in the case show that NIH canceled nearly 50% of scheduled study section meetings after President Trump signed several executive orders on Inauguration Day. Previous years had averaged about 1,480 meetings.

The suit also argued that layoffs—about 1,200 NIH employees so far, with another 1,200 expected by September 2025—meant directors overseeing over $9 billion in funding were reassigned or placed on leave. And it said the cuts improperly left congressionally appropriated funds unspent in addition to delaying scientific progress.

The plaintiffs claim that, through NIH, the Trump administration broke rules set by the Administrative Procedure Act legally requiring agencies to complete discrete steps. Essentially, ignoring a public process that was established legally by Congress violated federal law.

According to the attorneys general, the administration’s moves are politically motivated and unsupported by current law. And the lawsuit lays out eight legal arguments:

• Delay in review meetings: NIH canceled or delayed required study section and advisory council meetings, stalling research
• Delay in grant applications: Even when applications received good peer reviews, NIH held off on final funding decisions, putting projects in limbo
• Delay in grant renewals: NIH delayed renewing grants for ongoing projects, disrupting necessary funding
• Terminations cite improper regulation: NIH justified cancellations by referring to a regulation that does not apply
• Terminations violation the law: Terminating the grants contradicts specific laws instructing NIH to support certain research
• Arbitrary and capricious grant terminations: NIH’s decision to cancel grants is unpredictable and lacks justification
• Separation of powers: By interfering with the grant process, the executive branch overstepped its authority
• Spending clause: The unilateral decision to cut funding contradicts the Constitution’s spending rules, leaving billions unspent and undermining economic benefits

The fifteen other states in the coalition suing over NIH funding are Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Take a look at their lawsuit below: