NIH Reverses Course on Grant Terminations, Adopts Cautious Legal Strategy
Following recent legal setbacks, the National Institutes of Health is pausing its efforts to terminate billions of dollars in research grants and implementing a more legally sound approach to canceling projects deemed misaligned with former President Trump’s priorities.
The shift comes as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) develops a new legal advisory process, outlined in an internal memo obtained by STAT, to provide staffers with justifications for grant terminations that are less vulnerable to legal challenges. This represents a significant reversal for the NIH, which previously pursued aggressive grant cancellations.
Legal Challenges Force Reassessment
The impetus for this change stems from a series of defeats in court. In June, Federal Judge William G. Young ruled in two separate lawsuits that certain NIH grant terminations were “void and illegal.” The judge’s rulings highlighted significant due process concerns with the agency’s previous approach.
Further compounding the issue, HHS was legally prohibited from canceling $11 billion in public health funding allocated to 23 states and the District of Columbia, all of which filed suit against the administration. These legal challenges underscored the need for a more robust and defensible process for terminating grants.
New Guidance Emphasizes Legal Rigor
The guidance from the Office of the General Counsel at HHS focuses on strengthening the legal basis for any future terminations. According to the memo, the new process will involve a more thorough review of each case and a clearer articulation of the reasons for cancellation. A senior official stated that the goal is to ensure that any future terminations are “fully supported by the law and the facts.”
The guidance specifically advises staffers on how to frame their justifications for terminations to withstand potential court scrutiny. This includes providing detailed explanations of how the research in question deviates from the administration’s stated priorities and demonstrating that the termination is consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
Implications for Research Funding
This policy shift has significant implications for the scientific community. The initial wave of grant terminations created uncertainty and disruption for researchers across the country. The new, more cautious approach suggests that the NIH will be less likely to abruptly cancel funding for ongoing projects.
However, the underlying goal of aligning research funding with the administration’s priorities remains. This means that researchers working in areas deemed less aligned with those priorities may still face challenges in securing future funding. The long-term impact of this policy change will depend on how the new legal advisory process is implemented and how aggressively the NIH pursues grant terminations in the future.
The pause and subsequent strategy shift represent a critical moment for the NIH, signaling a move towards greater legal prudence in its grant management practices.
