NIH ruling is latest blow to RFK Jr.'s agenda

• If it survives likely appeals, the ruling could allow researchers to restart their work on subjects including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and HIV.
• "The Trump administration has tried to impose their own ideological concerns on top of a well-functioning system," Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a plaintiff in the case, told Axios. "Today they got called out."

Driving the news: NIH cut nearly $3.8 billion in grants to U.S. institutions, per estimates from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

• Attorneys representing researchers in several states said the funding cuts were "arbitrary" and singled out cuts affecting people of color, women and LGBTQ+ people.
• On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge William Young told the attorneys that the case raises serious concerns about racial discrimination related to health and said some evidence points to potential discrimination against women's health.
• "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," Young, a Reagan appointee, said Monday.

The other side: The Department of Health and Human Services said it is exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order.

• "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement.
• NIH director Jay Bhattacharya told lawmakers last week that he has established an appeals process for terminated grants.

Between the lines: Plenty of studies in the case didn't primarily focus on questions of race or sexuality but still had their funding cut because algorithms flagged funding in their grants, Lurie pointed out.

• The study Lurie was part of that was a subject of the lawsuit was focused on access to HIV drugs, but it had a secondary question about hurdles specific to the LGBTQ+ community, he said.
• "Time lost is never made up," Lurie said. "There were delays in the accrual of new information, delays in the analysis of existing information, delays in publication eventually, and therefore in sharing whatever information we might have learned for the world."

Catch up quick: It's the latest ruling against HHS moves to cut back researchers' work.

• In April, a District Court judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order preventing HHS from cutting over $11 billion in public health funding to states.
• In March, another Massachusetts judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's planned $4 billion cut to NIH research funding, specifically targeting "indirect cost" grants.
• In January, a District Court judge in North Carolina issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's pause on the disbursement of federal grants and loans.

Reality check: The ruling only applies to the grants listed in this case, and it only restores the grants while the case makes its way through court.

• Young didn't officially rule that the directives were unlawful because they were discriminatory.
• Instead, he asked for evidence supporting or refuting the possibility of racial or gender discrimination.

What we're watching: Even with these grants restored, the Trump administration has other ways to target what it characterizes as DEI work within the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as via deep cuts in its latest budget proposal.