Certainly. Below is a reformulated version of the article in the third person, remaining neutral and professional while preserving the original context.
—
ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom investigating abuses of power, highlights a case involving the Trump administration and allegations of research grant terminations. Washington state’s attorney general has accused the Trump administration of violating a federal court order that aimed to prevent cutting research grants tied to gender identity and gender-affirming care following executive orders by President Donald Trump.
The federal government’s attorneys have consistently claimed compliance with the order in court filings. However, whistleblower records, submitted in a lawsuit led by Washington state’s attorney general, seem to contradict these claims. Nearly two weeks after the injunction was issued, Dr. Matthew J. Memoli, the then-acting head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), drafted a memo outlining how funding for certain research grants was cut in response to Trump’s executive orders, specifically those labeled as promoting “gender ideology.” An internal NIH spreadsheet listed grant terminations having links to Trump’s executive orders.
The circumstances around these terminations are part of broader allegations that the Trump administration is moving toward a constitutional crisis by potentially ignoring or defying court orders in multiple cases. This includes a high-profile case concerning Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, involving a Supreme Court-upheld order that the administration has yet to comply with.
Documents related to the NIH lawsuit indicate extensive changes and are the first to publicly demonstrate the significant impact of the administration’s policies on the agency’s structure, including widespread layoffs and research cuts intended to realign NIH with the president’s priorities. Other documents challenge the administration’s depiction of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as only an advisory body, as depositions suggest DOGE was directly involved in grant termination decisions.
The lawsuit provides an unprecedented insight into NIH’s cancellation of over 600 grants, many targeting topics the administration deems as scientifically dubious or misaligned with new research priorities, like gender identity and vaccine hesitancy. Andrew G. Nixon, a communications director for the Department of Health and Human Services, stated that the terminations were a consequence of executive orders and aligned with policy and scientific priorities rather than political motives.
The Washington attorney general’s lawsuit sought to reverse these terminations after a federal judge issued an injunction against enforcing the executive orders in the state. Nevertheless, the same day the injunction was issued, NIH terminated a grant to Seattle Children’s Hospital, perceived as contradicting the judge’s restriction. The Washington state attorney general’s office demanded the withdrawal of this termination, citing the injunction. However, the administration maintained that the termination was consistent with internal grant policies, not influenced by executive orders.
Whistleblower documents introduced in the lawsuit suggest a direct connection between the grant cancellations and executive orders. Records indicate that Executive Order 14168, banning the use of federal funds to promote “gender ideology,” was a factor in these cancellations, occurring after the injunction was in place.
Depositions of NIH officials reveal a more profound involvement of DOGE in the grant termination process, beyond what is publicly acknowledged by the administration. Testimonies describe directives from DOGE concerning the grant terminations, adding to the lawsuit’s complexity.
Washington state’s attorney general’s office argued that the administration has not adequately responded to discovery requests aimed at probing these matters. Requests to compel the administration’s response are pending.
The Trump administration’s fiscal proposals justify NIH cuts, alleging waste and unfocused spending. Jeremy Berg, an NIH former director, criticized the administration’s assessments, expressing concerns about substantial negative impacts on biomedical research.
This ongoing situation reflects the complex interplay between administrative policy changes and legal challenges involving federal research funding.
