In a significant victory for scientific research, federal judges have taken decisive action to restore millions of dollars in research grants that were controversially cancelled during the Trump administration.

The rulings, issued in multiple cases, targeted grant cancellations that disproportionately impacted diversity and inclusion research, particularly studies focusing on racial health disparities, women’s health, and LGBTQ+ communities. Judge William Young, a Reagan-era appointee, was particularly critical, stating he had “never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable” in his 40-year judicial career.

The cancellations didn’t just affect established researchers. Graduate students and promising undergraduates whose education and income depend on these grants were also severely impacted. The University of California, which received $2.6 billion in National Institutes of Health funding last year, was among the most affected institutions.

These grant restorations represent more than just financial reinstatement. They signal a broader commitment to protecting scientific research that explores critical health issues affecting marginalized communities. The Trump administration’s executive orders had sought to cut federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, effectively silencing important scientific investigations.

Multiple legal actions have already yielded results. Several cancelled grants, including a significant dementia study at UC Davis, have been restored. A federal district court judge in California ordered the reinstatement of grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Endowment for the Humanities.

One particularly notable case involves Dr. Neeta Thakur, whose research examines how genes in different racial and ethnic groups affect lung disease, with a specific focus on health risks from wildfire smoke in communities of color and low-income areas.

While the Trump administration has attempted to appeal these rulings and pause grant restorations, judges have largely rejected these efforts. As Shalini Goel Agarwal, an attorney involved in the cases, noted, the full restoration process might take time as appeals are resolved.

These judicial decisions represent a crucial defense of scientific integrity and a commitment to research that explores health disparities and supports diverse scientific perspectives.