A Reagan-nominated judge says Trump’s cuts to NIH diversity grants are discriminatory, drawing sharp White House criticism.

Federal Court and White House Clash Over Diversity Funding

A federal judge has declared the Trump administration’s decision to eliminate certain National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity grants illegal, characterizing the cuts as discriminatory against racial minorities and LGBTQ Americans. Judge William Young, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and was appointed by Ronald Reagan, made the statement during remarks on Monday.

“I am hesitant to draw this conclusion — but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it — that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community,” Young said, according to Politico. “That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.” He further stated that any discrimination by the government requires judicial intervention and pledged to issue an injunction at an appropriate time.

The Trump administration, through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), defended the move. HHS Communications Director Andrew Nixon indicated that the department is reviewing legal options, including an appeal and a stay of the judge’s order. Nixon asserted, “HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people.”

Nixon added that under Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration, HHS is committed to supporting evidence-based practices and “gold standard science”—not research driven by diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates or gender ideology.

White House Criticizes Judge’s Remarks as Political

White House Spokesman Kush Desai sharply criticized Judge Young’s statements, claiming the judge’s expressed views were political and compromised the perception of impartiality. “It is appalling that a federal judge would use court proceedings to express his political views and preferences. How is a judge going to deliver an impartial decision when he explicitly stated his biased opinion that the Administration’s retraction of illegal DEI funding is racist and anti-LGBTQ? Justice ceases to be administered when a judge clearly rules on the basis of his political ideologies,” Desai stated.

Desai also argued that DEI initiatives are based on the “flawed and racist logic” of tying competence to racial background, asserting that Americans reject this premise. He emphasized the administration’s focus on “restoring the Gold Standard of Science,” prioritizing research that addresses chronic disease and is rooted in biological realities rather than “ideological activism.”

As the legal dispute continues, Judge Young indicated his intent to formally enjoin the administration’s actions, while HHS and the White House consider next steps. The debate highlights ongoing tensions over federal funding priorities, the role of DEI in scientific research, and the limits of executive authority in shaping national policy.