In late March 2025, the Trump administration announced it would rescind $11 billion in federal funds originally allocated by Congress for COVID‑19 response and other critical public health programs. These grants supported testing, vaccination campaigns, addiction and mental health services, and disease surveillance efforts nationwide. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) justified the move by stating the pandemic “no longer [posed] a public health emergency,” but critics argue the abrupt cut ignored ongoing health threats and left state agencies blindsided.
Legal Challenge by States and D.C.
On April 1, 2025, 23 states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, naming HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a defendant. Plaintiffs include New York AG Letitia James, Colorado AG Phil Weiser, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. The lawsuit alleges the cuts were made without “rational basis” and violate federal statutes by putting lives at risk and undermining preparedness for future pandemics.
“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients,” New York AG Letitia James said in a press release.
Federal Judge Steps In
Shortly after the suit was filed, U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy issued a temporary injunction blocking the administration’s funding rescission while litigation proceeds. The court found plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, citing potential dissolution of key health programs such as vaccine distribution, disease tracking, and substance use disorder treatment. This ruling preserves the status quo, ensuring that states continue receiving the critical funds during the legal process.
NIH Grant Cuts Ignite Multi‑State Lawsuit
Concurrently, New York AG Letitia James and a coalition of 15 other attorneys general filed suit in the District of Massachusetts challenging the Trump administration’s decision to terminate millions in NIH research grants. The complaint targets abrupt cancellations of funding for projects on Alzheimer’s disease, LGBTQ+ health, vaccine hesitancy, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—projects that had already been peer‑reviewed and approved by NIH.
- Scope of Cuts: Over $4.5 million withdrawn from SUNY projects; a $3.5 million Buffalo health equity training center defunded.
- Legal Basis: Plaintiffs argue NIH violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide any rationale or follow proper rule‑making procedures, and contravened congressional mandates to support LGBTQ+ and women’s health research.
“The decision to cut these funds is an attack on science, public health, and medical innovation—and I won’t stand for it,” AG James stated.
Broader Coalition and ACLU Involvement
Beyond state attorneys general, the American Public Health Association, ACLU, research unions, and individual scientists have joined litigation efforts. On April 2, 2025, the ACLU filed suit in Boston on behalf of four researchers and APHA, challenging the cancellation of over $1.1 billion in NIH grants related to COVID‑19, vaccine hesitancy, and minority health. Plaintiffs allege NIH acted outside its statutory authority by making ideologically driven cuts without scientific justification or transparency.
Potential Impact on Public Health and Research
If the administration’s cuts remain in place, experts warn of:
- Disrupted Disease Surveillance: Delays in modernizing state systems risk inadequate response to outbreaks such as measles and flu.
- Mental Health and Addiction Services: Programs combating the opioid crisis face staffing cuts and service reductions. Minnesota has already issued layoff notices to 170 employees and risked 300 more positions.
- Scientific Innovation: Terminated NIH grants stall clinical trials, jeopardize long‑term studies on Alzheimer’s, HIV, and maternal mortality, and could prompt brain drain as researchers seek more stable funding environments.
What’s Next?
Both lawsuits are in early stages. Plaintiffs seek:
- Immediate Injunctions to restore funds and halt further terminations.
- Declaratory Relief affirming the administration must follow federal law in funding decisions.
- Restoration of NIH Grant Reviews to resume pending applications.
A hearing on the public health funding injunction is scheduled for late April 2025, and the Massachusetts case on NIH grants is set for briefing in May 2025. The outcomes could set critical precedents on executive authority over federal grant programs and reinforce the role of the judiciary in safeguarding public health and scientific research.
