A lawsuit filed by 17 named researchers and four anonymous researchers challenges the National Institutes of Health’s practice of screening grant applications and current grants for targeted language. The plaintiffs contend that the agency’s review process infringes on their freedom of speech. The screening has concentrated on research topics that the current administration views unfavorably, including workforce diversity initiatives, health disparities, climate change, and vaccine research.
The NIH’s approach to managing grant portfolios shifted following a federal court ruling that found mass terminations of grants violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Rather than continuing broad terminations, the agency transitioned to examining and requesting modifications to the language used in grant applications and funded projects. According to court filings, the agency identified and terminated grants based on subject matter and viewpoints it no longer intended to support. During 2025, more than 700 grantees altered their grant titles to remove terms including “equity,” “disparity,” and “racism.” The agency has utilized computational text analysis tools to assist in this review process.
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has publicly stated his opposition to prohibited word lists, but a court filing from the agency’s head of extramural research acknowledged the use of search terms and keywords to identify grants expressing viewpoints that the department no longer wished to fund. The agency declined to comment on the new lawsuit.
Researchers participating in the case have described the impact on their work. One plaintiff’s research on sexual harassment among scientists was terminated and not reinstated, forcing her to revise applications to avoid certain terminology. Another researcher studying discrimination in healthcare settings was asked to remove references to “discrimination” and “Black” from his grant title. These restrictions have created uncertainty about how to present research in fields where targeted terminology is fundamental to describing the work, leaving some scientists to reconsider their participation in NIH funding programs entirely.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI