Medical Research Gets a Second Chance: How Hundreds of Stalled Studies Are Moving Forward

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is moving forward on thousands of grant applications that were previously stalled or denied, with 499 approvals issued on a single day in late December. This reversal comes after two major lawsuits forced the federal agency to reconsider funding decisions made during the Trump administration's restrictions on certain research topics. The agreements promise decisions on more than 5,000 grants nationally, with deadlines extending through July 31, 2026.

What Happened to These Research Projects?

Last year, the Trump administration broadly rejected funding for research it deemed unfavorable, particularly studies focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). However, researchers and state attorneys general argued that the funding freeze affected a much wider range of projects—including ones addressing serious health threats. The NIH and other federal agencies abruptly terminated previously awarded grants and sat on applications for new ones, leaving scientists in limbo and universities facing millions in lost funding.

The University of Massachusetts alone had 353 applications for NIH funding whose review had been delayed, representing millions in potential grant money for lifesaving medical research. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell stated that "lifesaving studies related to Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and other devastating illnesses were frozen indefinitely—stealing hope from countless families across the country and putting lives at risk."

Which Health Areas Will Benefit from These Restored Grants?

The grants now moving forward address some of the most pressing public health challenges facing Americans today. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which led one of the lawsuits, the approved funding will support research in several critical areas:

• HIV Prevention: Studies aimed at reducing transmission and improving outcomes for people living with HIV
• Alzheimer's Disease: Research into prevention, treatment, and care for this devastating neurodegenerative condition
• LGBTQ+ Health: Investigations into health disparities and specific medical needs of LGBTQ+ populations
• Sexual Violence: Research addressing prevention and health impacts of sexual assault and abuse

The ACLU noted that the NIH's previous actions put "many scientists' careers in limbo, including hundreds of members of the American Public Health Association and the UAW union."

How Did the Courts Force This Change?

Two separate lawsuits—one led by Massachusetts's attorney general and another by the ACLU—challenged the NIH's funding freeze. The agreements reached in these cases represent a significant legal victory for researchers and public health advocates. On December 29, 2025, the NIH issued 528 grant decisions, with 499 approvals in one batch alone. In the ACLU case, the NIH awarded at least 135 out of 146 applications in decisions made that same day.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, had previously ordered the NIH to restore grants the agency had terminated after Trump returned to the White House. Young criticized the federal government for not formally defining DEI despite using that term to justify terminating grants. He stated that he had "never seen racial discrimination by the government like this" during his four decades as a federal judge.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court later stayed Young's ruling in a 5-to-4 preliminary decision, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing that Young "likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims." Despite this setback, the NIH had already restored more than 2,000 terminated grants following Young's ruling and did not reverse course after the Supreme Court decision.

What Happens Next for Medical Research Funding?

While the court agreements represent progress, questions remain about the long-term stability of research funding. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya indicated that grants dealing with DEI that come up for renewal this year will not be funded, distinguishing between cutting a grant and declining to renew it. He stated that "when it comes to renewal, those grants no longer meet NIH priorities… so when they come up for renewal over the course of the year, we won't renew them."

The agencies agreed to decide the stalled grant applications in exchange for plaintiffs dismissing some of their claims, though the agencies did not admit wrongdoing. An HHS (Health and Human Services) spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that "the NIH cannot comment on the status of individual grant applications or deliberations" but emphasized that "the agency remains committed to supporting rigorous, evidence-based research that advances the health of all Americans."

The total amount of money the NIH may distribute through these restored grants remains unclear, but the Massachusetts attorney general's office noted that states were awaiting decisions on billions of dollars in potential funding. A hearing before the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to address whether researchers with canceled grants must ultimately pursue their claims before the Court of Federal Claims, suggesting that the legal battle over research funding may continue for months.