TRENTON, NJ — New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has joined 14 other states in suing the Trump administration for what he alleges are illegal terminations and delays of federally funded medical and public health research grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), his office announced Friday.
This is the 20th lawsuit and/or injunction request filed by the administration of Governor Phil Murphy.
Key Points
- NJ AG Matthew Platkin and 14 other attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over NIH grant cancellations and delays.
- The complaint claims the administration is unlawfully targeting projects linked to DEI and other disfavored topics.
- Rutgers University has already lost over $6 million in previously awarded research funding.
States challenge halted research funds
Filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the complaint accuses the NIH of abruptly terminating hundreds of active grants and delaying decisions on billions of dollars in pending applications, disrupting essential public health and medical research across the country.
You can see all of the lawsuits filed by New Jersey against the Trump administration on the New Jersey OAG website.
Platkin said in a statement that “the Trump Administration’s cuts and delays to scientific research are shameful” and are “undermining lifesaving research” in states like New Jersey.
DEI-related projects allegedly targeted
According to the complaint, the NIH has rescinded already-awarded grants based on vague justifications, claiming that the projects “no longer effectuate agency priorities.” These terminations, plaintiffs argue, disproportionately affect studies with perceived links to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and other politically disfavored areas.
The lawsuit claims these moves are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to redirect federal research funding in line with new political objectives, without congressional approval or scientific justification.
Major impact on NJ research institutions
Rutgers University has reportedly lost more than $6 million in NIH funding so far, jeopardizing research into HIV prevention, suicide risk and mental health, and antiviral development for COVID-19. The university typically receives about $250 million in NIH funding annually, supporting around 1,200 projects.
The complaint also notes that delays in grant review processes have compounded the damage. NIH has allegedly cancelled key advisory council meetings and withheld final decisions on applications that had already passed initial scientific review.
Legal arguments focus on statutory obligations
The coalition argues that NIH is failing to meet its statutory obligations under federal law and regulations by halting active grants and stalling the review process. They also claim the administration does not have authority to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated funds.
In response, the states are asking the court to bar the NIH from terminating already-awarded grants and to require the agency to resume timely reviews and approvals of pending applications.
Broader legal battle continues
This is the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by Platkin and other attorneys general against federal funding policies enacted under the current administration. On February 10, Platkin joined a separate suit opposing changes to NIH “indirect cost” reimbursements, and on March 5 a judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing those cuts.
Platkin also joined another coalition lawsuit on April 1 targeting Department of Health and Human Services grant cuts, which resulted in a temporary restraining order.
Multistate coalition pushes back
Joining Platkin in the April 4 lawsuit are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. They collectively argue that public research institutions across the country are suffering measurable harm due to the administration’s actions.
The case could have widespread implications for how federal research grants are administered, and whether future administrations may alter or revoke existing funding based on political ideology.