What clinops professionals need to know
Recent NIH funding cuts tied to DEI policies are creating uncertainty across the research landscape. Site budgets and staffing remain vulnerable as states challenge the policy shifts, but the Supreme Court ruling allows cuts to continue for now. Diversity-focused research faces the greatest risk, raising concerns about patient representation, equity, and long-term trial capacity. Clinops professionals should anticipate leaner resources, slower site payments, and the need for stronger sponsor-site collaboration to sustain trial momentum.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to continue with funding cuts to medical research that aim to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).1
Supreme Court ruling and key votes
The 5-4 ruling by the justices lifted an order from June made by US District Judge William Young of Massachusetts, who ruled an earlier policy implementing National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts to be unlawful. Young’s ruling forced the NIH to restore funding for over 1,700 grants in the areas of heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, alcohol and substance abuse, and mental health issues.2
The deciding vote in the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on August 20 was made by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In a statement, Barrett said: "As today’s order states, the District Court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims.”
She added: “The Government is not entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance documents.”2
State response to NIH funding cuts
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, representing one of 16 states against the NIH cuts, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision.
In a statement, she added: "Even though the Court did not dispute that the Trump Administration’s decision to cut critical medical and public health research is illegal, they ordered the recipients of that funding—hospitals, researchers, and the state—to jump through more hoops to get it back. All the while, our research institutions, economy, and residents who depend on this lifesaving medical research will suffer.”2
Impact on diversity and clinical research
The clinical research industry has been deeply impacted by policy shifts—such as the turmoil around NIH grants and DEI initiatives—in 2025. These challenges date back to when the administration began taking steps to address DEI policies in clinical research earlier in the year.
Just days after taking office in January, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order effectively banning federal recognition of gender identity apart from biological sex. In response, the FDA quietly removed a previously issued draft guidance on diversity in clinical trials from its official website.
Only weeks later, the NIH announced that it would cut “indirect expenses” in the funding it provides to research grants by nearly half. Immediately after the cut took effect on February 9, 22 states sued the NIH and the US Department of Health and Human Services, citing the cut as unlawful.
Industry perspectives on long-term effects
In an earlier video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Kyle McAllister, co-founder, CEO, Trially, discussed the impact of funding cuts on underrepresented populations in medical research, emphasizing the importance of diversity-focused research.
“I don't see a way that walking back diversity requirements, walking back funding for research focused on diversity doesn't have a long-term impact,” he said. “Without direct investment in research into diverse populations, […] I think we really risk putting those populations further behind and increasing the care gap between the folks that aren't in those underrepresented populations and those that are.”
In terms of how the industry can continue to move forward and ensure that a steady pipeline of medical research is maintained, Ron Lanton, partner, Lanton Law, noted that researchers will have to view their trials through a more conservative lens.
In a video interview with ACT, he said: “This entire situation is disheartening. It could halt many clinical trials focusing on minority groups and stifle progress on certain vaccines. This could lead to entire sectors of science receiving neither funding nor attention. I don’t think we fully understand the magnitude of this yet—it won’t be clear until it actually happens.”
References
1. Gerstein, J. (August 21, 2025). Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism’. Politico. Accessed August 21, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/supreme-court-nih-funding-grants-00518782
2. Hurley, L. Grumbach G. (August 21, 2025). Supreme Court allows Trump's cuts to health research grants over DEI policies. NBC News. Accessed August 21, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-cuts-nih-grants-dei-policies-rcna222470
