A US court has cleared the way for the National Science Foundation to press ahead with the cancellation of more than 1,700 research grants worth upwards of $1 billion.
The ruling, handed down this week by Judge Jia Cobb of the DC District Court, rejects a request from researchers, universities and scientific societies to reinstate the cancelled grants while the case is heard. The plaintiffs had argued that NSF's mass terminations were arbitrary, unlawful and would do irreparable harm to the country's research ecosystem.
NSF began hacking away at its portfolio after publishing a "Change in Priorities" statement in April. The new policy narrowed the scope of what counts as an acceptable "broader impact," warning that taxpayer-funded projects must not "preference some groups at the expense of others." In practice, that meant hundreds of grants tied to diversity, equity and inclusion programmes, or focused on boosting participation by underrepresented groups, suddenly found themselves on the chopping block.
Between April and May, the agency fired off five waves of termination letters, citing boilerplate language that the projects "no longer effectuate program goals or agency priorities." Most awardees were given little explanation beyond that, despite their work having been peer-reviewed, approved and in many cases already underway.
The legal challenge, filed in June by a coalition of educational and scientific organisations, argued that NSF's actions were arbitrary, violated grantees' due process rights, and contradicted the agency's statutory mission to broaden participation in STEM. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction that would have forced NSF to reinstate the money immediately while the case plays out.
Judge Cobb said no. In her 38-page opinion, she ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to order "retrospective relief", forcing NSF to pay out previously cancelled funds, saying those claims should be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, which handles lawsuits seeking money from the federal government. She also said that, while cancelled grants may cause serious disruption to labs, jobs and students, the plaintiffs hadn't met the high legal bar for proving "irreparable harm" needed to justify emergency relief.
In response, Democracy Forward, the coalition behind the legal challenge, said it was "deeply disappointed in the court's decision to allow the termination of grants to stand while we argue this case on the merits".
"We are as united and committed as ever to ultimately winning this case and protecting these important NSF grants," it added. "The Trump-Vance administration acted unlawfully when it terminated these crucial grants. It attempted to usurp congressional authority by eliminating funding required by law. This case is not over and we are eager to defend the important role the NSF plays in the daily lives of Americans."
However, the decision doesn't kill the case entirely. Cobb allowed the plaintiffs' prospective claims to go forward, meaning NSF's new grantmaking policy itself can still be challenged, and future grant decisions could yet be scrutinised or overturned if the courts find the rules unlawful. But for now, the past terminations will remain in force.
The scale of the purge is huge: according to data released by research lobby group COSSA, 1,752 grants worth around $1.4 billion have been terminated so far. The STEM Education Directorate was hit hardest, losing nearly half of its active grants and about two-thirds of its funding. Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences also saw a significant share of its portfolio axed.
The fight over NSF's priorities has been raging for months. As The Register reported in May, the agency's budget proposals threaten cuts of up to 80 percent in some directorates, alongside the closure of 37 divisions and the firing of probationary staff. DEI programmes and other outreach initiatives have been singled out for removal as the foundation pivots toward what it calls "neutral" science funding.
For researchers on the receiving end, the court's decision means the disruption will continue. Projects are being paused or shut down mid-stream, leaving graduate students with uncertain futures due to the loss of stipends provided by those grants. Some universities have said they'll try to backfill funding to keep work alive, but warn they can't cover everything.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, scientists are being offered something quite different. France's Aix-Marseille University has launched a Safe Place for Science programme, offering up to three years of funding and a "safe and stimulating environment" for American researchers seeking refuge from the disruption at home. ®