Federal Judge Slams Donald Trump’s “Shameful” Cuts to Health Research: “Worst Discrimination I’ve Ever Seen

A federal judge has made a strong and emotional ruling against the Trump administration, demanding that they reinstate important research grants that had been canceled. These grants came from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, and were meant to support medical and scientific research, much of it focused on helping minority communities and LGBTQ+ individuals. The funding had been cut as part of President Trump’s efforts to eliminate programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion—also known as DEI.

Judge William Young, who has served on the federal bench for 40 years and was originally appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, condemned the Trump administration’s actions in harsh terms. He said the decision to cancel these grants was not just legally wrong, but also morally offensive. In his ruling, he stated that the government’s actions amounted to outright discrimination. He explained that the only honest conclusion he could come to was that people were being targeted simply because of their race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. He said ignoring that reality would be a failure of his duty as a judge.

What made his words even more powerful was how deeply personal and serious his message was. He expressed real sadness and disbelief at what he saw happening. Judge Young said he had never, in all his decades as a judge, seen such a blatant case of government-sponsored discrimination. He questioned how the country could allow something like this to happen and asked whether America had lost its sense of decency and fairness.

Although Judge Young admitted there were limits to his authority when it came to undoing a presidential executive order, he still ordered that the NIH funding must be returned to the organizations and individuals who were supposed to receive it. He made it clear that what the Trump administration was trying to do was not just a policy disagreement—it was unconstitutional. He described their actions as an attack on the very principles that the United States is supposed to stand for.

In court, the judge directly confronted the government’s legal team, telling them that what they were doing was going after people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community just because of who they are. He said the Constitution does not allow for that kind of treatment, no matter what excuses are made. His words were blunt, emotional, and unapologetically critical.

This ruling doesn’t just affect a few grants—it sends a strong message about the importance of protecting vulnerable communities and making sure the government follows the law. It highlights the dangers of using political power to erase programs that support inclusion and fairness. The judge’s decision shows how the courts can still serve as a check against discrimination, even when it comes from the highest levels of government.