By: Nikolay Belardi
Published: February 4, 2026
From day one, the Trump Administration set its sights on the destruction and erasure of the LGBTQI+ community. During his first days in office, President Trump issued a series of sweeping executive orders (hereinafter “DEI Executive Orders”) targeting the LGBTQI+ community, with a particular focus on marginalizing and discriminating against transgender people.[1] Determined to dismantle what the Administration labeled as “gender ideology,” President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”[2] Under the guise of protecting women, this Executive Order sought to impose restrictive definitions of gender and sex that are contradictory to the contemporary understandings of gender as a fluid and culturally varied concept.[3] Executive Order 14168 rejects the undeniable reality that gender is a social construct interpreted differently by various cultures throughout history and continues to change in modern times.[4] Further, the Order ignores the scientific consensus of biological exceptions that do not fit within a strict binary framework.[5]
Executive Order 14151 aimed to dismantle all diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives across federal agencies.[6] This order risks removing vital support structures that aid historically marginalized communities.[7] Similarly, Executive Order 14173 revoked essential civil rights-driven policies focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) and curtails affirmative action efforts.[8] This order undermines workplace equity and representation, and it essentially dismantles the safeguards designed to protect against discriminatory practices.[9] The policies outlined in the DEI Executive Orders are not only historically and scientifically flawed, but they also threaten the progress of the LGBTQI+ community in the U.S.[10]
Following the issuance of the DEI Executive Orders, various executive agencies began to take measures to comply with the Trump Administration’s policies. On February 10, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued a directive ordering the investigation of all grants related to DEI measures and the termination of all grants “inconsistent with Department policies.”[11] Abiding by the Trump Administration’s DEI Executive Orders and other agencies’ directives, the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) terminated, suspended, or withheld all grants that could fall under the Administration’s broad concept of DEI. This led to the termination of over $800 million in LGBTQI+ research grants by May 2025.[12] Similarly, in July 2025, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memorandum instructing executive agencies to “end all agency programs that promote or inculcate gender ideology.”[13]
In response to these abrupt and life-threatening funding cuts, LGBTQI+ organizations and medical associations filed a lawsuit against the NIH and HHS, alleging unconstitutional and discriminatory targeting of the LGBTQI+ community.[14] The lawsuit alleges that the targeted funding cuts violate Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.[15]
Section 1557 of the ACA prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in health programs that receive federal funding.[16] These programs include clinical and health research administered or funded by the NIH and HHS.[17] By engaging in discriminatory practices, such as deliberately cutting funding for LGBTQI+ research, the lawsuit argues that these federal agencies are violating the ACA’s nondiscrimination clause.
Moreover, the Trump Administration’s actions violate the APA. The APA requires federal agencies to act rationally, transparently, and in accordance with the law.[18] Specifically, the APA requires courts to hold agency action unlawful if it is “arbitrary, capacious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” as well as action taken without following legally required procedure.[19] Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency’s action is entitled to judicial review.[20] Here, the agencies’ actions failed to consider important aspects of the terminated grants and offered explanations contrary to the evidence.[21] For example, the agencies viewed the terminated grants as lacking scientific value, but their views rest on nothing more than conjecture, and researchers had provided their scientific reasoning behind their grants.[22] Moreover, the agencies’ actions failed to provide adequate reasoning to explain how or why any researcher’s project failed to meet agency priorities.[23] Thus, the agencies failed to follow their own policies when terminating LGBTQI+ grants.[24] The NIH and HHS took action without notice, reasoned explanation, or any opportunity for public input—thereby violating the APA.[25]
NIH and HHS’ actions also violate fundamental constitutional protections. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection prevents the federal government from targeting any group for unfavorable treatment based on characteristics such as sex, sexual orientation, and transgender status.[26] The actions taken by the Trump Administration constructively discriminate against marginalized groups, particularly the transgender community.[27]
Executive Order 14168 explicitly states that sex and gender are binary, thereby implying that those who identify outside of this binary model do not exist.[28] The federal government’s actions endorse discriminatory treatment of the transgender and nonbinary community, increasing the risk of violence and oppression for those who identify as such.[29] Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, the government cannot treat individuals unequally for reasons that are “wholly unrelated” to legitimate government objectives.[30] Further, such classifications cannot be arbitrary; instead, they must have a significant connection to the government’s objective to ensure all persons similarly circumstanced are treated equally.[31] The NIH and HHS’ actions discriminate on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The agencies’ actions do not serve any legitimate government purpose; instead, they violate the guarantees of equal protection because they are driven by animosity toward the LGBTQI+ community.[32]
Additionally, the agencies’ actions violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by depriving grantees and participants of constitutionally protected interests. For example, researchers have seen their projects terminated midstream with no process, explanation, or legitimate recourse.[33] Due to the loss of funding, some researchers have faced harms such as damage to their credibility or reputation, financial injury, delays in securing tenure-track positions, and impediments to securing future grants.[34] Some of these harms should be recognized as liberty and property interests under the Fifth Amendment as constitutionally protected interests.[35] By denying researchers their rightful benefits based on criteria that violate their right to equal protection and free speech, the NIH and HHS have violated the researchers’ Fifth Amendment due process rights.[36] Researchers cannot be penalized or stripped of their constitutionally protected interests simply for engaging in their chosen field of research.[37] Because the NIH and HHS’ actions violate Section 1557 of the ACA, the APA, and the Fifth Amendment, they cannot be legally justified.
In August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the NIH and HHS from stripping researchers of federal funding because their research relates to issues of “gender ideology.”[38] The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Section 1557 claim, finding that the agencies’ actions discriminate on the basis of sex.[39] Likewise, the court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection claim, finding the actions of NIH and HHS are rooted in prejudice and animus against the LGBTQI+ community.[40] The Fourth Circuit has held that transgender people constitute a quasi-suspect class, requiring classifications based upon transgender status to be substantially related to a sufficiently important government interest. The Maryland District Court found that the agencies’ actions did not pass this heightened scrutiny standard.[41] Lastly, the court noted that the plaintiffs, especially the researchers whose grants were terminated, suffered irreparable harm as a result of the actions of the NIH and HHS.[42] Accordingly, the court determined that the balance of equities favored issuing a preliminary injunction.[43]
The Trump Administration’s cuts to essential LGBTQI+ research programs are overtly discriminatory against this community. As a result, scientists devoted to addressing vital health disparities within the LGBTQI+ community have paused or terminated their research and scholarship.[44] The actions of the Administration promote blatant discrimination against the LGBTQI+ community. However, the federal government is not allowed to decide whose health to prioritize based on prejudice or political agenda.[45] The actions of the NIH and HHS have resulted in loss of funding for research on crucial topics such as mental health, HIV/AIDS care, gender dysphoria treatment, and intimate partner violence.[46]
To combat these unlawful and discriminatory actions, courts must continue to enjoin the enforcement of the DEI Executive Orders while ordering agencies to restore funding for LGBTQI+ research.[47] Embracing diversity and inclusivity in public health initiatives reflects a flourishing society and fosters a supportive environment that prioritizes the well-being of all individuals.[48] To ensure this, Congress and federal agencies should establish safeguards to protect DEI initiatives from political attacks, reinforcing their commitment to equality and the protection of vulnerable communities.[49] Therefore, it is crucial for federal agencies like the NIH and HHS to maintain scientific and intellectual integrity in their actions, without political influence.
[1] See Exec. Order No. 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan 21, 2025).
[2] See Exec. Order No. 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025) (adjusting federal policy to recognize only two sexes, male and female, which are unchangeable).
[3] Cf. Anna Kari, Gender and Health, World Health Org., https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1 (last visited Aug. 13, 2025) (“As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.”).
[4] See WHO Team, Gender and Health: Questions and Answers, World Health Org. (May 24, 2021), https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health (noting that gender is the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, which vary and evolve over time and are interpreted differently based on societal values, legislation, education systems, religion, media and other institutions).
[5] See Claire Ainsworth & Nature Magazine, Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes is Overly Simplistic, Sci. Am. (Oct. 22, 2018), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ (discussing scientific observations, such as individuals born with both male and female genitalia, demonstrating cases that deviate from the traditional sex binary).
[6] See Exec. Order No. 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025).
[7] Cf. id. (instructing federal agencies not to consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements when hiring federal employees).
[8] See Exec. Order No. 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan 21, 2025).
[9] Cf. id. (ordering federal agencies to cease promoting diversity and cease engaging in workplace balancing based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin).
[10] See Caleb Smith & Haley Norris, The LGBTQI+ Community Reported High Rates of Discrimination in 2024, Ctr. for Am. Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-lgbtqi-community-reported-high-rates-of-discrimination-in-2024/ (Mar. 12, 2025) (reporting that the LGBTQI+ community is facing the most anti-LGBTQI+ administration in recent history, leading to high rates of discrimination and challenges in accessing health care).
[11] See Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Secretarial Directive on DEI-Related Funding (Feb. 10, 2025).
[12] See Lambada Legal, Lambda Legal Sues National Institutes of Health over Terminating Critical Research Grants Relating to LGBTQI+ Health, https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom/glma_us-20250520_ll-sues-nih-over-terminating-research-grants-relating-to-lgbtqi-health/ (May 20, 2025) (noting that despite the Administration’s overemphasis on eradicating DEI, these LGBTQI+ grants are estimated to make up less than one percent of the total NIH portfolio).
[13] See Memorandum from the Off. of Pers. Mgmt. on Updated Guidance Regarding Executive Order 14168, (July 10, 2025).
[14] See Complaint, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025).
[15] See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954) (holding that the Fifth Amendment contains an equal protection component as the concepts of due process and equal protection are not mutually exclusive); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976).
[16] See 42 U.S.C § 18116.
[17] See Complaint at 2-3, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025); 45 C.F.R. § 92.4 (specifying that agencies such as the HHS fall within the scope of Section 1557 of the ACA).
[18] See 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
[19] See id. § 706(2).
[20] See id. § 702 (outlining the right to judicial review of an agency’s actions).
[21] See Complaint at 35-36, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025) (emphasizing that the agencies’ explanations “are so implausible that they cannot be described as a product of agency expertise”).
[22] See id. at 36 (asserting that defendants’ actions are insufficiently explained and rest on generalized, unsupported claims that the research lacked scientific value despite the researchers’ stated goals of improving the health of disfavored populations).
[23] See id. (arguing that the agencies did not explain when, how, or why the change in priorities had occurred and why the grants no longer met the agency’s standards).
[24] See id.
[25] See id. at 2.
[26] See U.S. Const. amend. V; see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976) (“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an equal protection component prohibiting the United States from invidiously discriminating between individuals or groups.”).
[27] See Exec. Order No. 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025) (rejecting the existence of transgender people).
[28] See id. (“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”).
[29] See GLAAD, GLAAD ALERT Desk Data Shows Dramatic Rise in Anti-Trans Hate Incidents, https://glaad.org/glaad-alert-desk-data-shows-dramatic-rise-in-anti-trans-hate-incidents/ (June 2, 2025) (finding an alarming increase of violence against transgender and gender non-conforming people from May 2024 to May 2025).
[30] See Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75-76 (1971).
[31] See id. at 76 (holding that classifications must be reasonable and must have a fair and substantial relation to permissible government objectives).
[32] See id. at 77 (finding that the unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals based on sex violates the Constitution).
[33] See Complaint at 4, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025).
[34] See id. at 25-30 (detailing the harms various plaintiff-researchers have suffered as a direct result of the Trump Administration’s cuts to LGBTQI+ funding).
[35] See Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972) (suggesting that liberty and property interests subject to procedural due process protection are not limited to a few rigid, technical forms).
[36] See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972); Complaint at 24-25, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025) (arguing that researchers were stripped of a constitutionally protected interest through termination of federal grants).
[37] See Perry, 408 U.S. at 597 (emphasizing that by denying a benefit to a person because of their constitutionally protected speech, the government is effectively penalizing and inhibiting their exercise of those freedoms).
[38] See Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 at *15 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025).
[39] See id. at *11.
[40] See id. at *12.
[41] See id. at *13.
[42] See id. at *14-15.
[43] See id. at *15 (noting that protecting constitutional rights weighs in favor of the court providing preliminary injunctive relief).
[44] See Lambada Legal, supra note 13.
[45] See Complaint at 4, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025).
[46] See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1, Am. Ass’n of Physicians for Hum. Rts., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, No. 25-cv-01620-LKG, 2025 WL 2377705 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025).
[47] See id. at 39-40.
[48] See AG Studies Staff and Policy Fellows, Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion Matter: Why Some State Attorneys General Are Fighting To Defend These Values, Leadership Ctr. for Att’y Gen. Studies, https://agstudies.org/publications/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-matter-why-some-state-attorneys-general-are-fighting-to-defend-these-values/ (last visited Sep. 2, 2025) (noting that diverse medical teams generally lead to better patient outcomes).
[49] Cf. id. (“Equity initiatives help ensure that core American principles of fairness and equality, along with the laws that support them, are upheld rather than overlooked or neglected.”).