Science policy this week: August 11, 2025

What’s Ahead

The Supreme Court of the United States at night. — The Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

Adam Fagan / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Supreme Court permits termination of NIH grants

The Trump administration can re-terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants following an order from the Supreme Court last week. The court found that challenges to grant terminations are outside the jurisdiction of the district court that originally overturned the terminations. The order is not a final ruling on the terminations, but requires researchers or their representative organizations to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims to seek a final decision. Earlier this month, a federal judge similarly ruled that a suit challenging grant terminations from the National Science Foundation must instead be brought before the Court of Federal Claims.

However, the Supreme Court did uphold the district court’s decision to vacate NIH guidance documents that said the agency would no longer fund research “related to DEI objectives, gender identity, or COVID-19” nor “continue the practice of awarding grants to researchers based on race.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated in her concurring opinion that “vacating the guidance does not necessarily void decisions made under it,” referring to the terminations.

The court voted 5–4 on both decisions. “By today’s order, an evenly divided court neuters judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion.

The district court’s decision in June ordered the restoration of grants for parties involved in the lawsuits, including individual researchers named in the suit, members of the American Public Health Association, the United Auto Workers union, and researchers at public institutions in the 16 states that sued NIH. Some of those researchers saw their funds restored while others did not; some never had their funding terminated despite being on the Department of Health and Human Service’s list of cuts.

House Science Committee leader reiterates support for Artemis

House Science Committee Chair Brian Babin (R-TX) emphasized his support for NASA’s Artemis lunar program during a tour of Johnson Space Center last week. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are committed to Artemis — landing U.S. astronauts on the Moon during his term and building a sustained presence on the lunar surface and in low-Earth orbit,” Babin said in a press release highlighting the tour. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who is the acting head of NASA, and Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) also attended the tour. Duffy has said he wants the agency to focus on human exploration of the Moon and Mars and ditch its other programs, especially those related to Earth and climate science.

The Trump administration’s 2026 budget request proposes slashing NASA’s overall budget by $6 billion, roughly a quarter, but also proposes an 8% increase in funding for human exploration. The House proposal, which Babin led, proposes an even larger boost to human exploration of 26%, with lesser but still substantial cuts to other programs adding up to flat funding for the agency. The House and the administration recommend cutting NASA’s Earth science programs by 40% and 53%, respectively. The equivalent Senate proposal, led by Cruz, recommends flat funding for most of NASA’s programs, including human exploration and Earth science. Babin and Cruz have worked together on a number of NASA-related issues lately, including a push to relocate NASA’s headquarters to their state.

EPA hearings draw wide support for endangerment finding

The Environmental Protection Agency held four days of hearings last week on the proposed repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Speakers included environmentalists, medical professionals, and state and local officials who argued against repealing the finding. A few representatives from fossil fuel and automobile organizations expressed support for the proposal.

Before the hearings, House Science Democrats sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin criticizing the proposal and an associated climate report from the Department of Energy written by five scientists known to be skeptical of climate change impact assessments. “The report rehashes and repeats old claims that the climate denial movement has relied upon for decades to mislead and confuse the public. … The five individuals who wrote the DOE report represent a viewpoint so negligible in persuasive force and scientific support that it does not even exist as a credible argument in the global scientific debate,” Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Gabe Amo (D-RI) wrote.

Also on our radar

DOE, NIH, and NSF have released their plans to implement President Trump’s Gold Standard Science executive order. The plans were due to OSTP on Aug. 22. Additionally, the EPA is reinstating its 2012 scientific integrity policy, removing the 2025 Biden-era policy in accordance with order.
House Science Committee Chair Brian Babin (R-TX) will speak at Rice University this week about recent changes in federal funding for research.
Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent letters to 24 agencies criticizing the Trump administration’s cuts to inspector general offices and demanding assurances that the cuts will not affect the agencies’ compliance with audits and information requests.
An appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to delay a court order to restore NSF funding to UCLA while the administration appeals the case.