2025 Administration Transition Information & Resources

Primary tabs

https://www.cogr.edu/cogr-summary-executive-orders

This page will be updated as new information is available.  Please send relevant federal agency communications, directives, and other information your institution receives to: memberservices@cogr.edu.

 

Quicklinks

COGR Communications & Resources

Executive Orders & Related Resources

Department/Agency Directives & Memoranda

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) News

Lawsuits Related to Freeze on Payments for Grants/Contracts & Removal of Information from Government Websites

Institutional Communications on Federal Funding Updates

OSTP/OMB Archived Resources

NIH 15% Cap on Indirect Cost Reimbursement - Information & Resources

 

 

COGR Communications & Resources

Framework for Navigating the 2025 Administration Transition (Updated May 13, 2025)

Transition Impact Survey Questions 

2025 Administration Transition Impacts on Research - Tell Us Your Story (Ongoing)

Actionable Ideas to Improve Government Efficiency Affecting the Performance of Research (April 9, 2025)

National Organizations Announce Joint Effort to Develop a New Indirect Costs Funding Model (April 8, 2025)

COGR Joins AAU and APLU Presidents in Submitting Joint Letter to Government Officials in Response to Unnecessary Disruptions to Federally Supported Research (February 18,2025)

COGR's Summary Tracker of Executive Orders (V.12, Released May 22, 2025)

COGR Letters to Trump Administration on Reducing Red Tape Affecting Research (January 29, 2025)

COGR Quoted on NIH 15% Cap on Cost Reimbursements

COGR Quoted on HHS's Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act 

COGR Quotes/Mentions in Press

Recent Statements by COGR President Matt Owens

 

Executive Orders & Related Resources

 

Department/Agency Directives/Memoranda

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) News

 

Lawsuits Related to the Freeze on Payments for Grants & Contracts, Removal of Information from Government Websites, NIH 15% F&A Cap; Foreign Aid; and Termination of Federal Grants

Freeze on Payments:

National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump

  • Docket Number:  1:25-cv-00333
  • District Ct., D. Maryland
  • Filed Feb. 3, 2025
  • See Feb. 3 2025, Complaint alleging freeze violates spending clause, is void for vagueness (e.g., does not define key terms such as DEI, DEIA), and violates First Amendment.
  • See Feb. 21, 2025, Court Order and supporting Memorandum granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion by granting a preliminary injunction that holds under Jan. 20, 2025, EO Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Program and Preferencing Sec. 2(b)(i) (“Termination Provision”), Jan. 21, 2025, EO Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity Sec. 3(b)(iv) (“Certification Provision”) and Sec. 4(b)(iii) Enforcement provision, government cannot:
    • a. pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards, contracts or obligations (“Current Obligations”), or change the terms of any Current Obligation, on the basis of the Termination Provision;
    • b. require any grantee or contractor to make any “certification” or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision; or
    • c. bring any False Claims Act enforcement action, or other enforcement action, pursuant to the Enforcement Threat Provision, including but not limited to any False Claims Act enforcement action premised on any certification made pursuant to the Certification Provision.
  • The government appealed the preliminary injunction and sought a stay during the appeal.  The Court denied the stay.
  • See Court’s March 10, 2025, Memorandum Opinion and Order clarifying that “enjoined parties” includes defendants other than the President, as well “as all other federal executive branch agencies, department, and , and their heads, officers, agents, and subdivisions.”
  • See March 13, 2025, Emergency Motion from the Plaintiff reporting widespread violations of the preliminary injunction and requesting that Court schedule an emergency status conference to evaluate Dept. of Justice’s efforts to ensure the government complies.  Court ordered a status conference on Mar. 14, 2025. See, below, re. the 4th Circuit’s grant of the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction, pending a decision on the government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction.  Accordingly, the preliminary injunction will no longer be in effect while the  4th Circuit considers the government’s appeal.  On March 21, 2025, the Plaintiff’s filed a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the pending appeal  so that Plaintiffs could proceed for additional relief in the District Court.  The government opposed this motion, and the District Court held a hearing on the motion on April 10. 
  • See May 1, 2025, Order denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the court’s preliminary injunction that was stayed by the court of appeals while the appeal is pending.  The plaintiffs claimed that they had new factual developments that warranted vacating the original injunction and allowing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.   Accordingly, the plaintiffs will continue to wait for the appellate court to decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction based on the merits of the case. On May 7, one of the plaintiffs in the case – Restaurant Opportunities Centers United – voluntarily dismissed its  complaint. 

 Appeal:  Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump

  • Docket Number:  25-1189
  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Filed Feb. 27, 2025
  • See Mar. 14, 2025 Order staying the preliminary injunction while the appeal court considers the government’s appeal.

Additional Cases re. the DEI EOs and Conditions Imposed on Grants

There are several other cases re. the language of the DEI EOs  that are pending and anti-DEI and other conditions attached to grants. 

Nat’l Urban League v. Trump

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-00471
  • District Court, D.C.
  • Filed 2/19/25
  • Suit by non-profit organizations who allege that DEI order violate the 1st Amendment protection for freedom of speech, 5th Amendment’s equal protection and due process guarantees, and APA.  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory jgt. that orders are illegal. See Feb. 19, 2025, Complaint.  Court held hearing on preliminary injunction on March 19, 2025, but has not yet issued a ruling.
  • See May 2, 2025, Order and Opinion denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction re. four of the plaintiffs’ claims because the plaintiffs did not have standing.  On the other claims, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims that the DEI Executive Order violate the 1st or 5th amendments.

San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump

  • Docket No. 4:25-cv-1824
  • Dist. Court, N.D. Calif.
  • Filed 2/20/25
  • Suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent implementation and enforcement of DEI EOs on the grounds that they violate the 1st Amendment prohibitions on viewpoint and content discrimination, violate due process and equal protection protections of 5th Amendment, are void for vagueness, and exceed presidential power by usurping Congressional authority.  See Feb. 20, 2025 Complaint.  As of April 18, 2025, parties were still briefing the court and court had not yet ruled on preliminary injunction.   The court will hold a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025.

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-02005
  • Dist. Court N.D. Ill.
  • Filed 2/26/25
  • Suit alleging that EO “defending women from gender ideology extremism and EO ordering termination of DEI programs and requiring grant recipients and contractor to certify they do not operating illegal DEI programs violate 1st Amendment for overbreadth and vagueness, viewpoint discrimination, and placing unconstitutional conditions on speech; violate 5th Amendment due process clause for vagueness; violate Spending Clause; and violate separation of powers.  Plaintiffs seek TRO and declaratory judgment.  See Feb. 26, 2025, Complaint. 
  • See Mar. 27, 2025, Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part a temporary restraining order finding that plaintiff have shown that provisions of the DEI Exec. Orders are likely to violate the 1st Amendment and enjoining the Dept. of Labor and “its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with any to them”  from terminating or impeding in any way any awards, contracts, or obligations on which Chicago Women in Trades is a primary awardee/contractor or sub and ordering that the Dept. of Labor shall not require ANY grantee or contractor (not just Chicago Women in Trades) to make any certification or other representation re. compliance with the DEI executive orders. (This Order was amended on April 1, 2025).
  • See April 10, 2025, Order extending the TRO until April 17, 2025, while the court considers the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
  • See Apr. 15, 2025, Order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Order (a) prohibits the Dept. of Labor (DOL) from pausing, freezing, blocking, cancelling, or impeding the plaintiff’s Women in Apprenticeship grant from the DOL; (b) prohibits DOL from requiring any grantee or contractor to make any certification or other representation regarding compliance with the administration’s EOs on DEI; and (c) prohibits the government from initiating any False Claims Act enforcement against the plaintiff pursuant to those DEI certifications.
  • See, May 7, 2025, Order denying plaintiff’s request to expand preliminary injunction to include other grants and scheduling status conference for May 14 to schedule any further proceedings necessary to bring case to resolution.

American Assoc. of Colleges for Teacher Education v. Carter

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-00702
  • Dist. Ct. of Md.
  • Filed March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs operated teacher preparation programs that receive DOEd grants for DEI initiatives.  Plaintiffs allege grants were summarily terminated without proper procedure and in violation of APA; and that EO 14151 is unconstitutionally vague.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory jgt. and TRO.  See Mar. 3, 2025, Complaint.
  • See Mar. 17, 2025 Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  Order requires the Dept. of Education to (a) reinstate the TQP, SEED and TSL Grant Awards of Plaintiff NCTR and Plaintiffs’ members who are grant recipients; (b) refrain from terminating ANY TQP, SEED or TSL grant program award in a manner that likely violates the APA (as described in the court’s opinion); and (c) that Plaintiff’s provide government with a list of all grant recipient members whose TQP, SEE, and TSL grants were filed.  The government asked the court to reconsider the grant of the TRO, which the Court denied.  The government then asked the court to stay the TRO while it appealed the matter to the 4th Circuit, and the court denied the motion to stay.  The government appealed the case to the 4th Circuit.
  • See Apr. 4, 2025, letter from government to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals alerting court to stay that Supreme Court granted in State of CA. v. Dept. of Ed. (see below) and contending that the Supreme Court’s ruling supports the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal in the this case. 
  • See Apr. 10, 2025, 4th Cir. court of Appeals’ Order granting a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal based on the Supreme Court’s decision referenced in April 4th letter above.
  • See May 6, 2025, Order denying plaintiffs motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and grant an indicative ruling because the Fourth Circuit currently has before it the issue of whether the case should be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. Briefing of the matter will now resume in the Court of Appeals. 

Case on Appeal

American Assoc. of Colleges v. McMahon

  • Docket No. 25-1281
  • 4th Cir. Court of Appeals  
  • Filed Mar. 24, 2025

Rhode Island Latino Arts v. Nat’l Endowment for the Arts

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-00079
  • Dist. Ct. Rhode Island
  • Filed March 6, 2025
  • Plaintiffs are nonprofit corporations that applied for  NEA funding and an organization that represents prospective applicants.  NEA required plaintiffs to certify that grants shall not be used to promote gender ideology, but plaintiffs mission is to affirm transgender and nonbinary identities.  Plaintiffs allege that NEA policy is void for vagueness; gender ideology prohibition exceed NEA statutory authority and violates APA; and prohibition violates 1st and 5th Amendments by imposing vague and viewpoint based restrictions on artistic speech.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.  See Mar. 6, 2025, Complaint.  Note that on March 10, the NEA submitted a declaration in the litigation that it would not require applicants to certify to compliance with the DEI requirements until the conclusion of this litigation and then NEA later issued a memorandum that it rescinded implementation of the EO as it applies to grantmaking activities pending review.
  • See Apr. 3, 2025, Memorandum and Order from Court denying the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and/or a Preliminary Injunction.   Although the Court held that the matter was not moot and that the Plaintiffs could show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the fact that the NEA could decide in its review that the EO conflicted with its authorizing legislation.  The Court left open the option that the plaintiffs could return to court and seek a PI if after its review the government continued to implement the EO. Plaintiffs are to file an amended complaint by May 12, 2025.  
  • See May 12, 2025, Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs.

State of CA v. Dept. of Ed.

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-10548
  • Dist. Ct. D. Mass
  • Filed 3/6/25
  • Eight states challenged DOEd’s decision to terminate $250M in federal grants under teacher development programs as violating APA. 
  • Mar 10 – Dist. Ct. issued TRO blocking DOE from terminating grants and denied the government’s motion to stay the TRO pending appeal.   Gov. appealed to 1st Cir.  
  • On March 24, 2025, the Dist. Ct. extended the TRO until April 7, 2025.

Case on Appeal

State of Ca. v. U.S. Dept. of Ed

  • Docket No. 25-1244
  • Filed Mar. 12, 2025
  • The 1st Cir. denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal March 21, 2025. 
  • See April 4, 2025, Supreme Court Order.  The government applied to the Supreme Court to vacate the District Court’s TRO prohibiting the government from terminating various education-related grants.  The Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s TRO pending disposition of the Appeal in the First Circuit and disposition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court if one is sought.  If certiorari is denied, the stay will terminate automatically, otherwise it will remain in effect until the Supreme Court rules.  There are some statements in the Court’s order that may have impact on other this and other cases:  (a) the District Court’s “basis for issuing the [TRO] is strongly challenged” as the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA; (b) the “APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders ‘to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money’ along the lines of what the District Court ordered here [citations omitted]; (c) respondents did not refute government’s contention that it is unlikely to recover grant funds once disbursed.  The Supreme Court also noted that the respondents represented in the litigation that they “have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running” and therefore can recover “any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum.”  
  • See Apr. 8, 2025, motion by the plaintiffs to withdraw their motion for preliminary injunction.  The plaintiffs noted that the withdrawal should not be construed to concede any legal or factual issues in the case and that plaintiff states would confer with clients re. the most appropriate path forward for the litigation.  The Court entered an Order on April 9 terminating the preliminary injunction as moot based on the plaintiff’s withdrawal. The Court of Appeals is holding the matter in abeyance pending further order at the request of the government. 

National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget

  • Docket Number:  1:25-cv-00239
  • Dist. Ct., District of Columbia
  • Filed Jan. 28, 2025
  • See Jan. 28, 2025, Complaint alleging freeze violates APA and is contrary to the First Amendment.
  • See Feb. 3, 2025, Temporary Restraining Order. 
  • See Feb. 25, 2025, Order granting a Preliminary Injunction and accompanying Memorandum Opinion.  “Government is enjoined from giving effect to, or reinstating under a difference name, the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” Also requires Government to give notice of this preliminary injunction to agencies and instruct them to continue releasing disbursement on open awards.   
  • See March 4, 2025, Motion to Clarify Scope of Preliminary Injunction filed by plaintiffs asking court to clarify whether court requirement that renew disbursement of funds “under all open awards” means “all” open awards, as plaintiffs contend, or “only open awards that have been partially disbursed” as the government contends. Defendants have opposed the motion for clarification. The court denied this motion because plaintiffs did not take issue earlier with the government’s interpretation of “open awards” as “only open awards that have been partially disbursed.”
  • See April 24, 2025, notice from government appealing grant of preliminary injunction to D.C. Circuit Court.

  • See May 12, 2025, Order staying proceedings pending decision in appeal of the preliminary injunction. 

 Case on Appeal

  • National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB
  • Docket No. 25-5148
  • Filed Apr. 25, 2025

State of New York v. Trump

  • Docket Number:  1:25-cv-00039
  • District Ct., Rhode Island
  • Filed Jan. 28, 2025
  • See Jan. 28, 2025,  Complaint alleging that freeze violates APA and separation of powers. 
  • See Feb. 10, 2025, Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
  • See Feb. 10, 2025, Government Appeal of TRO to First Circuit Court of Appeals
  • See Feb. 11, 2025, Denial of Appeal from First Circuit Court of Appeals
  • See Feb. 14, 2025, Court Order finding government did not follow original TRO and ordering immediate restoration of frozen funding and end of funding pause while TRO is pending.
  • Preliminary injunction hearing held on February 21, 2025.  Court decision pending.
  • Preliminary injunction hearing held on February 21, 2025.  Court decision pending.
  • See Mar. 6, 2025, Memorandum and Order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from pausing, freezing, blocking, canceling, suspending, terminating, or otherwise impeding disbursement of appropriate federal funds to the States under awarded grants, executed contracts, other executed financial obligation.
  • The government appealed the preliminary injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • The government filed a status report detailing its compliance with preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs filed a response contesting the report and contending that the government continues to fail to comply with the preliminary injunction.  The plaintiff’s filed a motion to enforce the Preliminary Injunction on March 24, 2025.  

  • On March 27, 2025, the 1st Cir. Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. 

  • See Apr. 4, 2025, Order granting the Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the preliminary injunction.  The Court held that FEMA’s manual review process for processing payments on awards violated the preliminary injunction and ordering FEMA to immediately cease this process and comply with the preliminary injunction’s mandate “not to pause or otherwise impede the disbursement of federal funds based on the funding freezes required or implied by the Executive Orders at issue. 

  • See April 7, 2025, Text Order of the Court temporarily staying its enforcement of the preliminary injunction that it issued on Feb. 25, 2025, based on Supreme Court’s April 4, 2025, order in State of CA. v. Dept. of Education (see above) while the court considers the government’s motion for reconsideration. 

  • See April 14, 2025, Order denying reconsideration of court’s enforcement order.
  • See April 28, 2025, notice of appeal by the government to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Case on Appeal

  • State of NY v. Trump
  • Docket No. 25-1413
  • See May 5, 2025, Order granting the parties unopposed motion to consolidate appeals of New York v. Trump, No. 25-1236 and New York v. Trump, No. 25-1413.

Case on Appeal: State of New York v. Trump

  • Docket Number:  25-1236
  • Date Filed:  March 10, 2025
  • See March 10, 2025, Motion by the Government for the First Circuit to grant a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

  • See March 26, 2025, Opinion and Order by the First Circuit denying the motion for a stay pending appeal.

  • See May 5, 2025, Order granting parties unopposed motion to consolidate appeals of New York v. Trump, No. 25-1236 and New York v. Trump, No. 25-1413.

Shapiro v. Dept. of Interior

  • Docket No.  2:25-cv-00763
  • District Ct., E.D. Pennsylvania
  • Filed Feb. 13, 2025
  • See Feb. 13, 2025, Complaint alleging that funding freeze violates Administrative Procedures Act (APA), is arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional and citing administration’s failure to comply with TROs that are currently in place.

King County v. Turner

  • Docket No. 2:25-cv-00814
  • Date filed May 2, 2025
  • District Court, W.D. Washington
  • See May 2, 2025, Complaint  for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Washington State counties, and the cities of Boston, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Columbus and New York.  Plaintiff receive grants from HUD for providing service to homeless populations.  Plaintiffs allege that U.S. government’s addition of conditions to the grant awards re. ending DEI, facilitating enforcement of immigration laws, and not promoting any gender ideology or elective abortion violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, spending clause, 10th amendment, 5th amendment due process protections because EOs are unconstitutionally vague, and the Administrative Procedures Act.  
  • See May 7, 2025, court Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO.  Notably, the court  holds that it, as opposed to the U.S. Court of Claims, has jurisdiction over the claims because the rights asserted are rights under the APA and the U.S. Constitution, not the grant agreements and the type of relief sought is declaratory and injunctive – remedies not available in the Court of Claims. Hearing on preliminary injunction is set for May 21, 2025.

Cases Concerning Termination of All Funding to Institution Based on Allegations that Civil Rights Laws were Violated

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-11048
  • Dist. Court, D. Mass.
  • Filed Apr. 21, 2025
  • See Apr. 21, 2025, Complaint  against DHHS and other federal funding agencies alleging that the government has ended federal funding to Harvard as part of a campaign to unconstitutionally force Harvard to submit to government control of its academic programs and in violation of the statutorily mandated process required for fund termination.   The Plaintiffs have asked the court to declare unlawful the freeze order and attendant conditions that the government seeks to impose on Harvard, to set aside the freeze order and any freezes, terminations, or refusals to continue federal funding, and to enjoin the government from giving effect to the freeze order, violating Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, and from taking any action to freeze or terminate grants without following legally mandated processes.

American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-10910
  • Filed Apr. 11, 2025
  • Dist. Court, D. Mass.
  • See Apr. 11, 2025, Complaint alleging that Trump admin. misused federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech.  Plaintiffs’ allege that government’s investigation into allegations of antisemitism at Harvard and concurrent withholding of federal grants and contracts as a part of that investigation were a pretext for mandating sweeping changes at Harvard, only some of which had any apparent connection to antisemitism.  Plaintiffs’ allege that the government failed to follow statutory and regulatory requirements for the conduct of Title VI investigations and to terminate federal grants and contracts and that the government’s actions are a significant threat to academic freedom and free speech.  The plaintiffs’ asked the court to set aside the pending investigation and withdrawal/cancellation of federal funds as being noncompliant with applicable law and procedure and unconstitutionally intended to target protected speech, enjoin any further investigation/threat to cancel funding in the absence of constitutional/statutory authority and in accordance with applicable law and procedure, enjoin the government from using withdrawal of federal funding to suppress viewpoints of speech, and enjoin the government from using the power of the government to target and punish Harvard for plaintiffs’ viewpoints and speech.
  • See April 15, 2025, plaintiffs’ Request to Withdraw Motion for TRO and Notice of Supplemental materials based on new development in case stemming from government’s freeze of $2B in federal funding to Harvard.  The court approved this request for withdrawal.
  • See May 5, 2025, amended complaint filed by plaintiffs. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against government using funding freeze, investigations, and other powers to punish plaintiffs for viewpoints and speech and coercing them to suppress viewpoints/speech.

 

 

Litigation re: Removal of Information from Government Websites:

Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, CDC, FDA, and HHS

  • Docket number 1:25-cv-00322
  • District Court, District of Columbia
  • Filed Feb. 4, 2025
  • See Feb. 4, 2025, Complaint seeking restoration of data and information from CDC, HHS, and FDA websites that plaintiff alleges was removed in violation of Administrative Procedures Act and Paperwork Reduction Act.
  • See Feb. 11, 2025, Temporary restraining order and Memorandum Opinion issued by court; DHHS, CDC, FDA ordered to restore certain information to their websites pending final outcome of litigation.  TRO expires Feb. 25, 2025, and Plaintiffs have requested that it be extended or converted to a preliminary injunction.  Government is reviewing websites to determine those in scope of the TRO.
  • See March 11, 2025 Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment filed by plaintiffs.
  • See March 21, 2025, Status Report filed by the government acknowledging that webpages remain in their current state while government conducts an individualized review of the pages and consults with stakeholders about the applicability of Paperwork Reduction Act, Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, and Information Quality Act to minimize the risk of inconsistency in applying these laws.

  • On March 24, 2025, the government filed a motion to oppose the preliminary injunction and seeking summary judgment.

 

Litigation re: EO Prohibiting Federal Research and Education Funding to Institutions Providing Gender-Affirming Care to Minors:

State of Washington v. Trump

  • Docket Number: 2:25-cv-002244
  • District Court, W.D. Washington
  • Filed:  2/11/25
  • See Feb 7, 2025 Complaint brought by Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon and associated physicians alleging that the EO “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” which, among other things, prohibits federal research or education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals, that provide gender affirming care to minor.  The suit also seeks a temporary restraining order (TRO) to be put in place until the case can be fully adjudicated.
  •  See Feb 14, 2025, TRO granted by court.  TRO applies to States of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota.
  • See Feb. 19, 2025, Government filing with Court of a Notice of Compliance with TRO accompanied by the notice sent by DOJ to departments/agencies.

  • See Feb. 19, 2025, Complaint amended to add Colorado as a plaintiff.

  • See Feb. 28, 2025, Order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing EO 14,187 within the Plaintiff states and prohibiting the conditioning or withholding federal funding based on the fact that an health care entity/professional provides gender-affirming care within the Plaintiff States. 

  • See March 6, 2025, Motion for Contempt filed by plaintiffs alleging that government is not adhering to preliminary injunction and should be held in contempt.  The court denied the plaintiffs’ request that the court hear this matter on an expedited basis.

  • See March 17, 2025, Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for contempt, granting plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery, and ordering defendants to “correct their unreasonable interpretation of the court’s preliminary injunction by notifying all defendants, agencies, employees, contractors, and grantees by March 20, 2025 that: (a) preliminary injunction enjoins all defendants (except Trump) from enforcing Sec. 3(e) and 3(g) of EO 14168 withholding/conditioning federal funding to health care entities/professionals providing gender-affirming care in the plaintiff states; (b) defendants unreasonably interpreted gender-affirming care to include only the four medical treatment listed in EO 14187; (c) the preliminary injunction includes all gender affirming services for individuals with gender dysphoria; and (d) defendants unreasonably interpreted care to exclude care provided during research studies, and the preliminary injunction includes patient care provided in projects funded by research and education grants.

  • On March 21, 2025, the government appealed the preliminary injunction to the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals and asked the District Court to stay the preliminary injunction during the appeal.  The 9th Cir. denied the government’s motion for a stay.

  • See April 23, 2025, Order of the District Court granting a limited stay of proceedings pending appeal.   The court noted that the District Court for the District of Maryland issued a nationwide injunction preventing enforcement of Sec. 4 of the EO on providing medical services to transgender individuals and Sec. 3g of the Gender Ideology EO in the case of PFLAG, Inc. V. Trump (25-337).  The limited stay does not prevent plaintiffs from enforcing the preliminary injunction and the terms of the limited stay mirror those in place in the Maryland case. 

  • See April 30, 2025, plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery asserting that government is disregarding the preliminary injunction and continues to withhold funding under the challenged EOs.

Case on Appeal

  • State of Washington v. Trump
  • Docket No. 25-807
  • See Feb. 12, 2025, motion for an emergency stay of the TRO.
  • See Feb. 19. 2025, court order denying motion for emergency stay of the TRO.
  • Oral argument is set for June 4, 2025.
  • Government appealed to the U.S Supreme Court for a partial stay.  Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 15.  (Supreme Court Case No. 24A885)

 

PFLAG, Inc. V. Trump

  • Docket No.:  8:25-cv-00337
  • Date Filed:  Feb. 4, 2025
  • District Ct., D. MD.
  • See Feb. 4, 2025, Complaint seeking injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of EOs denying medical care to transgender individuals.
  • See Feb. 5, 2025, motion for emergency TRO.
  • See Feb. 13, 2025, Order granting TRO which enjoins the government from taking any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate under a different name Sec. 3(g) of EO 14168 or Sec. 4 of EO 14187 that condition/withhold federal funding based on the fact that a healthcare entity or professional provides gender affirming care to a patient under the age of 19. 
  • See Mar. 4, 2025, Order granting preliminary injunction enjoining government from conditioning, withholding, or terminating federal funding under Sec. 3(g) of EO 14168 or Sec. 4 of EO 14187 based on the fact that a healthcare entity or professional provides gender affirming care to a patient under the age of 19. 
  • See Mar. 21, 2025, government’s notice of appeal of preliminary injunction to 4th Cir. Court of Appeals.
  • See Apr. 9, 2025, Order granting the parties’ joint motion for a limited partial stay of proceedings pending appeal. The stay does not prevent plaintiffs from seeking leave to amend their complaint, seek additional preliminary injunctive relief on the basis of further government action, or to move to enforce the preliminary injunction while the appeal is pending.

Case on Appeal

  • PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump
  • Docket No. 25-1279
  • Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • See May 12, 2025, Order granting motion for abeyance.  Per this order these proceedings are placed in abeyance pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti (No. 23-477, U.S. Sup. Ct.).  The issue in the Skrmetti case is whether a Tennessee Senate bill that prohibits all gender affirming care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Litigation Relating to Pause in Foreign Aid

Global Health Council v. Office of Management and Budget

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-00402
  • District Court, District of Columbia
  • Filed:  Feb. 11, 2025
  • See Feb. 11, 2025, Complaint seeking to have EO that halted funding for USAID and other federal foreign-assistance programs declared unlawful and unconstitutional and seeking a TRO/Preliminary Injunction while case can be adjudicated on the merits.
  • See Feb. 13, 2025, Court Order granting TRO in narrow terms than originally requested by plaintiffs.  The Order keeps the EO in place and does not enjoin the government from conducting a review of funding programs, but the Court granted the TRO by temporarily enjoining the government from (a) suspending, pausing or preventing the obligation or disbursement of foreign assistance funding in connection with grants, cooperative agreements, loans or other awards that were in existence as of Jan. 19, 2025; and (b) issuing, implementing, enforcing terminations, suspensions or stop work orders in connection with those awards.
  • See Feb. 20, 2025, Court Order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s motion to hold defendants in contempt and to enforce TRO.   The Court did not hold defendants in contempt, but granted the motion to enforce the TRO.
  • See Feb. 25, 2025, Minute Entry and Order granting plaintiff’s emergency motion to enforce the TRO
  • See Mar. 10, 2025, Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Marco Rubio, Russell Vought, Dept. of state, USAID, OMB and their agents from “unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and shall make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024.” However, the court declined to enjoin the government’s subsequent review of contracts and associated terminations of individual contracts pursuant to their provisions.  However, the court declined to enjoin the government’s subsequent review of contracts and associated terminations of individual contracts pursuant to their provisions. 
  • See Mar. 17, 2025, Minute Order requiring government to submit a status report “which includes the updated total number of payments for work completed prior to February 13, 2025, (1) which have been processed since March 10 for Plaintiffs; (2) which have been processed since March 10 for non-Plaintiffs; and (3) which remain to be processed for Plaintiffs and non-Plaintiffs.”  The government also must provide a proposed timeline for processing remaining payments that is “consistent with the Court’s benchmark” (i.e., 300 payments per day).
  • See Mar. 19, 2025, Status Report filed by the government detailing number of payments processed for plaintiffs and non-plaintiffs and stating that government was meeting court’s benchmark of processing approximately 300 payments/day.
  • Government filed a status report on 3/19/25 stating that total number of payments to plaintiffs processed since Mar. 10, 2025, was 146, and the total number of payments processed to non-plaintiffs since that date was 2,193 (~313/business day). 10,000 payments (plaintiff and non-plaintiff) remain to be processed and defendant anticipates that plaintiffs payments will be processed by Mar. 21 and non-plaintiffs’ by Apr. 29.  Defendant states that incomplete paperwork is delaying some payments.  On Mar. 28, 2025, the Court found that defendants’ timeline for processing payments is consistent with court’s benchmark. 
  • On April 1, 2025, the government appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court.
  • On April 11, the government filed a motion in the District Court seeking a stay of the preliminary injunction while the case is on appeal and asking for an indicative ruling that the court would dissolve the past-payments provision of the preliminary injunction (i.e., government must pay plaintiffs for work completed prior to February 13, 2025) if the Ct. of Appeals returns the case to the District Court.  The government based their motion on the Supreme Court’s holding in California v. Dept. of Education that the APA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money and that jurisdiction for such claims is in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act.   The plaintiffs did not oppose the stay but they did oppose the indicative ruling. On April 11, the court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction’s requirement that government shall not withhold payments or letter of credit drawdowns for work completed prior to Feb. 13, 2025, as to any grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts for foreign assistance.
  • See, May 13, 2025, Order denying government’s motion for an indicative ruling and vacating administrative stay entered by the court on April 11, 2025.  Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the court distinguished this case from Dept. of Education v. California (the case in which the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction because it found that the held that subject matter jurisdiction was most likely in Court of Claims) by holding that this case was one in which the plaintiffs were seeking an order setting aside an agency’s action vs. A case in which plaintiffs seek to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money.

Case on Appeal

  • Global Health Council v. Trump
  • Docket No. 25-5097 – NOTE:On April 2, 2025, Court of Appeals consolidated this case with AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Dept. of State – see below. On May 6, 2025, the court ordered that the consolidated appeals be expedited.

 

Global Health Council v. Trump and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of State

  • Docket No.: 25-5047
  • Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
  • See Feb. 26, 2025, Order denying that TRO is appealable, denying mandamus relief, and dismissing motion for an administrative stay.
  • See  Feb. 26, 2025, Application to U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the order issued by the District Court and impose an administrative stay.   The Supreme Court granted the stay and overruled the District Court’s ruling ordering the Trump Admin. to release the foreign aid funding.
  • See March 5, 2025, Supreme Court order denying an administrative stay and requesting District Court to clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order. 

J. Does v. Elon Musk and DOGE

  • Docket No. 8:25-cv-00462
  • District Court, District of MD
  • Filed Feb. 13, 2025
  • See Feb. 13, 2025, Complaint filed by current and former employees and contractors of USAID seeking to enjoin J. Elon Musk and DOGE subordinates from performing significant and wide-ranging duties because Must has not been properly appointed pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
  • See Mar. 18, 2025, Preliminary Injunction enjoining Elon Musk in his official capacity at DOGE, DOGE, and individuals designated as DOGE Team Lead or Team Member performing activities related to USAID from engaging in any action relating to the shutdown of USAID, including placing employees on leave, implementing RIFs, terminating contracts or grants, closing USAID buildings or offices, and permanently deleting USAID website or electronic records.  It also requires defendants to secure and submit to the court within 14 days a written agreement from all necessary parties to ensure USAID can reoccupy its headquarters or a ratification of the decision to permanently close the headquarters signed by the Acting head of USAID.
  • See Mar. 19, 2025, motion by the government for clarification or modification of the preliminary injunction re. application of the injunction to a specific individual. The court denied this motion on Mar. 20, 2025, but clarified that the named individual was bound by the injunction.
  • See Mar. 28, 2025, Order of the 4th Cir. Court of Appeals staying the District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal.
  • See May 1, 2025, government motion to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction by District Court and failure to state a claim under the Constitution ,

Case on Appeal J. Does v. Elon Musk

  • Docket No. 25-173
  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Filed Mar. 21, 2025
  • See March 25, 2025, court order granting an administrative stay of the preliminary injunction until the close of business Thursday, March 27, 2025.

  • See Mar. 28, 2025, Order of the 4th Cir. Court of Appeals staying the District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. [TR1] 

     

Appropriations Act Suit

Protect Democracy Project v. OMB

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-01111
  • Filed Apr. 14, 2025
  • District Ct. of D.C.
  • See Apr. 14, 2025, Complaint alleging that OMB is failing to carry out its Congressionally-mandated obligation to implement an automated system “for posting apportionment document and related information on a publicly accessible website in a format that facilitates public use” by removing its website where apportionment information was posted. 
  • Court consolidated proceedings in this case with those in Crew v. OMB, No. 25-1051. 
  • See Apr. 27, 2025, motion for preliminary injunction or in the alternative partial summary judgment. Proceedings on preliminary injunction were held on May 8, 2025. 

 

Lawsuits Related to NIH 15% F&A Cap

 

NSF Rate Cap of 15%

Association of American Universities v. NSF

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-11231
  • Filed May 5, 2025
  • District Court, D. Mass
  • See May 5, 2025, Complaint filed by AAU, ACE, APLU, Az. State Univ., Brown Univ., Cal Tech, University of CA. System, CMU, Univ. of Chicago, Univ. of Ill, MIT, Univ. of Mich., Penn, and Princeton alleging that rate cap violates Uniform Guidance, Admin. Procedures Act and seeking a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment finding the cap invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. 
  • See May 19, 2025, Order canceling hearing on preliminary injunction based on government’s notice that it will stay implementation of the NSF 15% cap through June 13, 2025, when a hearing is scheduled on parties’ motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.

Department of Energy 15% Cap

Association of American Universities v. Dept. of Energy (DOE)

  • Docket No. 1:25-cv-10912
  • District Court, D. Mass
  • Date Filed Apr. 14, 2025
  • See April 14, 2025 Complaint alleging that rate cap violates the APA and seeking permanent injunction.
  • See Apr. 16, 2025, Order granting a TRO that enjoins the government from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the DOE rate cap policy or otherwise modifying negotiating indirect cost rates except as permitted by statute and regulations and from terminating any grants based on the grantee’s refusal to accept an indirect cost rate lower than their negotiated rate.

 

  • See Apr. 29, 2025, Electronic Order extending TRO until the court issues a further order resolving the request for a preliminary injunction.  A hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on April 28, 2025.
  • See May 15, 2025, Order granting a preliminary injunction prohibited governement from implementing, instituting, maintaining or giving any effect to the Rate Cap Policy in any form with respect to institutions of higher education nationwide pending further order of the court.

 

  •  

 

Institutional Communications on Federal Funding Updates

Federal Funding Updates Under the New Administration (Arizona State University)

Federal Funding Under the New Administration - General Updates (UMass Amherst)

Tracking Federal Changes 2025 (University of Michigan)

Federal Research Updates 2025 (Columbia University)

Federal Funding Updates: Stay Informed (Washington State University)

2025 Federal Administration Transition Guidance (University of New Hampshire)

New Administration Federal Funding Updates (University of Hawaii)

Federal Funding Updates (University of Houston)

Update on Federal Funding (University of Utah)

University Resources to Navigate the Federal Research Funding Landscape (Boston University)

2025 Federal Administration Transition Information & Resources (Stanford University)

Memo to the Caltech Community Regarding Federal Policy Changes (Cal Tech)

Federal Executive Orders (EOs) & Other Policy Directives (University of Michigan) 

2025 Federal Administration Transition (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

 

OSTP/OMB Archived Resources

Biden Administration OSTP News & Updates (Archived) 

Biden Administration OMB Memoranda (Archived) 

Biden Administration OMB Circulars (Archived)