The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced a sweeping termination of over 500 research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), collectively worth more than $350 million. This decision directly targets projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as gender ideology, reflecting a significant shift in federal funding priorities under the Trump administration.
On March 21, 2025, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated, "HHS is taking action to terminate more than $350 million in research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities." The spokesperson characterized the terminated research grants as "wasteful," arguing that they focus on issues that do not substantially pertain to the health of Americans. Nixon emphasized the administration's commitment to "Make America Healthy Again" by prioritizing research that directly impacts public health.
The cuts have sparked considerable controversy, with opponents arguing that the eliminated projects were not only valuable but necessary for understanding and addressing significant societal issues. Among the affected initiatives was a nearly $1 million grant for a study titled "Assessing intersectional multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations in the US" at the University of Maryland-Baltimore. The project's description highlighted an urgent need to collect reliable data on structural racism, stating, "There is an urgent public health need to collect valid and reliable data on structural racism before effective interventions to reduce structural racism can be designed."
Projects related to gender-affirming hormone therapy were similarly impacted. One such grant, awarded to researchers at Emory University, aimed to study the effects of transgender hormone treatments on the skeletal development of mice. Additionally, another project set out to examine the implications of chromosomal makeup and hormone administration on wound healing in various contexts.
The administration's concerns over financial misallocation have historical roots. Soon after President Trump took office, he directed federal agencies, including HHS, to freeze new federal grant issuances to ensure compliance with his administration's emphasis on eliminating DEI and progressive gender ideology initiatives within public sector funding. Although a judge temporarily blocked this funding freeze, the Trump administration later rescinded the memo that had instigated the cutoff.
Among the more than 500 projects cut, one notable initiative was a $5 million grant to researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, designated to enhance racial and ethnic diversity within the scientific research faculty by targeting recruitment of tenure-track faculty from underrepresented groups. Critics of the administration's strategy argue that such cuts not only diminish the quality of research but also risks erasing efforts aimed at rectifying inequities in health outcomes.
During recent confirmation hearings for Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump's nominee for NIH director, questions regarding these cuts dominated discussions. While Dr. Bhattacharya was pressed by lawmakers about whether he would intervene in cutting critical research funding, he maintained a position of neutrality, suggesting that he would "follow the law" while weighing the qualitative effects of these funding reductions on health outcomes. He indicated a vision for NIH that would involve embracing dissenting ideas and focusing research on initiatives predicted to best serve the health interests of Americans.
Opponents of the funding cuts express concern that these actions signal a retreat from understanding complex public health issues deeply. The terminations align with a broader narrative of sidelining social justice and health equity endeavors that many scholars believe are essential to tackling disparities faced by marginalized communities in the U.S.
Critics also spotlight the trajectory of NIH funding and express frustrations regarding a perception that the agency is veering away from crucial health-related research. The backlash against the cuts underscores significant division within public health conversation—between those who advocate for traditional public health frameworks and those who argue for a need to address underlying social determinants affecting health outcomes.
As the implications of these recent grant terminations continue to unfold, the future of research aimed at understanding and dismantling systemic health disparities hangs in the balance. The unfolding dialogue around NIH and HHS funding presents a critical juncture for public health research and policy, creating tension between traditional public health priorities and emerging narratives challenging the status quo.
In a climate of heightened scrutiny surrounding public health funding, advocates for an inclusive and representative approach to health research will likely continue to engage in robust dialogue, fighting to ensure that essential topics such as structural racism and gender issues remain at the forefront of societal discourse, thereby informing effective health interventions and policy reform for diverse populations across the country.
