Researchers in the Philadelphia region recuperate previously canceled funding for their scientific projects, yet express persistent adverse effects
In a surprising turn of events, the Trump administration has significantly constrained federal research funding, particularly through agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), with regards to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
One scientist feeling the brunt of these changes is biochemist Karl Schmitz at the University of Delaware, who studies the bacterium that causes tuberculosis, a serious lung disease that kills hundreds of patients in the U.S. and over 1 million people worldwide annually. Schmitz's research grants, which paid for his lab and a few graduate students, were cancelled, leaving him scrambling to find alternative funding.
The NIH's decision to cancel Schmitz's research was based on claims of prioritizing ideological agendas over scientific rigor, without providing any further explanation or definition of the phrase. Many other scientists who were not part of the lawsuit still have not had their grants reinstated, causing a sense of instability in the scientific community.
The Trump administration's policies, as outlined in an Executive Order issued on August 7, 2025, mandate strict oversight of federal grants. Senior political appointees now have broad authority to review and approve or reject grant proposals based on alignment with "agency priorities and the national interest," effectively circumventing traditional peer review autonomy.
Grants promoting "racial preferences," "illegal immigration," or concepts contradicting the binary definition of sex are prohibited, directly targeting DEI research programs. This contradicts longstanding legal mandates requiring agencies like the NSF to broaden participation from underrepresented groups in science.
Agencies must now report on discretionary grants' compliance with administration goals and include terms allowing termination of grants not aligned with these goals. Grant recipients must also get agency approval for project funding draws and justify funding requests in writing.
The impact of these policies is far-reaching. Some research grants have been suspended, such as those at UCLA, under allegations related to campus issues associated with antisemitism, illustrating heightened scrutiny and political criteria being imposed on grant eligibility.
Delaware, New Jersey, and 14 other states, along with professional organizations like the American Public Health Association, sued the Trump administration over these cuts. A Massachusetts federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally terminated the grants, and NIH moved to reinstate about 900 grants that had been blacklisted. However, the Trump administration has recently appealed the judge's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it should be allowed to cancel the research funding again.
The uncertainty surrounding federal research funding has created doubts among students considering a career in science. For students, the recent funding shake-ups have created doubts as to whether they should enter into a scientific career in the first place. Schmitz and his colleagues now feel the need to spend more time applying for multiple grants to insulate the research enterprise against the possibility of funding disruptions.
The Trump administration's policies represent a marked shift from previous federal policies where promoting diversity in STEM was a legislative and agency priority. Ayden Scheim, an epidemiologist at Drexel University, said it is "totally arbitrary" that he got his grant back and his colleagues did not. Koraly Pérez-Edgar, a developmental psychologist at Penn State, said the NIH's actions target the very individuals who will be the force and leadership in science in the next 10 to 15 years.
Scheim added that the damage to the field will be lasting, and many students and early career researchers are wary of pursuing a career in the fields targeted by the administration. The future of federal research funding and its impact on the scientific community remains uncertain as the case makes its way through the courts.
- The cancellation of research grants, such as those for health-and-wellness related issues like tuberculosis, highlights the impact of the Trump administration's policies on science, particularly those focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
- Political news reveals that the Trump administration's Executive Order of August 7, 2025, has resulted in general-news headlines, as federal grants promoting education and self-development, like DEI research programs, have been targeted and suspended.
- The fitness-and-exercise community watches with concern as the Trump administration's policies impact the health-and-wellness sector, with finances for medical-conditions research, like tuberculosis, taking a hit and creating uncertainty for students considering a future career in science.
