With the Trump administration initiating cuts and restructuring at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), minority medical researchers are navigating a tricky path to secure funding without veering too close to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives.
Researchers shared with The Hill that they encounter vague research guidelines, a competitive grant landscape, and a peer review system that has become politicized, all while striving to enhance health outcomes for minority groups.
“The rules are constantly changing. Communication is often unclear. The research sections feel like they foster an environment of instability and uncertainty,” remarked Samira Asghari, an assistant professor at the Institute for Genomic Health at Mount Sinai’s Oakland School of Medicine.
Although many funding opportunities for minority health studies have been slashed, some projects have managed to retain their financial support. To ensure their research can continue, scientists are exploring alternative funding avenues or completely reevaluating their grant applications.
Asghari expressed concern, stating, “This situation will negatively impact scientific progress by escalating competition for grants. It’s already a numbers game, and even the strongest proposals might not get funded for various reasons.”
Trump’s Impacts on Minority Health Research
This year, the Trump administration ordered the cessation of DEI grants and programs, leading to the cancellation of numerous NIH grants.
“No specific facilities were spared,” noted Michael Liu, a resident physician at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Both public and private institutions across the U.S. were affected.”
However, Liu and colleagues found that certain NIH institutes experienced more significant funding cuts than others. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was cut by over $505 million, while the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities saw a reduction of more than $223 million during the initial layoffs.
In August, the Supreme Court permitted the administration to continue its cuts to NIH grants, though another legal challenge managed to preserve some funding. The Senate opposed the proposed NIH budget cuts, maintaining the agency’s $48 billion budget, but the White House enacted a new upfront funding policy across NIH’s 28 institutes.
Under this new approach, research institutions are required to provide multi-year funding upfront, which researchers believe will lead to reduced financial support since agencies won’t need to establish the infrastructure for multiple grants every year.
Timi Adiran, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, expressed that this upfront requirement could complicate project planning and make grants even more competitive. “It’s challenging to predict what the budget will look like and to know how to hire the talent you need,” she explained.
Changes to the peer review process have led researchers to become increasingly cautious about political appointees determining grant awards, as opposed to established panels of scientists.
Nathaniel Tran, who studies health policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago, shared insights from a federally funded project on the health of LGBTQ+ older adults. Despite the project having passed a previous peer review under Trump, funding for it was halted earlier this year. Thankfully, after a legal challenge, funding was eventually restored.
The White House has sought to minimize the influence of NIH’s peer review boards—which typically consist of qualified scientists—in favor of political appointees who could assert greater power over funding decisions.
“We’re unsure how this will unfold in reality, but having a political element tied to grant approvals could certainly change the dynamics,” Ellie Mahoney from Research!America commented.
In a statement, White House Press Secretary Khush Desai remarked that the administration aims to fund groundbreaking biomedical research that enhances lives and health quality, rather than pursuing ideological projects.
Shifts in Research Focus
While the Trump administration aims to eliminate DEI initiatives from federal operations, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharyya seems to be adopting a more balanced strategy regarding project funding.
He noted that while the NIH has invested heavily in health disparities research, it hasn’t yielded “tangible health improvements” for minority groups. Going forward, the NIH plans to focus more on “solution-oriented approaches” to tackling health issues within these communities.
Kushal Kadakia, a resident physician, echoed that while addressing disparities is critical, there’s an equally important need for practical solutions. “If we don’t identify problems, it’s hard to come up with effective solutions,” he stated.
An NIH spokesperson claimed that both Bhattacharyya and Trump are unified in their commitment to advancing science aimed at benefiting all Americans. They emphasized that producing rigorous, evidence-based research free from ideological bias is their top priority.
The administration’s focus on dismantling DEI programs continued throughout the summer, culminating in the cancellation of NIH’s initiative designed to diversify the biomedical workforce.
Prakash Nagarkatti, leading the NIH Center for Nutraceuticals at the University of South Carolina, pointed out that the end of this program follows earlier cuts that impacted hiring for researchers from minority backgrounds. Without his own funding, he noted, he could have been forced to let go of team members.
Despite these challenges, some projects, like the MASALA study, which investigates atherosclerosis in South Asians in the U.S., remain funded by federal grants. This project has driven changes in national testing protocols for heart-related conditions affecting Asian American populations.
Kanaya highlighted the risks tied to their research, emphasizing their newfound understanding of risk factors affecting health outcomes. Asghari shared that her NIH communication directed her to adjust the language in her grant proposals to exclude specific terms related to diversity and health disparities, stating, “Those words were integral to our project.”
“Finding out the genetic underpinnings of specific diseases in certain populations can lead to broader discoveries that benefit everyone,” she added.
Adapting Funding Strategies
As they face uncertain funding horizons, researchers are strategizing ways to secure future financial support. Both MASALA and Asghari’s teams plan to pursue additional grants to improve their chances of sustaining their work.
Asghari acknowledged that while this poses a significant time challenge, it might deter others less able to invest such energy in securing funding. Kandura from the MASALA study also mentioned seeking private contributions due to the unpredictability of federal funding.
Younger researchers like Adiran are placing emphasis on communicating the relevance of their work and how their findings can broaden the understanding of health disparities. “I think ‘disparity’ can often feel vague, so I’m working to clarify exactly what aspect I’m exploring and how it could relate to wider health issues,” he noted.
Concerns linger about the stability of already secured funding as the risk of cuts remains imminent. Tran reflected on how funding for significant research targeting LGBTQ health, especially within the context of anti-LGBT policies, poses challenges under new multi-year awards.
Furthermore, Tran asserted that no alternative entity can replace the NIH’s financial backing, making it imperative for scientists to continue seeking their support. “No other organization can match that level of funding,” he stated. “That’s an unfortunate reality that’s tough to accept.”
