HHS Slashes Over $350M in Grant Funding for Gender Ideology, DEI Research Projects

Breaking News: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has axed more than $350 million worth of research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), pulling the plug on projects centered around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender ideology, a department official confirmed on Friday.

The cuts took aim at projects exploring topics such as "multilevel and multidimensional structural racism," "gender-affirming hormone therapy in mice," and "microaggressions." In total, over 500 such grants were terminated for allegedly straying from HHS's stated priorities.

"The terminated research grants are simply wasteful in studying things that do not pertain to Americans’ health to any significant degree," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated. "As we work to Make America Healthy Again, our focus is on research that directly impacts the health of Americans." One can almost hear the collective groan from researchers losing millions for their work on structural racism and gender studies.

Among the notable casualties was a $1 million project at the University of Maryland-Baltimore that aimed to develop a measure of structural racism across racial and linguistic groups in the U.S. The researchers hoped this tool could help eliminate health disparities for racial minorities. The project's description emphasized an "urgent public health need" for such data to design effective anti-racism interventions. Well, it seems the urgency wasn’t mutual.

Another cut grant allocated nearly $1 million to Emory University researchers to study the effects of gender-affirming hormone treatments on the skeletal maturation of mice. Yes, mice. Other axed projects included a $50,000 study on how cross-sex hormone administration impacts wound healing in mice and nearly $1 million for genomic research into gender identity. While some might argue about the broader implications of these studies, it’s clear HHS has chosen to prioritize more traditional health research.

Funds aimed at promoting diversity in academia also faced the chopping block. A $5 million grant to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, designed to recruit 18 tenure-track faculty members from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, was among the casualties. This decision is bound to spark debate about how diversity initiatives stack up against other health priorities.

This move aligns with former President Donald Trump’s directive during his administration to freeze federal grants and eliminate funding for DEI and progressive gender ideology projects across federal agencies. Although the grant freeze faced legal challenges and was eventually lifted, Trump’s vision for NIH funding has left a lasting imprint. Subsequent actions, including capping administrative costs at 15% for research awards, further emphasized this shift in priorities.

The cuts have drawn significant criticism from Democrats and researchers alike. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to head the NIH, found himself grilled during recent confirmation hearings. He sidestepped committing to overturning these cuts, focusing instead on ensuring NIH funds advance the health outcomes of Americans. Bhattacharya also outlined a vision for a more decentralized and transparent NIH that would embrace dissenting ideas and focus on impactful research. Some might call it a reset; others might call it a rollback.

For proponents of the cuts, this is a strategic reallocation to steer health research back to its core mission. For critics, it's a disturbing dismissal of essential topics like systemic racism, gender identity, and diversity in science. One thing is certain: the debate over what constitutes "impactful" research isn’t going away anytime soon.