Trump Administration Plans Major Cutbacks to LGBTQ Health Research

The Trump administration has terminated over $800 million in research related to the health of LGBTQ individuals, halting studies on cancers and viruses that predominantly impact sexual minority groups, and has intensified efforts to combat the resurgence of sexually transmitted infections, as highlighted by a New York Times analysis of federal data.

Reflecting its strong opposition to diversity initiatives and adolescent gender care, the administration has actively sought to eliminate standard measures and research affecting transgender health.

This crackdown reaches beyond specific issues, curtailing essential medical research on diseases disproportionately affecting LGBTQ populations, which constitute nearly 10% of American adults.

An examination of grant-related reviews revealed that out of 669 grants, 323—almost half—were fully or partially canceled in early May regarding LGBTQ health.

Federal authorities had earmarked $806 million for projects that were canceled, many of which were anticipated to generate additional funding in the coming years.

Numerous research institutions faced funding losses. This includes not just high-profile targets like Johns Hopkins and Columbia but also public universities in the South and Midwest like Ohio State University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Florida State University has canceled a research initiative worth $41 million, which included significant efforts to prevent HIV among adolescents and young adults, who account for the majority of new infections in the U.S. each year.

In a cancellation letter issued in recent months, the NIH justified the reductions by stating that LGBTQ projects “no longer align with agency priorities.” In some cases, the agency claimed that the canceled research was “based on gender identity,” resulting in “unscientific” outcomes that disregarded “biological reality.”

Other termination letters indicated that researchers erred by focusing on “artificial and unscientific categories” primarily driven by vague equity objectives.

These funding cuts come after a decade of increased federal support for LGBTQ research, encouraged by the NIH during the Obama administration, which welcomed grant proposals that focused on sexual and gender minorities.

Supporters of President Trump contend that much of this research is tainted by ideological bias.

“There was a trend of scientific malpractice to align conclusions with preconceived notions,” stated Roger Severino from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank influential in shaping Trump administration policies.

“It was founded on the erroneous belief that biology is almost irrelevant, alongside the political agenda that sought to normalize the idea of changing one’s sex.”

Researchers stated that canceling research on a broad range of diseases affecting sexual and gender minorities has effectively created a perception of a hierarchy among patients, deeming some as less valuable.

“Certain segments of the U.S. population should not be considered inferior as subjects of research,” remarked Simon Rosser, a professor at the University of Minnesota, whose lab focused on cancer in LGBTQ individuals before significant funding was withdrawn.

“This is a clear example of bias,” he emphasized. “It’s a form of prejudice in scientific research.”

The cancellation of these projects is a striking indication of the widespread dismantling of the research framework that has supported medical study in the United States for the past 80 years.

In addition to halting studies, federal officials have delayed grant payments, postponed review meetings, and expanded new grant awards.

Recently, Trump proposed slashing the NIH budget from approximately $48 billion to $27 billion, citing part of a broader agenda perceived as aimed at combating “radical gender ideology.”

The legality of these terminations remains uncertain. Two separate lawsuits challenge the broad cancellation of grants, with a group of researchers and others arguing that the Trump administration lacked a lawful basis for these cuts in 16 states.

The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services have not provided comments upon request.

Health department spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated to the Daily Signal, a conservative outlet, last month that the shifts which “alleviate politicized gender and identity studies” were “in line with the president’s executive order.”

In a statement, the NIH commented: “NIH is taking steps to terminate research funding that does not align with NIH and HHS priorities. We are committed to reinstating traditions that support evidence-based science.”

Lost funding has hindered critical studies on antibiotic resistance, undiagnosed autism among sexual minorities, and specific cancers that disproportionately affect these groups. The funding cuts have resulted in layoffs at several LGBTQ-focused laboratories that were poised for expansion.

Historically, the NIH has reserved grant cancellations for rare instances of research misconduct or potential participant harm. Scientists now argue that the recent cuts are doing more harm than protection for research participants.

They indicated the cessation of clinical trials where federal funding is short, affecting the care of volunteer participants.

“We are halting initiatives that prevent suicide and sexual violence,” remarked Katie Edwards, a professor at the University of Michigan, whose funding for various clinical trials involving LGBTQ individuals has been canceled.

The HIV studies have been particularly severely impacted.

The NIH has terminated major grants to the Adolescent Medical Exam Network for HIV/AIDS interventions, a program that established precursors for using medication therapy in adolescents to prevent infections.

The regimen known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is recognized as a promising strategy to reduce HIV transmission in youth.

The funding reductions threaten to amplify HIV transmission among young sexual minority men using stimulants as they aim to monitor a continuous trial of products that prevent both HIV and unplanned pregnancies, alongside sexual health counseling and behavioral therapy.

With the termination of numerous other HIV studies, these cuts are undermining Trump’s aims established during his prior term to eradicate the national HIV epidemic within a decade, according to scientists.

The NIH has also halted efforts relating to other sexually transmitted infections.

Dr. Matthew Spinelli, an infectious disease researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, was in the midst of clinical trials on common antibiotics for post-exposure prophylaxis aimed at preventing syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infections.

The trial involved a randomized study assigning participants to different antibiotic regimens to assess metabolism.

He hoped that the findings would provide valuable insights into the efficacy of treatments for women. He previously advocated for this research.

However, health officials ceased funding for the March study, objecting to research based on “gender identity.” Consequently, Dr. Spinelli could not apply federal funds to monitor participants already on antibiotics.

Moreover, he risked wasting thousands of doses of antibiotics acquired using taxpayer money. Dr. Spinelli warned that discontinuing efforts against infections like syphilis and HIV will allow new outbreaks to arise.

“The HIV epidemic is poised to surge again as a direct result of these actions,” Dr. Spinelli stated. “This is catastrophic for the communities affected.”

Despite a recent focus on the negative consequences of medical transition, federal officials have canceled several studies examining the potential risks of hormone therapies. These projects aimed to understand whether such treatments could elevate the chances of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, brain development issues, or HIV.

Other canceled grants sought to address mental health challenges in transgender individuals. Transgender youth, who currently represent around 3% of high school students, report significantly higher instances of persistent grief and suicide attempts.

For Dr. Edwards at the University of Michigan, funding has been halted for one of her six canceled studies examining how depression and self-harm among transgender teens can be mitigated.

Another study aimed at promoting supportive care for LGBTQ youth and reducing dating violence and alcohol consumption among these individuals.

The NIH categorizes studies strictly by specific illnesses, complicating efforts for agencies to estimate budgets for LGBTQ health research. Nonetheless, a report from March suggested that such studies accounted for less than 1% of the NIH’s portfolio over a decade.

The Times sought to quantify the scale of funding cuts in LGBTQ medical research by assessing grant titles. Research summaries were available for each of the 669 grants the Trump administration identified as fully or partially canceled in early May.

The review included studies designed to recruit participants from sexual and gender minorities, extending beyond grants strictly tied to LGBTQ issues and highlighting significant health disparities.

Grants related to diseases outside of the LGBTQ scope were excluded from this assessment.

The Times focused solely on NIH research grants but acknowledged that the Trump administration also discontinued LGBTQ programs elsewhere in the federal health system, including proposals to eliminate specialized suicide hotlines for LGBTQ youth.

The reduction in funding has hollowed out fields that not only flourished over the past decade but also encompassed a variety of health threats beyond HIV.

Researchers claim young academics have lost their positions in LGBTQ-related research and are erasing traces of their work from online profiles.

Brittany Charlton, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, had five grants canceled, including one examining the notable uptick in stillbirth rates among LGBTQ women.

Discontinuing research into health threats impacting gender and sexual minorities ultimately affects the broader population, she stated. “When those around you become ill, it impacts you too, even if you believe it doesn’t,” she concluded.

Irena Fan contributed reporting.