In Berkeley, California, the ongoing efforts by President Donald Trump to diminish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs funded by federal money have raised significant concerns among researchers like Kendra Dahmer, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. Dahmer is currently working on vital research regarding intestinal parasites in India and Benin, supported by a substantial grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest public funder of biomedical research globally.
Originally set to finance her research until the summer of 2026, Dahmer is now apprehensive about the stability of her grant. As a pioneer in her family to graduate from college and as a woman in science, she received diversity-oriented funding that is now called into question following the introduction of Trump’s executive order against DEI. Dahmer points out that certain research areas, such as studies on HIV and malaria in underprivileged regions, could be classified under the DEI umbrella, potentially hindering critical research essential for addressing diseases that impact thousands of lives annually.
Tensions escalated shortly after Trump signed the DEI order on January 21 when the White House announced a suspension of funding for a comprehensive ideological review of all federal grants and loans. This move triggered widespread concern among researchers until two judges intervened, leading to the rescission of the freeze and the continuation of grant distributions by the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports a considerable portion of research funding in the nation.
Despite the lifting of the funding freeze, the uncertainty remains for many scientists reliant on federal grants. The NSF continues to review its projects to ensure compliance with the newly established executive orders, and the future of existing and new NIH grants stays unclear. In a recent development, the NIH publicized a reduction in payments toward overhead costs for the research institutions it finances, significantly affecting universities that could face budget shortfalls. Previously, some institutions received substantial funds (over 50% of the grant amount) for necessary expenses, but this will now be limited to only 15%.
The financial implications have kept many universities, which received about $60 billion in research funding during the 2023 fiscal year, largely silent as they work to grasp the full effects of Trump’s DEI executive order. Many are also attempting to adapt their policies to ensure the inclusion of underrepresented students amid these new challenges. The University of California has publicly stated it is assessing how recent executive actions may impact its community.
Though specifics concerning the policy changes remain elusive, some research initiatives have already been postponed due to the uncertainty surrounding DEI-related issues. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, revealed that projects focusing on artificial intelligence and its intersection with racism, as well as studies on health equity and urban literacy rates, have been stalled.
Wolfson believes the decision-makers behind these changes aim to solidify a society marked by ingrained inequalities, whether along racial, class, or gender lines. The Education Department has not responded to requests for comments regarding these developments.
The potential reduction in funding for DEI-related research poses a serious threat to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), already operating with restricted financial resources when contrasted with predominantly white institutions. Notably, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the nation’s largest HBCU, has been striving to achieve R1 status, indicating high research activity. However, threats to federal funding could impede that progress, according to biology professor Joseph Graves, who noted that students encounter inadequate facilities, such as having to wear hats and gloves during winter research due to insufficient heating.
Furthermore, new scrutiny of federal research grants could adversely affect HBCU students who rely on federally funded fellowships for their research pursuits, potentially preventing minority students from seizing valuable opportunities. Graves warned that the administration’s view of DEI might make HBCUs targets due to their high enrollment of minority students.
He emphasized that no matter what they do, their contributions to the scientific community will inherently reflect DEI values, irrespective of governmental attitudes toward their initiatives.
