BERKELEY, Calif. — President Trump’s initiatives to limit diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within federally funded projects have cast a shadow over the research endeavors of Kendra Dahmer, who is studying intestinal parasites in India and Benin. Dahmer, currently a postdoctoral researcher affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, secured funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), known as the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.
The NIH grant was intended to support Dahmer’s research until the summer of 2026; however, the recent political changes have left her questioning whether that funding will remain intact. As a first-generation college graduate and a woman in the sciences who benefitted from diversity-focused funding, Dahmer has concerns about the impact of Trump’s executive order against DEI initiatives on her research direction. She noted that research into specific diseases such as HIV and malaria, which significantly affect populations in low- and middle-income countries, could now be categorized under DEI and thus face funding challenges.
Alarm bells rang for the research community just two days following the signing of the DEI-focused executive order on January 21. The White House’s immediate move to freeze funding to examine the ideological alignment of all federal grants and loans heightened anxieties. After a period of chaotic legal disputes, judges intervened, leading to the repeal of the funding freeze. The NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF), major sources of research funding, have started to distribute grants again.
However, uncertainty lingers among scientists and researchers reliant on federal funding. The NSF is reportedly still conducting its reviews to ensure compliance with the new executive orders, leaving the status of existing and future NIH grants in a fog of ambiguity. Universities—receiving nearly $60 billion for research in fiscal year 2023—have largely remained silent, stating they are working to interpret how the executive order will affect their funding protocols. They are also dealing with the implications of these orders on institutional policies that support underrepresented students.
The University of California has confirmed that it is assessing the executive orders to gauge their potential effects on the academic community. Despite a lack of clarity surrounding the policy changes, some research projects have already been paused due to uncertainty regarding topics associated with diversity. Todd Wolfson, head of the American Association of University Professors, noted that specific studies investigating the alignment of artificial intelligence with systemic racism and health equity are being halted, as well as research exploring urban literacy rates in predominantly Black neighborhoods.
Wolfson emphasized that decision-makers appear to be aiming to establish a societal framework steeped in inequities across racial, class, and gender lines. The Education Department has not responded to inquiries seeking clarification on the topic. Concerns regarding funding for DEI-related research also pose a significant threat to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which already struggle with limited financial support compared to predominantly white institutions.
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the largest HBCU, has endeavored for years to achieve R1 status from the Carnegie Foundation, acknowledging it as a university with substantial research activity. However, Graves, a biology professor at the institution, indicated that the president’s stance on federal funding might hinder this objective. He described dire conditions where biology students must conduct experiments in winter gear due to insufficient heating in their outdated facilities.
Furthermore, the new scrutiny on federal research grants may jeopardize fellowships that enable HBCU students to engage in research opportunities that would otherwise be financially inaccessible. Graves pointed out that the administration’s perspective on DEI could unfairly target HBCUs, given their higher concentrations of minority students. He expressed that their exemplary work, which strives to reform the demographics within science, will inevitably be labeled as DEI, regardless of the administration’s viewpoint.
