Alyssa Chang, Staff Photographer

Since late March, at least 17 NIH grants awarded to Yale-affiliated researchers have been abruptly terminated. Many of these grants have been awarded for research on public health equity, transgender healthcare or LGBTQ+ mental health.

A public database maintained by Scott Delaney of Harvard and Noam Ross of rOpenSci, with additional verification by affected scientists, shows more than 790 grants terminated nationwide, though the real number is likely far higher. The 17 canceled NIH grants affiliated with Yale carried a combined award budget of approximately $42.7 million. Of that total, about $11.4 million remained unspent.

Researchers the News spoke to say the terminations are already stalling clinical trials, threatening jobs and halting years of work. These cuts, researchers say, raise concerns about political interference in the nation’s scientific agenda and the future of equity-focused public health research.

“These cuts ignore the needs of our communities and hinder medical advancements that benefit everyone,” said Frederick Altice, a School of Medicine professor whose center lost seven grants. “Inclusive research teams drive innovation that reflects and serves our diverse society.”

According to Delaney, the NIH Termination Tracker aggregates information from multiple sources, including affected principal investigators, public databases and federal reporting systems. The tracker also accepts direct submissions from researchers using a Google Form, which has helped capture terminations not yet publicly listed by the government.

The terminations follow a March 2025 NIH guidance memo, which directs program officers who manage grant portfolios to halt funding for projects that “no longer effectuate agency priorities.” NIH awards are sorted into categories based on their connection to DEI-related content, which determines whether they are terminated. The News was unable to independently confirm what category each canceled Yale grant fell under in the database.

Yale’s legal counsel has filed institutional appeals in a letter from the institution, according to Altice. Altice wrote that the terminations stand in stark contrast to how the NIH has traditionally reviewed and administered grants. 

In the tracker, flagged keywords for terminated NIH grants at Yale include terms such as “gender,” “trans,” “equity,” “mental health” and “minority” — language often tied to research on underserved or marginalized populations. 

The keyword “sex” appears in 11 grants, “trans” in 10, “gender” in eight, “mental health” in seven and “barrier” or “barriers” in five. Research centered on health disparities and community-specific care is disproportionately impacted, not because of scientific merit, but because of the language used to describe it.

Altice, who has led major research efforts on HIV prevention, addiction treatment and global health equity, said that the scale of the NIH cuts has not only disrupted clinical trials — it has broken trust.

“Cutting HIV research funding isn’t just a budget decision — it’s a moral one,” Altice said. “We’re halting lifesaving science, abandoning communities most at risk, and discouraging the very researchers who are on the cusp of ending this epidemic.”

He added that the lost momentum could take years to rebuild, especially for studies aimed at high-risk populations whose participation was hard-earned through sustained relationship-building.

Dr. John Pachankis, director of the Yale LGBTQ Mental Health Initiative, said his entire portfolio of NIH funding, spanning over a decade, was terminated in March. The termination halted multiple clinical trials, left thousands of biological samples unprocessed and paused one of the largest trials of LGBTQ-affirming care ever conducted.

“We cannot pay our LGBTQ community partners as anticipated,” Pachankis wrote, “and our students and research staff may no longer be able to pursue their hope of improving LGBTQ people’s mental health through rigorous science and community engagement.”

Multiple training grants designed to diversify the scientific workforce were suspended at Yale. 

Professor Chyrell Bellamy’s diversity supplement award, meant to support early-career scholars from underrepresented backgrounds, was among those affected. Though her primary grant remains under review, she said the loss of supplementary awards alone is alarming.

Some researchers the News spoke to now question whether using commonly accepted terms in public health research, or referencing marginalized populations, could put their projects at risk. While the NIH categorizes some equity language as grounds for renegotiation or termination, much of the ambiguity remains unresolved, especially for projects seeking renewal. 

Researchers don’t always know which words or topics might trigger extra scrutiny, or whether previously approved work will continue to receive funding under the new policies.

Dr. Stuart Weinzimer, a Yale pediatric endocrinologist, lost NIH support for a study on the long-term cardiovascular impacts of hormone therapy in transgender youth. He said he has filed an appeal, but remains unsure whether it will change the outcome. 

“These are really important studies that help define the necessary screenings and surveillance procedures that will be necessary to ensure the long-term health of transgender adolescents,” Weinzimer said. “You can multiply this across the board by diabetes, heart disease, cancer, HIV. I think the long-term effects on the scientific engine of the United States are going to be irreparably damaged.”

Health equity, Weinzimer noted, isn’t ancillary to good science; it’s essential to making science applicable to all populations. Yet the recent wave of terminations sends a different message and will hurt people who are “already disenfranchised,” he added. 

Delaney, who co-created the NIH Termination Tracker, said that while the NIH has not publicly acknowledged any political motivation, the data speaks for itself. Terminated grants disproportionately address topics like LGBTQ+ health, racial disparities, reproductive justice and mental health access.

The tracker’s co-creator, Noam Ross, added that many of the affected researchers never received a detailed explanation for the terminations. Some were simply told their projects “no longer align with agency priorities.” 

Legal scholars, too, have raised concerns about the long-term implications of the terminations, especially when the decisions appear to be guided by keyword filters rather than peer-reviewed merit. 

Yale bioethicist Stephen Latham emphasized that much of public health research inherently addresses inequality, because it seeks to understand why some populations are sicker or more vulnerable than others.

“There’s one problem where they’re attacking quite valuable research that’s good for people who have poor health,” Latham said. “And secondly, there’s a problem with them doing it in a really sloppy, overbroad way that brings into their net even research that doesn’t fit the kind of profile they’re targeting.”

Latham noted that terms like “gender,” “inclusion” or even “structural racism” are common in academic writing and ordinary research practices could become swept up in the current wave of scrutiny.

For example, studies that compare how fathers and mothers respond to a survey may use the word “gender” and end up flagged, despite having no explicit connection to DEI. 

Looking forward, some researchers fear that early-career scientists will choose to leave the field altogether, while others may self-censor to avoid political scrutiny. Latham said the chilling effect could last well beyond a single administration, especially if the U.S. loses its reputation as a destination for cutting-edge, inclusive science.

While universities like Yale have submitted formal appeals for several terminated grants, few researchers expect a resolution soon. Many, like Altice, say the damage is already being done — to careers, communities and the broader fabric of American science.

Last year, Yale received $1.2B in research funding.