Tim Tai

A sweeping new National Institute of Health policy banning funding to universities with certain diversity programs or ties to boycotts of Israel is forcing institutions like Yale to reevaluate its research portfolios — and the future of campus inclusion itself.

On April 21, the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, posted updated grant terms prohibiting future awards to institutions with diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs deemed to violate federal anti-discrimination law. Funding to institutions participating in boycotts of Israeli companies has also been halted. The policy, which took effect immediately, applies to all new, renewal and continuation grants. To receive federal funds, grantees must certify compliance. 

While the NIH framed the rule as a return to “evidence-based science,” critics say it reflects a growing trend in federal agencies using funding to influence institutional values and campus speech. At Yale, where NIH support has underpinned both scientific discovery and equity initiatives, the policy has raised sharp concerns.

Vice Provost for Research Michael C. Crair said the University is actively reviewing the policy’s scope and implications.

“Given Yale’s commitment to complying with federal anti-discrimination laws, our expectation is that NIH’s recently announced policy will not impact our ability to continue to receive NIH funding for research,” Crair wrote in a statement to the News. “We will offer additional information and guidance when we know more.”

Crair added that NIH funding at Yale currently supports more than 2,200 research trials and enables care for roughly 38,000 patients each year, including infants with heart defects and adults with Alzheimer’s. He warned that any reductions “would have far-reaching consequences for patients and families across the country.”

The NIH policy arrives alongside broader actions by the Trump administration to restructure federal funding criteria and cut support to institutions viewed as politically noncompliant.

Dr. Howard Forman, a professor of public health and management at Yale, said the policy is part of a broader federal strategy aimed at shifting institutional behavior, regardless of whether it results in enforceable action. 

“It’s very hard to know what things they are hoping to actually do versus what things they are just trying to signal so they can change behavior,” Forman told the News. “In either case, I think many of us — whether we’re in an academic institution or not — should be highly concerned about the government’s increasing intrusiveness into the private speech and private acts of private entities.”

Yale spokesperson Karen Peart confirmed that individual faculty at the University, researching issues such as disease prevention and mental health, among other topics, have already received grant termination notices or stop-work orders from federal agencies. 

She added that the effects extend beyond public health, affecting projects tied to climate, global development and humanitarian aid. A proposed 15 percent cap on overhead funding alone could slash Yale’s NIH support by $165 million.

The NIH defended the move in an email to the News. 

“NIH is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities. We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science,” the NIH wrote in a statement. “As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it’s important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans.”

The agency emphasized that the new policy is part of a broader federal directive to eliminate what it describes as “wasteful spending” and redirect resources toward projects with a clearer, immediate impact on chronic disease and population health. A database of terminated grants has been made publicly available through the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the transparency effort.

The new rule also requires institutions to certify that they do not participate in boycotts of Israeli companies. While Yale has not endorsed boycotts of Israeli companies and has historically declined to divest from controversial sectors, faculty raised concerns that the rule could chill academic expression, particularly in global health or international policy research.

Yale bioethicist Stephen Latham said the policy raises both ethical and legal red flags.

“Almost all public health research is about health disparities — if you cut that, you’re cutting research that could save lives,” he said. 

While the NIH policy remains active and enforceable, a federal court has already intervened in a similar case involving the U.S. Department of Education. On April 24, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty issued a preliminary injunction in National Education Association et al. v. U.S. Department of Education, temporarily blocking a February directive that threatened to strip funding from K–12 and higher education institutions operating DEI programs.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the guidance was unconstitutionally vague, bypassed standard rulemaking procedures, and violated educators’ First Amendment rights. A federal judge echoed those concerns, warning that the directive could result in viewpoint discrimination and chill constitutionally protected speech.

Peart said the broader implications of the NIH actions are staggering. 

“Patients and families, medical research, and economic growth would all feel the impact of these cuts—not just at Yale, but across the country,” she wrote. “It would also slow the robust scientific pipeline of talent and diminish America’s global leadership in research.”

Founded in 1887 as a small laboratory under the Marine Hospital Service, the NIH began as a federal effort to study infectious diseases and protect public health.