
Trump Cuts Imperil Cancer, Diabetes and Pediatric Research at Columbia
Cancer researchers examining the use of artificial intelligence to detect early signs of breast cancer. Pediatricians tracking the long-term health of children born to mothers infected with the coronavirus during pregnancy. Scientists searching for links between diabetes and dementia.
All these projects at Columbia University were paid for with federal research grants that were abruptly terminated following the Trump administration's decision to cut $400 million in funding to Columbia over concerns regarding the treatment of Jewish students.
Dozens of medical and scientific studies are ending, or at risk of ending, leaving researchers scrambling to find alternative funding. In some cases, researchers have already started informing study subjects that research is suspended.
'Honestly, I wanted to cry,' said Kathleen Graham, a 56-year-old nurse in the Bronx, upon learning that the diabetes study she had participated in for a quarter of a century was ending.
At Columbia's medical school, doctors said they were in shock as they received notice that their funding was terminated. Some expressed resignation, while others sought a stopgap solution and asked whether the university could fund some of the staff on the projects in the short term, according to interviews with five doctors or professors who had been affected.
'The most immediate need is to bridge in the short term and figure out what the longer-term plans are,' said Dr. Dawn Hershman, the interim chief the division of hematology and oncology at Columbia's medical school. 'That's what is being worked out.'
About $250 million of the $400 million in cuts imposed this month involved funding from the National Institutes of Health. Each year, the N.I.H. distributes billions of dollars in research funding to universities for biomedical and behavioral research. Those grants are a major engine of medical progress — and, for many scientists and medical researchers, of successful careers.
In interviews, several Columbia researchers who received grant cancellation notices during the past week and a half said they assumed that their canceled grants were part of the $400 million in cuts that the Trump administration had announced. But they said they had no way of knowing just yet — a reflection of the chaos and uncertainty engulfing labs and clinics across the nation.
Last year, Columbia became the epicenter of a national student protest movement against the war in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators established an encampment on campus and occupied a university building. Some Jewish students said they experienced harassment walking around or near campus, or were ostracized. The university president requested that the Police Department clear out the demonstrators and later resigned amid fury over her handling of the divided campus.
The Trump administration has blamed Columbia University, saying it did too little. Invoking federal anti-discrimination law, it has cut research funding to Columbia.
In addition to cutting research grants, the Trump administration has removed funding for clinical fellowships for early career doctors who were developing a specialty in oncology and several other fields. Other grants eliminated money for hiring research nurses and other support staff needed for clinical trials, Dr. Hershman said.
The sudden, deep cuts appear to be exceedingly rare, if not unprecedented. Some legal scholars say that the administration's tactics might violate the First Amendment and that the government appears to have ignored the procedures and restrictions laid out in the same anti-discrimination law it has cited. Since announcing the cuts, the Trump administration has demanded that Columbia make dramatic changes to student discipline and put an academic department in receivership as a precondition to negotiations 'regarding Columbia University's continued financial relationship with the United States government,' according to a letter sent Thursday by federal officials.
The cuts will be felt most immediately by research scientists and doctors, many of whom work mainly at Columbia's medical school and affiliated hospital, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia, some 50 blocks north of Columbia's main campus.
In interviews, they expressed shock and sadness that their research projects were cut so abruptly. Dr. Olajide A. Williams, a neurologist and professor at Columbia's medical school, had two grants that were terminated this month.
His research often focuses on health disparities and how to narrow them.
One grant was to study factors that led to better stroke recovery among poor and socially disadvantaged patients. Another grant explored how to increase screenings for colorectal cancer — which is rising among younger adults — across New York City.
'As I sit here trying to do this work, I truly believe to right a wrong with another wrong frays the fabric of justice,' said Dr. Williams. 'Fighting the horrors of antisemitism by punishing the nobility of health disparities research creates a cycle of injustice that causes pain on all sides.'
He said he was stunned.
'Right now, I'm sitting in that pain trying to navigate the reality of what just happened to my grant portfolio,' he said.
More than 400 grants to Columbia University were terminated, according to the National Institutes of Health. Some of the grant cancellations will be felt far beyond Columbia. Large-scale studies can involve researchers at several universities, but, for administrative ease, the grant is linked to a single university. As a result, the cuts jeopardized some research projects involving numerous universities.
Last week Dr. David M. Nathan, a Harvard Medical School professor, learned that funding for the diabetes research project — following a group of 1,700 people over more than 25 years — had been cut.
'The funding flows through Columbia, which is why we were vulnerable,' Dr. Nathan said. 'When the N.I.H, or whoever made this decision, decided to target Columbia's funding, we were just kind of swept up in this.'
That research project had grown out of a landmark study that demonstrated the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and the medication metformin at reducing Type 2 diabetes. Those findings were released in 2001. Dr. Nathan and others followed the same participants over the next quarter-century. The latest phase, which was funded through Columbia, searched for links between diabetes and dementia.
Ms. Graham, the nurse in the Bronx, said that as part of that study, she had recently undergone tests and had her gait analyzed for early signs of any neurological problems. Over the years, she said, she has taken pride in helping produce data underscoring the advice that she and other medical professionals give to patients with diabetes.
Dr. Nathan said that the latest phase was two years into a five-year study.
'This is also colossally wasteful,' he said. 'We haven't collected all the data we hoped to collect.'
Dr. Jordan Orange, who heads the Department of Pediatrics at Columbia's medical school, said one project that lost funding involved the search for a nasal spray that would block the entry of viruses and reduce infections.
'How wonderful would it be if we had a nasal spray that could block viruses?' Dr. Orange said.
According to Lucky Tran, a spokesman for Columbia University Medical Center, other canceled studies include one focused on reducing maternal mortality in New York and another on treatments for chronic illnesses, including long Covid.
Last week, researchers were trying to catalog which research had lost funding and which projects survived. 'We're still in the process of trying to figure out all of the grants,' Dr. Hershman said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate struggle over Medicaid cuts threatens progress on Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — One key unsettled issue stalling progress on President Donald Trump's big bill in Congress is particularly daunting: How to cut billions from health care without harming Americans or the hospitals and others that provide care? Republicans are struggling to devise a solution to the health care problem their package has created. Already, estimates say 10.9 million more people would be without health coverage under the House-passed version of the bill. GOP senators have proposed steeper reductions, which some say go too far. 'The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts, and I think that's problematic,' said GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Senators have been meeting behind closed doors and with Trump administration officials as they rush to finish up the big bill ahead of the president's Fourth of July deadline. Much of the package, with its tax breaks and bolstered border security spending, is essentially drafted. But the size and scope of healthcare cuts are among the toughest remaining issues. It's reminiscent of the summer during Trump's first term, in 2017, when Republicans struggled to keep their campaign promise to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, only to see the GOP splinter over the prospect of Americans losing health coverage. That legislation collapsed when then-Sen. John McCain famously cast a thumbs-down vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is determined to avoid that outcome, sticking to the schedule and pressing ahead with voting expected by the end of the week. 'This is a good bill and it's going to be great for our country,' Thune said Wednesday, championing its potential to unleash economic growth and put money in people's pockets. The changes to the federal health care programs, particularly Medicaid, were always expected to become a centerpiece of the GOP package, a way to offset the costs of providing tax breaks for millions of Americans. Without action from Congress, taxes would go up next year when current tax law expires. The House-passed bill achieved some $1.5 trillion in savings overall, a large part of it coming from changes to health care. The Medicaid program has dramatically expanded in the 15 years since Obamacare became law and now serves some 80 million Americans. Republicans say that's far too high, and they want to shrink the program back to a smaller size covering mainly poorer women and children. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans are 'trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans.' Democrats are uniformly opposed to what they call the 'big, ugly bill.' Much of the health care cost savings would come from new 80-hour-a-month work requirements on those who receive Medicaid benefits, even as most recipients already work. But another provision, the so-called provider tax that almost all the states impose to some degree on hospitals and others that serve Medicaid patients, is drawing particular concern for potential cuts to rural hospitals. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said several senators spoke up Wednesday during a private meeting indicating they were not yet ready to start voting. 'That'll depend if we land the plane on rural hospitals,' he said. States impose the taxes as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics decry the system as a type of 'laundering' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage. The House-passed bill would freeze the provider taxes at current levels, while the Senate proposal goes deeper by reducing the tax that some states are able to impose. 'I know the states are addicted to it,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. But he added, 'Obviously the provider tax needs to go away.' But a number of GOP senators, and the hospitals and other medical providers in their states, are raising steep concerns that the provider tax changes would decimate rural hospitals. In a plea to lawmakers, the American Hospital Association said the cuts won't just affect those who get health coverage through Medicaid, but would further strain emergency rooms 'as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people.' 'And worse, some hospitals, especially those in rural communities, may be forced to close altogether,' said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the hospital group. The Catholic Health Association of the United States noted in its own letter that Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for one in five people and nearly half of all children. 'The proposed changes to Medicaid would have devastating consequences, particularly for those in small towns and rural communities, where Medicaid is often the primary source of health care coverage,' said Sister Mary Haddad, the group's president and CEO. Trying to engineer a fix to the problem, senators are considering creating a rural hospital fund to help offset the lost Medicaid money. GOP senators circulated a proposal to pour $15 billion to establish a new rural hospital fund. But several senators said that's too high, while others said it's insufficient. Collins has proposed that the fund be set at $100 billion. 'It won't be that big, but there will be a fund,' Thune said. Hawley, who has been among those most outspoken about the health care cuts, said he's interested in the rural hospital fund but needs to hear more about how it would work. He has also raised concerns about a new $35 per service co-pay that could be charged to those with Medicaid, which is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. 'Getting the fund is good. That's important, a step forward,' Hawley said. But he asked: 'How does the fund actually distribute the money? Who will get it to hospitals? … Or is this just going to be something that exists on paper?' A new analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates the package would result in up to $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, a markedly different assessment from other analyses. In contrast, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's dynamic analysis of the House-passed measure estimates an increase in deficits by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. __ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Mary Clare Jalonick, Joey Cappelletti and Fatima Hussein contributed to this story.


Politico
8 hours ago
- Politico
Too hot for the electric grid to handle?
The heat wave scorching large swaths of the country is stressing out the aging electric grid, threatening rolling blackouts when people need air conditioning most. To help keep ACs humming, the Trump administration is allowing some fossil fuel power plants in the Southeast to exceed pollution limits. While not an unprecedented move during emergencies, it marks a big contrast with other solutions that have emerged in recent years — such as Texas' reliance on solar power to get through heat waves. President Donald Trump's strategy to lean on fossil fuels creates a feedback loop: The more natural gas and coal are burned for energy, the more carbon pollution enters the atmosphere. This pollution helps warm the planet — requiring more electricity to cool people off. And without long-term planning for clean, reliable backup power, the short-term need to beat the heat dominates. That's why Energy Secretary Chris Wright authorized Duke Energy to run some power plants in the Carolinas at maximum output as temperatures approach 100 degrees, writes Jeffrey Tomich. 'Americans should not be forced to wonder if their power grid can support their homes and businesses,' Wright said in a statement. The heat dome is bearing down on much of the eastern U.S., from northeast Texas to New England, driving triple-digit heat and humidity in some areas. Scores of cities are under heat advisories, and more than 40,000 customers in several New York City boroughs lost power earlier this week as the temperatures stressed the local electric grid. Extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the country, killing more U.S. residents each year than hurricanes, floods and tornadoes combined, federal data shows. And it's not an equal-opportunity killer. In addition to directly causing dehydration or heat stroke, extreme heat can also worsen underlying health conditions. Research shows that already vulnerable populations, such as those without permanent housing, are more likely to have chronic conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Lack of access to AC, medical care or nutrition only worsens the problem. Hotter days also mean higher utility bills. The summer heat is expected to drive up residential electricity bills by about 3 percent to an average of $178 per month, according to an analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That number could be even higher if temperatures continue to soar, EIA noted. It's Wednesday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: James Bikales breaks down why the Senate parliamentarian rejected certain provisions of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's portion of Trump's megabill and what that means for its prospects. Power Centers Science agency booted from HQThe National Science Foundation has been kicked out of its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, to make space for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, write Robin Bravender and Ellie Borst. Where NSF employees will go next, they don't know. HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced the takeover today at a new conference, but offered no insights about where NSF employees would be relocated. He said his agency was moving in to start a new 'golden age.' Trump's newest plan to kill EPA grantsThe Trump administration is taking the unusual step of trying to cut funding and eliminate programs it dislikes by using routine administrative actions, write Jean Chemnick and Miranda Willson. The goal is to block billions in Environmental Protection Agency grants that the Biden administration had signed binding contracts to pay. But some scholars say Trump's mechanism is legally dubious at best. 'Their bureaucratic jujitsu is impressive, but it's also illegal,' said Jillian Blanchard with Lawyers for Good Government. How a little green law set off a political explosionThe European Commission set off a political cluster bomb last week when it suddenly declared it was killing a relatively minor rule on corporate greenwashing, writes James Fernyhough. The announcement came two days after the center-right European People's Party, the largest force in the European Parliament, sent a letter to the commission saying it wanted the law dead. That has fueled a growing sense among the center-left bloc that the right wing is controlling not just Parliament, but also the commission. In Other News June is the new July: Why intense summer heat is arriving earlier. $80 million, few rules: Louisiana's energy efficiency 'slush fund.' Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. The Trump administration plans to fast-track permits for deep-sea mining, despite warnings from conservation groups that too little is known about delicate ecosystems deep underwater. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from freezing funds for electric vehicle charging stations in 14 states, a suspension that has become a flashpoint in Trump's bid to choke off congressionally approved spending. The White House and automakers are scrambling to adjust to China's tightening of restrictions on rare earth elements — a growing choke point in Trump's trade war. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jim Cramer on Keurig Dr Pepper: 'I Don't Want to Touch That One'
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. (NASDAQ:KDP) is one of the 12 stocks on Jim Cramer's radar recently. A caller asked if the company would be able to compete with Coca-Cola long term despite its 'high debt'. In response, Cramer said: 'Yeah, no, I don't want to touch that one. I think if you want to be in that space, you want to be in Coca-Cola. I think Coca-Cola has demonstrated, first of all, I don't want to be in that space because there's just… the Secretary of Health and Human Services is against it. The GLP-1s, the new one from Amgen, just makes it tougher and tougher. You don't want to be in the space…' A conveyor belt filled with assorted K-Cup pods, ready for packaging. Keurig Dr Pepper (NASDAQ:KDP) produces and distributes a wide range of beverages and single-serve brewing systems, including branded concentrates, ready-to-drink products, and coffee-related goods. Oakmark Select Fund stated the following regarding Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. (NASDAQ:KDP) in its Q4 2024 investor letter: 'Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. (NASDAQ:KDP) is one of North America's leading beverage companies, with dominant positions in single-serve coffee and flavored soft drinks. The soft drink portfolio has an impressive track record of volume growth and market share gains. We believe this performance can continue due to favorable demographic trends, brand strength, and distribution advantages. Recently, weakness in the Keurig coffee division caused the stock price to come under pressure. However, we believe these industry-wide challenges will prove transitory because coffee remains a popular beverage. Keurig's coffee division is poised to capitalize on this demand with the largest installed base of single-serve brewers and ample runway to increase household penetration. At the current quote, the market ascribes minimal value to Keurig. We were happy to purchase shares in this above-average business at a discount to the market multiple, other beverage peers and private market transactions.' While we acknowledge the potential of KDP as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data