logo
Trump administration slashes research into LGBTQ+ health

Trump administration slashes research into LGBTQ+ health

Boston Globe04-05-2025

Of the 669 grants that the National Institutes of Health had canceled in whole or in part as of early May, at least 323 — nearly half of them — related to LGBTQ+ health, according to a review by the Times of every terminated grant.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Federal officials had earmarked $806 million for the canceled projects, many of which had been expected to draw more funding in the years to come.
Advertisement
Scores of research institutions lost funding, a list that includes not only White House targets such as Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University, but also public universities in the South and the Midwest, including Ohio State University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
At Florida State University, $41 million worth of research was canceled, including a major effort to prevent HIV in adolescents and young adults, who experience one-fifth of new infections in the United States each year.
Advertisement
In termination letters over the past two months, the NIH justified the cuts by telling scientists that their LGBTQ+ work 'no longer effectuates agency priorities.' In some cases, the agency said canceled research had been 'based on gender identity,' which gave rise to 'unscientific' results that ignored 'biological realities.'
Other termination letters told scientists their studies erred by being 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.'
The cuts follow a surge in federal funding for LGBTQ+ research over the past decade, and active encouragement from the NIH for grant proposals focused on sexual and gender minority groups that began during the Obama administration.
President Trump's allies have argued that the research is shot through with ideological bias.
'There's been a train of abuses of the science to fit a preconceived conclusion,' said Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that helped formulate some Trump administration policies.
'And that was based on an unscientific premise that biology is effectively irrelevant, and a political project of trying to mainstream the notion that people could change their sex.'
Scientists said canceling research on such a broad range of illnesses related to sexual and gender minority groups effectively created a hierarchy of patients, some more worthy than others.
'Certain people in the United States shouldn't be getting treated as second-class research subjects,' said Simon Rosser, a professor at the University of Minnesota whose lab was studying cancer in LGBTQ+ people before significant funding was pulled.
'That, I think, is anyone's definition of bigotry,' he added. 'Bigotry in science.'
The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment.
Advertisement
Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the health department, told The Daily Signal, a conservative publication, last month that the move 'away from politicized DEI and gender ideology studies' was in 'accordance with the president's executive orders.'
The NIH said in a statement: '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 LGBTQ+ cuts ended studies on antibiotic resistance, undiagnosed autism in sexual minority groups, and certain throat and other cancers that disproportionately affect those groups. Funding losses have led to firings at some LGBTQ+-focused labs that had only recently been preparing to expand.
The NIH used to reserve grant cancellations for rare cases of research misconduct or possible harm to participants. The latest cuts, far from protecting research participants, are instead putting them in harm's way, scientists said.
They cited the jettisoning of clinical trials, which have now been left without federal funding to care for volunteer participants.
'We're stopping things that are preventing suicide and preventing sexual violence,' said Katie Edwards, a professor at the University of Michigan, whose funding for several clinical trials involving LGBTQ+ people was canceled.
The Times sought to understand the scale of terminated funding for LGBTQ+ medical research by reviewing the titles and, in many cases, research summaries for each of the 669 grants that the Trump administration said it had canceled in whole or in part as of early May.
Advertisement
Beyond grants related to LGBTQ+ people and the diseases and treatments that take a disproportionate toll on them, the Times included in its count studies that were designed to recruit participants from sexual and gender minority groups.
It excluded grants related to illnesses like HIV that were focused on non-LGBTQ+ patients.
While the Times examined only NIH research grants, the Trump administration is also ending or considering ending LGBTQ+ programs elsewhere in the federal health system. It has proposed, for example, scrapping a specialized suicide hotline for LGBTQ+ young people.
The research cuts stand to hollow out a field that in the last decade had not only grown larger, but also come to encompass a wider range of disease threats beyond HIV.
Already, scientists said, younger researchers are losing jobs in sexual and gender minority research and scrubbing their online biographies of evidence that they ever worked in the field.
Five grants obtained by Brittany Charlton, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, have been canceled, including one looking at sharply elevated rates of stillbirths among LGBTQ+ women.
Ending research on disease threats to gender and sexual minority groups, she said, would inevitably rebound on the entire population. 'When other people are sick around you, it does impact you, even if you may think it doesn't,' she said.
This article originally appeared in

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?
Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?

WebMD

time17 minutes ago

  • WebMD

Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?

June 11, 2025 — Have you checked your annual mammogram off your health to-do list? That's a relief, for sure — but there's one more critical step to take after you get your results. Go over your report to see if you have dense breast tissue. For more than 40% of women, the answer is yes. And that means you may want to consider supplemental testing. The next step isn't always clear. But two new studies compared your options. Here's what to know. 1. Having dense breasts increases your risk of breast cancer. Why it matters: Not only is the risk higher, but it's also harder to detect cancer in dense breasts. What to know: Dense breasts have more fibrous tissue and milk glands than fat tissue. On a mammogram, the dense areas show up as white — the same color as cancer. That can make cancer harder to see, particularly when it's small. Federal law (since last fall) requires that you be notified whether your mammogram shows you have dense breasts. To be certain, check your patient portal report or call your doctor's office. You'll also want to find out if you have 'heterogeneously dense' or 'extremely dense' breasts. What's the difference? "Heterogeneously dense" means most of the breast is dense with some areas of fat, and "extremely dense" means the breast has almost no fatty tissue. Even if you don't have dense breasts now, they could become more dense as you age, so you need to recheck your report every year. Dense breasts can only be diagnosed with imaging — a physical exam can't tell. Bottom line: 'Women should know that if they have dense breasts, the mammogram might not see their cancer,' said Ruth Etzioni, PhD, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle who specializes in analyzing benefit-harm tradeoffs in cancer screening tests. 2. If you have dense breasts, consider supplemental screening. Why it matters: Between 25% and 30% of cancers in heterogeneously dense breasts are missed on a standard mammogram. That number for extremely dense breasts is even higher, potentially topping 40%. What to know: Knowing your breast density type can help you understand how likely a mammogram would be to miss cancer in your breast. But that's only one part of the decision-making equation. For those with heterogeneously dense breasts, 'we typically will consider other risk factors in addition to breast density in order to decide whether to recommend supplemental screening,' said Pittsburgh-based radiologist and dense-breast expert Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD. A list of risk factors, including family history and high BMI after menopause, is available at Bottom line: If you have extremely dense breasts, you should get supplemental screening, Berg said. If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, you should know your risk factors and talk to your doctor about what makes sense for you. 3. There are three types of supplemental screenings. Why it matters: Researchers compared these techniques — ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammogram — by randomly assigning them to women ages 50 to 70 with dense breasts whose mammograms didn't detect cancer. Results showed that MRI and the contrast-enhanced mammogram (using an iodine -based dye that helps reveal cancers) each found nearly five times as many cancers as ultrasound. What to know: Contrast-enhanced mammogram detected 19.2 cancers per 1,000 people scanned; MRI detected 17.4 per 1,000 scans; ultrasound detected 4.2 per 1,000. These detection rates were somewhat higher than in past studies, Berg and Etzioni said. They noted that women who get the scans repeated annually often see those detection rates drop over time. (That's because you're more likely to have an undetected past cancer than to develop a new one in the next year.) A separate study in JAMA Oncology recently showed that among women with a family history of breast cancer, just getting a slightly better scan than a standard mammogram — called a 3D mammogram — offered improved detection of advanced cancer in women with extremely dense breasts. 'That was compelling that we should really be doing [3D mammogram] as the routine screening, at least for the basic screening,' Berg said. Bottom line: If you have a family history of breast cancer, request a 3D mammogram for your initial annual screen, and when considering supplemental scans, know that some are better than others. 4. Your doctor may not automatically suggest supplemental screening. Why it matters: Berg's own doctor questioned her request to get an MRI after Berg learned that she has dense breasts. Ultimately, she got the MRI, which showed a small cancer that she said was easily treated and she has recovered. What to know: An advisory group called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that typically influences what insurance will cover doesn't recommend supplemental screening for people with dense breasts. Their reason: There is no multi-year clinical trial data examining whether extra screenings have drawbacks. Bottom line: It's OK to request supplemental screening, and knowing your risk factors will help during that conversation with your doctor. 'You still can't count on your doctor to provide all the information that you might need to make a decision for yourself about supplemental screening,' Berg said. 5. Not all supplemental screenings are covered by insurance. Why it matters: Not every state requires insurance to cover supplemental screenings — and in those that do, the law may not apply to every type of insurance. maintains a list of which states and plan types are required to cover it. What to know: Without coverage, out-of-pocket costs for an MRI can reach thousands of dollars, but a type called 'abbreviated' or 'quick' MRI can be lower — between $300 and $600 total. Contrast mammography and ultrasound are usually even less, and a 3D mammogram can sometimes cost an extra $40 or $50. MRIs where Berg works in Pittsburgh are booking six months out. A contrast-enhanced mammogram isn't a usual method used in the U.S., but Berg said some places are starting to offer it and testing the waters to see if insurance will cover it. The procedure only takes about 15 minutes, including the contrast dye injection, and uses a standard mammogram machine. Bottom line: 'If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, I think it really does come down to your own tolerance of other risk factors and whether your insurance will cover it, so it is more of a personal choice,' Berg said. 6. Think through your benefit/harm tradeoffs. Why it matters: Getting extra scans can be stressful, potentially expensive, and require a lot of time researching and communicating with your provider — not to mention taking time off work for appointments. What to know: Your risk calculation is complex, including the risk of missing a cancer detection. For example, ultrasound does have advantages (it's quick, noninvasive, and inexpensive), but tends not to spot cancer until the tumor is larger. There's also about a 10% risk of a false positive with most screening types. 'You have to poke a lot of people to find the people that you can help,' said Etzioni, who is an expert in data-driven medical decision-making, particularly when it comes to diagnostic testing and early cancer diagnosis. Bottom line: Deciding whether to get additional screening is personal and involves weighing your comfort with risk and the potential stress and cost of a false positive, Berg said. 'I think it's hard — you don't want to have any regrets either way. I don't know anybody who has regrets that their cancer was found too small. It's always better — if it's going to be there — to find it as early as possible.'

HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization

CNN

time26 minutes ago

  • CNN

HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization

Federal agencies Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.

Trump's anti-DEI push ‘politicizes' Pierce County teen mental health guidance
Trump's anti-DEI push ‘politicizes' Pierce County teen mental health guidance

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's anti-DEI push ‘politicizes' Pierce County teen mental health guidance

Amid the Trump administration's push to roll back programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion, terms like 'sexual assault' and 'gun violence' were removed from a national mental health program designed to train youth to identify and respond to signs of mental health crisis. Instructors who continue teaching previous guidance will lose their certifications starting in 2026, according to the nonprofit National Council for Wellbeing, which administers the program. The curricula changes, which Tacoma instructors say comes in contrast with evidence-based research, could undermine the program's success in Pierce County and nationally at a time when rates of anxiety, depression, suicide and violence are rising among youth. The Teen Mental Health First Aid program (tMHFA) is currently taught in many Pierce County schools and community organizations. Over several sessions students in the program learn how to identify, understand and respond to common mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety, mood disorders, trauma, psychosis and substance use disorders. Youth also learn how to support others and how to get help from a safe, trusted adult. As of March, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department had trained more than 6,600 youth and 255 adults in the tMHFA program at 32 host sites since December 2022. In May, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing updated its tMHFA curriculum to remove several videos, including a series featuring a transgender youth's mental health journey and recovery. In addition, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing omitted words like 'sexual assault' as an example of trauma and any mention of 'gun violence' and 'school shootings.' The National Council for Mental Wellbeing told The News Tribune in a statement last week the organization 'remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing lifesaving legislation and strengthening the mental health and substance use safety net system across the country.' 'Public funding at both the federal and state levels is essential to that mission. Consequently, our organization and all those that implement Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) must adhere to all applicable federal and state guidelines, executive orders and mandates to ensure our curriculum remains compliant and our services widely accessible to help as many people as possible,' it said June 3. 'In response to recent changes in federal guidance and newly issued executive orders, we have updated our curricula. These updates do not alter the foundational elements of MHFA.' Irene Tung, with the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, said via email June, 'While 'sexual assault,' 'gun violence' and 'mass shootings' were included in a long list of examples of trauma in our previous curriculum, we didn't teach about any of these topics in-depth, so we reframed the examples to be broader in the updated curriculum. For example, instead of 'gun violence,' we now say 'weapon.'' Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department communications director Kenny Via told The News Tribune in a June 4 email that the department remains 'committed to supporting the health and wellbeing of all Pierce County youth.' 'Our program in Pierce County is accredited through the National Council and our instructors are certified through the organization as well,' he said. 'As such, we have reviewed the changes and are working with our instructors and local partners to determine any areas of the curriculum we may need to supplement with additional resources.' Aran Myracle is a drop-in coordinator at the Oasis Youth Center in Tacoma and has been a tMHFA certified instructor teaching the course to LGBTQ+ youth in Pierce County for two years. Myracle said Friday it's not unheard of to see changes to the curricula, but these changes went farther than that. 'I wanted to cry when the changes came down. This is such an important curriculum to deliver to youth, and it's really frustrating to see it politicized and have the way we're delivering this curriculum to youth change, not because we've decided through evidence-based research that it would be better if we did it this way,' he said. 'It's someone's political agenda saying, 'We don't want sexuality and gender to be talked about, so we're going to take out any mentions of those.' 'We don't want guns to be demonized at school, so we're not going to talk about gun violence in schools anymore.'' Although the original curricula didn't dive into gun violence or mass shootings in depth, Myracle said, the training is highly interactive and often generated organic discussions about these topics among youth. 'I genuinely feel that youth are traumatized by going through gun violence drills at school, and it's something that is impacting their lives,' he said. 'The ability to talk about that openly, I think, is important [when] talking about youth mental health and first aid.' One of the most memorable parts of the training were several videos following 'Novak,' a real transgender teen who talked about his mental health journey, which included questioning his gender identity, withdrawing from his friends, being hospitalized for suicidality and recovering to a happy, healthy life, Myracle said. Those videos provided a positive message to teens, especially LGBTQ+ youth, to say that struggles 'could be part of your story, but it's not the end of your story,' he said. 'Removing Novak's videos removes a very important tool for reaching queer youth,' Myracle said. 'They don't see anyone like themselves in the curriculum anymore, and we know that it's very important for youth to see people who are like themselves represented when they're learning new skills and learning about new things.' Youth of color, LGBTQ+ youth and youth experiencing homelessness are more likely to experience sexual violence, and sexual assaults against youth often take place in the child's school, neighborhood or home, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. One in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 18, according to NSVRC. A vast majority of child sexual abuse (around 80%) is perpetrated by someone known to the child, said Carlyn Sampson, the executive director of the Rebuilding Hope sexual assault center in Tacoma. Sampson said she was 'really discouraged' and 'disappointed' to see the changes to the tMHFA guidance. Over the years Rebuilding Hope has sent providers to the trainings and found benefit in its guidance. Although none of its staff are required to complete the training or adhere to the National Council for Mental Wellbeing's guidance, Sampson said she would reconsider directing people to the guidance in the future. While some might write off the tMHFA changes as semantics, Sampson argued the impacts are far-reaching. Words and language 'names and frames' people's experiences and realities, and the term 'sexual assault' exists as its own very specific form of violence, she said. 'To take away those words is to erase those survivors themselves, to erase those experiences and to erase an entire field that has decades of history of moving the needle forward on better defining, creating policy changes, changes in the law about how sexual violence crimes, how sex crimes against children, against adults, get defined,' she said. Sampson said some human service organizations and nonprofits are finding themselves 'very much in conflicting spaces of not knowing what they are allowed to do' or how to fulfill their missions with new federal and state laws. 'I'm going to operate [on] an assumption that they are just as much caught in a place of conflict and confusion,' she said. 'If nothing else, maybe this story or any further discourse that is generated by this, helps them to pause and realize that there may also be an opportunity, if they have the resources, to stand in defiance of this national guidance.' Rebuilding Hope Sexual Assault Center provides services to any individual whose life has been impacted by sexual assault. Rebuilding Hope's 24/7 Helpline is 1-855-757-7273.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store