The Trump administration has announced a plan to reevaluate thousands of science and medical research grant applications that were previously put on hold due to their ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This decision has prompted a mixed response, with some viewing it as a potential step forward while others remain skeptical about the administration’s intentions and historical actions.
Among the affected institutions is the University of Washington, which received $572 million from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2024. The halt on application approvals has raised concerns about missed opportunities for advancements in critical areas such as HIV prevention and Alzheimer’s disease research. Following the announcement, Nick Brown, the Attorney General of Washington, joined 16 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging the government’s freeze on grant applications.
Background on Grant Application Freeze
The reassessment of these applications comes after a prolonged period of uncertainty. In January 2025, President Donald Trump initiated a pause on federal grant applications, subsequently proposing cuts to NIH funding that included a significant reduction of $6.1 billion. This proposal aimed to eliminate $1 billion specifically earmarked for cancer research. Bipartisan opposition in Congress ultimately blocked these cuts, but the administration’s approach to higher education funding continued to raise alarms.
In February of the same year, the administration cut resources for various research grants, including those focused on cancer treatments, leading to a series of legal challenges from affected institutions. Notable universities such as Cornell University and Columbia University faced significant funding threats, with amounts reaching as high as $200 million and $30 million respectively. This strategy was framed as part of a broader initiative to protect civil rights, but critics viewed it as an attempt to exert control over academic institutions.
Recent Developments and Ongoing Concerns
Following the recent agreement with state attorneys general, the NIH has begun to review the backlog of applications, approving 499 in the wake of this renewed scrutiny. While the movement is encouraging, it is important to note that this agreement does not guarantee funding for any of the stalled applications; it merely obligates the NIH to consider them.
“In a country that for decades has prided itself on its medical and technological advances, it shouldn’t have been that way,” stated an official source familiar with the situation.
The process to reach this point has been lengthy and fraught, taking nearly a year and numerous lawsuits to compel action from the government. Many stakeholders in the scientific community remain cautious, recalling the administration’s previous attempts to reshape higher education through funding incentives tied to political alignment on issues such as gender and race in hiring practices.
As the NIH moves forward with its reviews, the implications of these decisions will be closely monitored. The scientific community is hopeful for renewed support for research that could lead to significant medical breakthroughs, though skepticism about the administration’s priorities persists.
