Following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the United States research framework faced substantial upheaval triggered by a series of executive orders and administrative steps designed to curtail critical funding streams and impose limitations on federally sponsored research topics. These measures resulted in the termination of hundreds of previously granted funding awards and reductions in staffing at grant agencies, thereby disrupting universities reliant on federal support. Pittsburgh’s academic institutions experienced direct consequences, including suspended Ph.D. recruitment, freezes on new appointments, and layoffs. According to the Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP), cuts to research funding in Allegheny County have culminated in the loss of 104 jobs and $24 million in funding. Proposed budget reductions for key agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) could further deplete research funding if enacted by lawmakers in the upcoming legislative session.
Beyond these financial setbacks, local researchers assert that the funding cuts function as a tool undermining academic freedom. While university administrations publicly affirm commitment to academic freedom, faculty members express skepticism about these assurances. Instances involving settlements between the federal government and prestigious institutions such as Columbia, Cornell, and Northwestern are cited, where researchers argue that universities compromised educational ideals to reinstate research funding. Conversely, the Trump administration has justified its actions, framing them as efforts to restore confidence in American higher education by counteracting what it describes as "left-wing ideological capture" and removing discrimination masked as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Efforts to evaluate the local research climate included outreach to faculty at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt), Carnegie Mellon University, and Duquesne University, focusing on how funding reductions affected academic inquiry. Only University of Pittsburgh researchers were available within the reporting timeline, with those interviewed emphasizing that their comments do not represent institutional stances.
Miranda Yaver, an assistant professor of public health at Pitt, encountered these challenges firsthand. While preparing applications for NSF and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grants, she refrained from submission following an executive order that declared DEI initiatives unlawful and mandated federal agencies to eliminate such components. Her research concentrates on disparities in health insurance coverage, a focus area difficult to obscure or rebrand. Yaver noted that while some peers modify terminology to circumvent restrictions, her work’s nature precluded such adjustments. As a result, she sought support from private foundations without success, projecting the absence of research funding in the coming year. She questioned whether this shortfall stemmed from project quality or heightened competition for limited private resources caused by federal cutbacks. Although she has ongoing projects fulfilling expected productivity metrics, Yaver lamented the unrealized potential of various ideas beneficial to healthcare that remain unexplored due to funding barriers.
These federal directives have also disconcerted seasoned experts such as Jeremy Berg, former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences and currently affiliated with Pitt. Berg questioned whether agency policy shifts signify substantive changes or merely altered rhetoric. He pondered if health disparities research can proceed effectively when terminology identifying specific groups is restricted, though recruitment in affected communities continues. While researchers persist in pursuing vital studies under altered language constraints, the removal of established terminology could discourage engagement with these topics altogether.
Pitt neurobiology professor Michael Gold experienced direct effects when an NIH-funded grant supporting marginalized trainees’ attendance at pain research conferences faced an administrative request to revise the proposal. The agency called for alignment with priorities emphasizing merit-based training, autism research, and scientifically substantiated disparities studies. NIH critiques included rejection of research based on ideologies perceived to endorse race- or ethnicity-based differential treatment, reliance on vague concepts, or unfalsifiable theories. For example, "systemic racism" was cited as a poorly defined term. Gold indicated that the revised grant omitted terms related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The NIH had not completed its review of the resubmitted application at the time of reporting. Gold criticized federal denial of concepts such as systemic racism and nuances in gender identity, highlighting the detrimental impact on academic freedom and the pursuit of meaningful research with societal implications. He warned of long-lasting setbacks in crucial research areas, consequences unlikely to be overcome swiftly.
Since the policy changes, 212 research awards at Pitt have received revision requests from federal agencies. Carnegie Mellon University officials stated their institution does not monitor such requests. An analysis by Public Source revealed that NIH grants incorporating key terms like "racial," "gender," "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" declined by approximately 20% in Pittsburgh universities during the year, with Pitt experiencing the most significant absolute decrease.
Researchers voiced dissatisfaction with the responses of well-funded local universities to the crisis. Berg described their approach as avoiding controversy by remaining inconspicuous. Institutional leaders have issued relatively few public comments on the research funding disruptions and have refrained from explicitly condemning federal actions. They have joined lawsuits contesting proposed research budget reductions and signed collective statements with peer institutions nationwide.
As the complexities confronting higher education intensify, some academics urge university administrations to reassess their strategies in the forthcoming year. Berg cautioned that universities risk losing trust among faculty, staff, and students if they appear to prioritize funding over fundamental principles like academic freedom, signaling a conditional or negotiable commitment rather than unwavering support.