Alzheimer’s research is latest casualty in Trump administration war against ‘DEI’

Grant Cancellations at Two Research Universities

At least three research grants totaling $15 million have been canceled at Emory University and the University of Pittsburgh, according to reporting by The Guardian and indy100. The awards were intended to examine how experiences of discrimination, including racism, influence long-term brain health and Alzheimer’s disease risk. Both outlets described the terminations as the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration affecting National Institutes of Health funding for topics linked to diversity, equity and inclusion.

The Guardian reported that the grants had faced months of delay in 2025, during which roughly $65 million in funding for Alzheimer’s research centers was held up. Funds were ultimately awarded in June 2026, only for termination letters to arrive by the end of July. An estimated 7.4 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, The Guardian noted, citing the scale of the public-health challenge the canceled work sought to address.

What the Terminated Projects Examined

The Guardian provided details on the individual awards. Ann Cohen, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, led a project that examined socially driven risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease through surveys, brain imaging and blood samples. Andrea Rosso, an associate professor of epidemiology at the same university, co-led a grant focused on Alzheimer’s risk in divested, predominantly African American neighborhoods. Negar Fani, an associate professor of psychiatry at Emory University, directed research on the effects of racial discrimination on the brain’s white matter.

Rosso, quoted by both The Guardian and indy100, explained the conceptual approach: “We don’t actually measure structural racism. We use that as a framing for why one population is at such high risk.” She added that the team could not design an intervention to halt structural racism itself. Cohen told The Guardian the cancellations represented “clear political interference” and were “so scientifically wrong” that she had difficulty moving past that assessment. All researchers spoke in a personal capacity.

A 2020 fact sheet from the Alzheimer’s Impact Movement, cited by indy100, states that African Americans are about twice as likely as white people to develop Alzheimer’s and other dementias, while Hispanics are roughly one-and-a-half times more likely. The Guardian similarly reported that Black Americans are twice as likely to develop the conditions.

Official Rationale and Broader Context

Termination letters from NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, as described by The Guardian, stated that the projects “no longer effectuate NIH’s priorities” and pointed to a “lack of concrete, objective and measurable variables.” The Guardian framed the cancellations as part of wider administration efforts to remove what it termed “disfavored topics” from the NIH’s roughly $47 billion scientific portfolio.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law, told The Guardian the pattern of actions resembled “test cases.” The same outlet noted that a federal judge had previously ruled certain earlier cancellations illegal, yet the Supreme Court permitted $783 million in NIH funding terminations to proceed.

indy100 linked the episode to the Department of Government Efficiency’s broader campaign against spending it labels wasteful. Both The Guardian and indy100 reported that they contacted the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, and received no response.

Online Reaction

indy100 reported that news of the cancellations drew sharp criticism on social media. Users including the account “evan loves worf” and commentator James Tate posted comments questioning the decisions and connecting them to larger political projects; some described the cuts as “evil.”

Perspectives on the Cancellations

Researchers whose grants were terminated and legal observers quoted by The Guardian characterized the decisions as scientifically unjustified political interference that undermines valid inquiry into documented disparities in Alzheimer’s risk. In the termination correspondence summarized by the same outlet, NIH leadership presented the opposite view: that the projects no longer aligned with agency priorities and lacked sufficiently concrete, objective and measurable variables. No further public explanation from the Department of Health and Human Services has been reported by either outlet.