The health research Trump really cut when he joked about defunding trans mice

The Trump administration’s tenure saw a controversial targeting of health research funding, epitomized by President Donald Trump’s public ridicule of an $8 million federal grant, which he jestingly claimed was for “making mice transgender.” This seemingly lighthearted jab, delivered during a joint address to Congress, masked a far more serious reality: these National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants were not frivolous expenditures but critical investments supporting vital scientific inquiry into areas such as HIV, asthma, infertility, and breast cancer, with significant implications for public health and scientific progress across diverse populations.

The highly publicized “transgender mice” remark specifically referenced six distinct research efforts aimed at understanding the complex roles of hormones and hormone therapies in disease prevention and treatment. One such study, led by lung disease researcher Patricia Silveyra at Indiana University, focused on how female hormones influence asthma severity. Her work involved genetically modified mice to explore hormonal pathways, with findings holding potential for new drug development benefiting not only cisgender women experiencing hormonal shifts due to pregnancy or contraception but also transgender women. Despite the political rhetoric, Silveyra’s grant, though cited by Trump, ultimately received a one-year, no-cost extension, allowing research continuity without new funding.

Beyond asthma research, another critical project mistakenly labeled as “making mice transgender” aimed to understand how gender-affirming hormone therapy affects the immune system’s response to HIV vaccines, particularly among transgender women who face a disproportionately high risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections globally. Scientists involved, like Aria Arus-Altuz of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute, emphasized that insights from this medical research could broadly benefit cisgender women, who are more susceptible to autoimmune disorders and vaccine adverse effects, and cisgender men, who exhibit higher mortality rates for certain diseases. The termination of such science policy decisions, especially regarding HIV vaccine development, has profound implications for global health equity, given the lack of affordable and accessible treatments in many communities worldwide.

The administration’s science policy extended beyond mouse-centric studies, impacting numerous other LGBTQ-inclusive medical studies. For instance, a $600,000 grant intended to study toxic synthetics in feminine hygiene products and explore natural fiber alternatives was controversially canceled, mischaracterized as focusing on “menstrual cycles in transgender men.” This broader pattern of defunding also hit public health research, including a crucial study led by Sean Arayasirikul at the University of California, Irvine. His research aimed to examine how race- and gender-based stigma affect HIV risk and prevention engagement among 900 LGBTQ people of color, a highly under-researched demographic whose specific health disparities demand targeted investigation and care.

These NIH funding cuts, which reportedly saw over 2,400 grants terminated or delayed according to a New York Times analysis, were widely perceived as driven by a fervent opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. The impacts were not merely financial but deeply affected scientists, especially those who identify as LGBTQ, who felt doubly targeted. The cessation of grants intended to train the next generation of public health professionals in LGBTQ health research and care further compounded concerns, threatening to widen existing health disparities within these communities. This systematic dismantling of medical research initiatives designed to address specific health challenges faced by marginalized groups represents a significant setback for comprehensive public health strategies.

In response to these pervasive cuts, scientists have initiated legal challenges, seeking to reverse the impact on vital medical research. A glimmer of hope emerged when U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young of Massachusetts ordered the restoration of approximately 800 of the revoked or delayed grants, explicitly citing discrimination on the basis of race and against the LGBTQ community. However, the path forward remains uncertain. This ruling applies only to grants named in specific lawsuits and within the 16 states where attorneys general pursued legal action. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing NIH, is currently exploring all legal options, including appeals, casting a long shadow over the stability of future NIH funding and the broader landscape of scientific inquiry.

The ongoing struggle highlights a critical juncture for science policy and LGBTQ health advocacy in the United States. While legal battles offer some immediate relief, the fundamental concerns regarding the politicization of medical research and the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations persist. As Dane Samilo of Out to Innovate aptly noted, these actions seem to “kill two birds with one stone,” targeting both the rights and protections of transgender individuals and the broader funding for science itself. The long-term implications of these Trump administration decisions on public health, scientific innovation, and equitable healthcare access continue to be a profound concern for researchers, clinicians, and affected communities nationwide.