Massachusetts has experienced an unprecedented number of grant terminations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), largely attributed to the Trump administration’s targeted attacks on funding for Harvard University.
Scientists express deep concern over the impact of these cuts, which they believe are not just decimating current research efforts but also jeopardizing the future of scientific discoveries across the United States.
Michael Paasche-Orlow, vice chair for research in the Department of Medicine at Tufts Medical Center, emphasizes the fragility of the scientific ecosystem, stating, “Science is really quite a fragile ecosystem. It’s not something that can just be turned off and then turned back on again. These projects take years to develop.”
Since President Donald Trump took office, approximately one thousand individual grants totaling $2.6 billion have been canceled in Massachusetts, predominantly at Harvard.
According to the independent grant-tracking database Grant Watch, the majority of the 733 NIH grants were already in progress, leaving $1.3 billion unspent.
Furthermore, many of the 250 NSF grants also remain without known sums of funding.
These stark figures highlight an alarming trend: approximately $2.3 billion of grants canceled are tied to Harvard institutions, underscoring how the cuts have disproportionately affected one institution.
A federal judge in Boston is set to hear arguments challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s actions regarding these grant terminations, with lawsuits filed by the American Public Health Association and a coalition of states led by Massachusetts.
Attorneys representing the American Public Health Association, including representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that the NIH’s actions represent an ideologically motivated purge of critical science.
Olga Akselrod, an ACLU attorney, stated that the impacts of the NIH’s actions are unprecedented and destructive, likening them to an ideological attempt to rid science of topics deemed unfavorable by the Trump administration.
The lawsuit argues that these actions are not grounded in scientific rationale but rather in ideological disagreements with the themes of diversity, equity, and health disparities that underpin many important research projects.
“Defendants attempt to justify this ongoing ideological purge of hundreds of critical research projects because they assertedly have some connection to ‘gender identity’ or ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (‘DEI’) or other vague, now-forbidden language,” the lawsuit highlights.
Furthermore, the terminations extend beyond the aforementioned topics to include research related to ‘vaccine hesitancy,’ ‘COVID,’ and various international collaborations.
Nationwide, the NIH has reported a staggering $8.7 billion in grant cancellations, with $3.7 billion now unavailable.
For those affected, such large-scale terminations have not only wasted resources but also halted ongoing initiatives that were expected to yield significant benefits for the public.
At the heart of this crisis is Harvard University, which is facing nearly $3 billion in federal funding losses due to the termination of approximately $2.3 billion in NIH and NSF grants.
The Trump administration has cited concerns over issues such as antisemitism on campus and Harvard’s diversity practices as reasons for these terminations.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s letter to Harvard President Alan Garber indicated that the university should cease applying for federal grants, suggesting it could transition to solely private funding.
Harvard has launched its own legal challenge against the federal government’s actions, emphasizing the importance of its research, which includes critical studies on cancer, infectious diseases, and neurological conditions.
Garber remarked on the damaging effect of these cuts on vital research efforts.
Researchers such as Delaney, who had a supportive NIH grant canceled, fear the implications for their careers, expressing concern about whether they would retain their positions at Harvard amidst these funding cuts.
Similarly, David Corey, whose NIH grant was also terminated, is bracing for potential layoffs and lab closures, worrying about the arbitrary nature of the targeting.
The ripple effects of funding termination are not limited to Harvard.
Other Massachusetts institutions have also seen cuts, including Northeastern University and Boston University, among others, where diverse research projects spanning health disparities, childhood development, and mental health have encountered funding obstacles.
Paasche-Orlow, who lost a significant NIH grant, described the cancellation of a long-term research project as devastating, asserting that restoring lost funding is not as simple as resuming after a break.
The plight of early-career scientists is a particularly troubling aspect of the funding crisis.
Grants aimed at increasing diversity among health research scientists, specifically the Diversity F31 grants, have been among the casualties of the cuts.
These terminations disproportionately affect individuals who applied for diversity-focused funding, often unrelated to the topics being scrutinized by the administration.
As the NIH canceled not just research grants but entire training programs for postdoc researchers like the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA), the future for upcoming scientists looks increasingly uncertain.
Tufts University’s IRACDA program, which supports the development of diverse scholars, was unexpectedly terminated despite its renewal just months prior.
This disruption has raised serious morale concerns among researchers, with some, like Giles Blaney, feeling lost in their career aspirations due to the sudden lack of support.
Even UMass Chan Medical School has felt the repercussions, rescinding Ph.D. offers due to funding uncertainties in the biomedical research field.
Chancellor Michael Collins expressed concern regarding the current climate for emerging scientists, emphasizing the need for continued federal support to maintain America’s leadership in biomedical research.
Looking ahead to future funding prospects, significant questions remain.
The Trump administration’s proposed budget reductions, which suggested more than a 50% cut to NSF funding and nearly a 40% reduction to NIH funding, cast doubt on the viability of ongoing and future research initiatives.
Paasche-Orlow voiced his concern that such drastic cuts would limit funding to only the top-tier grants, leaving a majority of investigators struggling to secure necessary resources to innovate and recruit new talent.
Despite the uncertainty, Collins remains hopeful that America maintains its commitment to biomedical research, positing that unified advocacy among scientists can influence a favorable outcome in future funding decisions.
The future hangs in the balance as Massachusetts and the broader research community brace for the long-term impacts of the administration’s funding cuts.
image source from：https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-06-16/massachusetts-scientists-have-lost-billions-in-federal-funds-now-they-have-their-day-in-court
