*This article was written before February 21st, when U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson granted a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts they considered in support of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs (The Associated Press).
Within just one week in office, President Trump and his administration issued several anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) executive orders. These resulted in a temporary freeze of funding federal programs while they are under review for compliance with Trump’s orders (Sharma). In addition to freezing funding, the Trump administration has announced significant budget cuts for funding allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds and conducts the majority of medical research in the United States. The cuts include a reduction of reimbursement for indirect costs, which is normally 50% at elite universities, to a universal cap of 15% (Sherman). These indirect costs pay for staff, utilities, facility maintenance, and equipment necessary for studies to occur. In general, these cuts to NIH funding will affect all Americans; however, women and marginalized groups will be targeted most.
Trump’s initiatives order a halt to all projects that do not abide to anti-DEI executive orders. Any research project that includes a list of “trigger words” will be flagged for a review of funding, potentially forbidding studies on any topic related to diversity or equality altogether (Mukherjee). Some examples of trigger words include ‘advocacy’, ‘bias’, ‘disability’, ‘diversity’, ‘female’, ‘gender’, ‘hate speech’, ‘historically’, ‘marginalised’, ‘oppression’, ‘racially’, ‘socioeconomic’, and ‘women’ (Mukherjee).
Trump’s censorship in the name of anti-DEI will severely limit scientists in the research they are able to pursue due to strict funding requirements. Not only will this undermine decades of research, but it will also prevent progress in already under-investigated fields like women’s health. Clearly, the trigger words like ‘women’ and ‘female’ are targeted and will significantly reduce the number of studies being conducted on women’s healthcare due to withdrawn funding. Considering words such as ‘white’ and ‘men’ are not on the trigger list, the majority of research will be solely focused on those groups as pointed out by public health scientist Rebecca Fielding-Miller (Sharma).
Trump’s executive orders will have devastating effects on women’s health research for years to come, even if the orders are eliminated after his second term. Many current studies will cease completely, hindering progress. Women’s health scientists are losing their jobs at alarming rates, leading to many being forced to switch careers (Sherman). Furthermore, detrimental effects will continue to occur as a lack of research leads to increasingly negative health outcomes.
The United States experiences a maternal mortality rate at a far higher rate than other developed countries—and it’s getting worse with over 80% of deaths being preventable (Gunja et al.). A halt on research will exacerbate this women’s health issue, among others. Since other words like ‘marginalised’ and ‘race’ trigger review for funding, intersectionality intensifies this issue even further. In America, Black women have a maternal mortality rate 2.6-4x higher than white women. Studies have found that on 52% of measures such as healthcare accessibility and care process, Black people experience worse-quality care than white people (Gunja et al.). Studies focusing on maternal mortality rates in different racial groups that exposed this disparity would not be funded under the current Trump administration. Similar studies imperative for women’s health still need to be conducted, but Trump’s executive orders act as a barrier.
However, it is important to note that this hindrance will not impact only women; anyone who is not white, a male, straight, cis-gender, rich, able-bodied, et cetera will be harmed by Trump’s actions. This is not a partisan issue; I believe everyone can agree regardless of political affiliation that these policies are reckless and dangerous. If not you directly, there is no doubt that someone you know does not fit into all of the categories I listed above. So please, educate yourself, raise awareness, and use your voice – especially during midterm elections.
Works Cited
Gunja et al. “Insights into the U.S. Maternal Mortality Crisis: An International Comparison.” The Com. Fund, 4 June 2024, URL: www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2024/jun/insights-us-maternal-mortality-crisis-international-comparison. Accessed 27 February 2025.
Mukherjee, Vasudha. “Could using words like ‘female’, ‘trauma’ jeopardise US research grants?” Bus. Stand, 10 February 2025, URL: www.business-standard.com/world-news/nsf-research-grant-review-trump-orders-dei-keywords-scrutiny-women-trauma-125021000459_1.html. Accessed 27 February 2025.
Sharma, Amita. “Federal list of forbidden words may jeopardize research at UCSD.” KPBS Pub. Med., 7 February 2025, URL: www.kpbs.org/news/economy/2025/02/07/federal-list-of-forbidden-words-may-jeopardize-research-at-ucsd. Accessed 27 February 2025.
Sherman, Carter. “‘A scary time to be a scientist’: how medical research cuts will hurt the maternal mortality crisis.” Guardian, 15 February 2025, URL: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/15/trump-medical-research-funding-maternal-mortality. Accessed 25 February 2025.
The Associated Press. “Judge Largely Blocks Trump’s Executive Orders Ending Federal Support for DEI Programs.” NPR, 21 Feb. 2025, URL: www.npr.org/2025/02/21/nx-s1-5305287/trump-dei-programs-executive-order-judge. Accessed 01 Mar. 2025.