Scientific funding cuts imposed by the Trump administration may force researchers to close a study on Alzheimer’s disease risk among 600 aging people without sharing the results of cognitive tests with participants – even though researchers have all the data to do so.

The Trump administration canceled a federal research grant studying two low-income, majority Black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in August. Researchers were given 90 days to shut down the study – more than five months earlier than planned. Now, they lack the time and money to assess data collected from trial participants.

As a result, the funding cuts have the potential to unnecessarily delay diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or dementia syndromes in the group – diseases whose treatments rely on early diagnosis.

Over the course of the last two years, the Trump administration has canceled, frozen and otherwise disrupted more than 5,700 medical research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), according to Grant Witness, which tracks changes to funding. More than 4,500 has since been restored. The cancelation of clinical trials alone has impacted more than 74,000 participants nationally, a Jama study showed. A wide range of studies have been impacted, from those examining childhood hearing loss to pain during cesarean delivery, Jama found.

The cuts are part of the Trump administration’s upheaval of federal scientific grants, which have attempted to remake US science in line with the president’s priorities, often in the name of ridding the government of “DEI”, or diversity, equity and inclusion.

Researchers at Pitt are now also named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the NIH, which argues that the administration is attempting to censor research whose conclusions it disfavors.

“The plaintiff’s experiences and stories here really evidence that censoring research can have life or death consequences,” said Olga Akselrod, senior counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s racial justice program, and one of the lead litigators in the case. “It is dangerous for public health when research is censored based on political litmus tests, and particularly when it targets areas of research designed to address the needs of underserved populations that disproportionately experience negative health outcomes and some of the most accute health disparities.”

In the canceled study, Tamara Dubowitz and co-researcher Andrea Rosso, an associate professor of epidemiology and expert in brain health at the University of Pittsburgh, examined how the built and social environments of neighborhoods may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The two neighborhoods being studied were historically ‘red-lined’ – areas denied access to mortgages, loans or insurance based on race.

Black Americans are twice as likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s disease compared to white counterparts, but far less likely to be included in studies. In just one example, of more than 12,000 brain imaging studies on Alzheimer’s disease, only around 700 report race at all. Studies that do report race have more than 87% white participants.

Researchers argue the administration has poorly defined its view of “DEI” and conflated the term with health equity – the study of how groups of people have different health outcomes, and the umbrella under which the Pittsburgh grant falls.

Experts have also warned that grant cancellations “will kill” Americans. In the case of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, early diagnosis is critical. There is no cure for the disease, and treatments to slow its progression are best used early in the disease course.

Roderick Blair, a 70-year-old trial participant who lives in the Homewood neighborhood, said the grant cancellation is a “clear” form of retribution for daring to examine links between the health of Black Americans and structural racism.

“If you don’t agree with me, you’re going to go to the woodshed,” said Blair, later adding, “What has this administration done that has not been a retribution?”

The study was designed to assess cognitive decline over the course of 18 months to two years. Trial participants took lengthy cognitive tests – often lasting hours and including deeply personal survey questions about childhood trauma.

At the time the grant was cut, researchers had just finished data collection and were preparing for an “adjudication of cognitive status”. In adjudications, experts meet and reach a consensus on the outcome of the tests. The tests were expected to be assessed by a neuropsychologist and geriatric psychiatrist – in-demand experts whom even a well resourced patient might wait up to a year to see, the researchers said. The federal government has already invested more than $10m into the study over five years.

Those results were promised to participants when they gave their consent to be part of research, and are impossible to deliver in the timeframe given to researchers for closure. Researchers said they had hoped for a one year, no-cost extension, since funds were frozen for months in the midst of research, thanks to the same DEI-related upheaval. The University of Pittsburgh and the researchers are appealing the grant cancelation.

“The University of Pittsburgh is in the process of submitting appeals to the National Institutes of Health regarding the agency’s recent termination of these awards,” said Jared Stonesifer, head of communications. “These appeals represent the first step in the administrative process meant to act as a pathway for the University, as the recipient of the grants, to seek review of funding decisions. The University believes these appeals are supported by a strong legal foundation and will present its position through the appropriate channels. While the process is ongoing, the University remains hopeful for a favorable resolution.”

Dubowitz said the appeal argues that delivering results to participants, “is part of an ethical, orderly closeout, but we don’t know whether they are in agreement that that is the case”.

The Trump administration has argued this grant, “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” and that “the lack of concrete, objective, and measurable variables is not in alignment with NIH’s priorities related to ‘promoting research focused on scientifically valid measurable health outcomes.’”

Beginning in 2025, the administration canceled thousands of scientific grants. Although many canceled grants were reinstated after litigation by research institutions, the administration has continued to quietly cancel more research in 2026, including most recently the grant in question at Pittsburgh, a second on Alzheimer’s at the same institution, and a third at Emory University.

Legal experts argue the targeted cancelations appear to be test cases for making cancelations stick in court. They come as the administration is seeking to move the entire $1tn federal grant-making apparatus under the control of political appointees.

“The most important thing that they added on every year was trust,” said Blair, about researchers at Pitt. “They always gave you feedback on what you got, how you did, what you could do better.”