The Trump administration canceled an NIH grant that funded an Alzheimer’s study of roughly 600 older adults in two low-income, majority-Black Pittsburgh neighborhoods and gave researchers just 90 days to close the project. That abrupt termination prevented planned adjudication of cognitive test results—delaying diagnoses and care despite more than $10 million already spent. University of Pittsburgh investigators have appealed and joined a lawsuit alleging political targeting of research; experts warn grant disruptions risk public health, especially for underserved groups.
NIH Grant Cut Leaves 600 Pittsburgh Participants Without Promised Alzheimer’s Test Results
'Researchers were given 90 days to shut down the study – more than five months earlier than planned.'Photograph: Popartic/Getty Images
Scientific funding decisions under the Trump administration have forced researchers to abruptly close an Alzheimer’s study involving roughly 600 older adults in two low-income, predominantly Black Pittsburgh neighborhoods. Investigators say the termination—announced in August—gave them just 90 days to wind down a project that had months of work remaining, preventing the planned adjudication of cognitive test results that participants were promised.
The project, led by Tamara Dubowitz and Andrea Rosso of the University of Pittsburgh, examined how neighborhood built and social environments—including areas historically subjected to redlining—may influence Alzheimer’s risk. The federal government had invested more than $10 million in the study across five years; at the time of the cancellation researchers had completed data collection and were preparing for an expert review of participants’ cognitive status.
Why Results Matter
Researchers warn that preventing or delaying delivery of cognitive test results can have serious public-health consequences. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s and other dementias is critical to accessing interventions that can slow progression and to planning care. The adjudication process the team planned would have involved specialists such as neuropsychologists and geriatric psychiatrists—clinicians who are in high demand and can have long wait times.
Broader Pattern Of Grant Disruptions
Advocates and researchers say this cancellation is part of a wider pattern of grant disruptions tied to the administration’s effort to reshape federal scientific funding and to eliminate what it calls "DEI" (diversity, equity and inclusion) priorities. Monitoring group Grant Witness reported that more than 5,700 NIH-funded medical awards were suspended, canceled or otherwise disrupted in the past two years; more than 4,500 were later restored. A JAMA analysis found canceled clinical trials nationwide affected over 74,000 participants, spanning topics from childhood hearing loss to pain during cesarean delivery.
Critics contend some cancellations target research into health disparities and underserved communities. Black Americans face roughly twice the risk of Alzheimer’s disease as white Americans but remain underrepresented in research—of more than 12,000 Alzheimer’s brain-imaging studies, only about 700 report participants’ race, and studies that do report race average more than 87% white participants.
Legal Fight And Institutional Response
The University of Pittsburgh and the investigators have appealed the cancellation and are named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging political censorship and improper targeting of research. The university said it is following administrative appeals processes and remains hopeful for a favorable outcome.
"Censoring research can have life-or-death consequences," said Olga Akselrod, senior counsel with the ACLU’s racial justice program. "It is dangerous for public health when research is censored based on political litmus tests, particularly when it targets work designed to address the needs of underserved populations."
The administration defended the decision, stating the grant "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities" and asserting concerns about the study’s alignment with NIH priorities for concrete, measurable health outcomes. Legal analysts say selective cancellations may be testing grounds for setting new precedents in court as the administration seeks greater control over the federal grant-making apparatus.
Participants such as 70-year-old Roderick Blair of Homewood described the termination as punitive, while researchers emphasize that returning participants’ results was an ethical commitment made during consent that cannot be met under the expedited shutdown timeline. The university and investigators continue to seek administrative review and a one-year no-cost extension to complete adjudication and return results to participants.
Help us improve.
