Leaders at the University of California, the nation's top recipient of federal research funding, are raising questions and concerns about the effects of a temporary Trump administration freeze on research grant reviews announced this week.
The administration abruptly canceled some National Institutes of Health review sessions and advisory board meetings, where scientific experts gather to evaluate grant proposals before funding recommendations are finalized. NIH is the largest funder of UC federal research, providing $2.6 billion in 2023-24 — 62% of the university's federal awards that year.
Federal funds power UC's vast research institute, which includes more than 10,000 grants in infectious disease, brain injury, vaccines, Alzheimer's and other scientific and medical fields.
UC leaders are trying to assess the impact of the grant review suspension stemming from orders by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to suspend communications, travel and public activities.
It is common practice for new presidential administrations to temporarily suspend certain agency functions while they review them; A Jan. 21 order from the Department of Health and Human Services said it was “consistent with precedent” and would last until Feb. 1.
UC San Francisco Vice Chancellor for Research Harold R. Collard told his teachers he expects to “return to normal activities soon.”
“This is not unprecedented, and we believe it is intended to allow the new administration time to establish its leadership,” Collard wrote.
But researchers fear that if the suspension of the world's largest funder of biomedical research continues for weeks or months after Feb. 1, it could halt life-changing work.
Trump's actions have sparked concerns across the university system's 10 campuses, six academic medical centers and 20 health professional schools, a senior UC leader said.
Researchers at UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Davis have confirmed receiving federal notices that grant reviews have stopped; A “cease and desist” order was received, a UC official said, adding confusion over which part of the research project should be halted. Research program leaders have stopped their jobs and asked whether graduate students should continue to be paid. Another researcher was at an online NIH study session this week when the meeting ended abruptly without explanation and participants were locked out.
“There are a lot of concerns out there,” a UC official told the Times. “My main message to everybody is that we have to stay calm. We're not making assumptions. We're going to gather facts.
Christine Liu, a postdoctoral researcher in UC San Francisco's Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences whose salary is funded by the NIH, said her immediate work was not affected by the suspension. But he worries about future research opportunities as he prepares funding applications.
“We're all concerned about our own finances and stability, but this is very important for long-term scientific progress,” said Liu, who is studying mice as part of an effort to better understand schizophrenia and other brain problems. “Any small change in schedules can have a far-reaching impact on whether a drug can go to market in a few years or whether people can receive life-saving surgeries or treatments in clinical trials.”
Christian Casares, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive science at UC San Diego who researches autism, also receives NIH funding.
While immediate pay and research do not appear to be in jeopardy, Casares said he worries about future jobs, especially as the Trump administration rolls back diversity, equity and inclusion programs that have put federal employees in those areas on paid leave.
“I am currently funded. But the people running the scheme who fund me are on paid leave. We haven't heard from them about what will happen next year when the grant is said to be renewed,” Casares said. “I don't know if I will have the job I have.
“The suspension of NIH communications feels like part of a larger shift and an attack on science because there's a skepticism about our work or who's chosen to do it when it's actually very competitive and beneficial to society as a whole.”
At UC Davis, a researcher told the Times that the U.S. Department of Agriculture notified him last week that his funding had been approved — only to be asked this week that the funding had been put on hold.
“The incoming administration has placed a moratorium on awarding any new grants,” the USDA email informed him.
Other researchers have reported no disruption to their USDA- or NIH-funded research and have received no communication from the agencies. But two Avian flu meetings A researcher who had planned to attend said “last-minute cancellations” with the CDC and USDA.
The Trump order doesn't just affect UC researchers. Ted Mitchell, president of the Council on American Education — which represents 1,600 universities and colleges — said many of his members were shocked by the sudden move. Dorothy Fink, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced the “immediate suspension” on Tuesday. Some researchers had already gone to their meetings, only to find them canceled, a UC official said.
“They're worried about the suddenness of the shutdown and obviously worried that it's a sign of things to come,” Mitchell said. “I think this campaign created a lot of harmful rhetoric about the politicization of education and research. So we're interested to see if that continues in actual policy.
A USC scientist working in the NIH research division received word Wednesday that an orientation meeting for new reviewers scheduled for the next day had been canceled. The chairman of the committee asked them to continue their work on the assumption that the meetings would resume as scheduled after February 1, he said.
While it's an inconvenient time to cancel meetings — the deadline for the first funding cycle of the year for many grant types falls on Jan. 25 — a temporary pause in communication is manageable, Mitchell said.
But if it goes on for weeks or months, it can present major challenges.
Without NIH money, “research labs were closed. University budgets are getting pinched,” said the USC scientist. “Grants pay not just for experiments, but for training. They pay for graduate students. We're training the next generation of scientists.
John MacMillan, UC Santa Cruz vice chancellor for research, said even if the suspension is lifted on Feb. 1, rescheduling meetings will take time and could delay funding decisions for at least two or three months. “Especially for our younger scientists, the interruption of their work and its long-term consequences can be profound.”
“Life-changing research is the engine that drives innovation in the state of California and is heavily dependent on federal research dollars,” he said.
Some researchers also worry that the Trump administration will reduce or reduce funding in areas that conflict with its political ideology. UC's largest federal award last year, a $173 million grant to UC San Francisco for the California Immunization and Childhood Immunizations Program — could be the target. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's pick for health secretary and an opponent of vaccines.
But UC officials say the university's research enjoys broad bipartisan support. Actually, a Trump's Attempt to Cut NIH Funding $1.2 billion in 2017 was rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress, which gave the agency a $2-billion increase.
In an email to the UC community, UC Associate Vice President for Federal Government Relations Christopher Harrington said, “We are in close contact with members of the state congressional delegation — 54 members, including nine Republicans — to ensure the implications for the research community are properly informed and fully understood by lawmakers.”
“We work as a research leadership team at the University of California … on both sides of the aisle. And we have very rich conversations, and the audience is impartial,” said a senior UC president.
“We value the relationships we have on both sides of the aisle because we all benefit from advancing the work.”