UNC Lifts NIH Funding Above Biden-Era Levels as Trump Cuts Wipe Out Nearly 150 Grants
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Nov 14
UNC Lifts NIH Funding Above Biden-Era Levels as Trump Cuts Wipe Out Nearly 150 Grants
3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Nov 14
Summary
UNC ended the fiscal year with NIH funding slightly above its Biden-era level, even after receiving about 900 awards—roughly 130 fewer than the prior average.
That resilience followed a conciliatory strategy toward the Trump administration: quiet lobbying, direct ties to the White House budget office, and a refusal to broadly challenge cuts in court.
The trade-off was steep on campus. Nearly 150 grants were terminated or hit with stop-work orders by late September, major projects were disrupted, and administrators circulated guidance to avoid more than 50 terms such as “diversity” and “climate crisis.”
UNC also preserved access to federal money by signing an October Justice Department agreement closing 19 inquiries, while pledging compliance with Trump priorities on DEI, admissions and discipline of student groups.
Faculty mistrust deepened as researchers lost jobs, projects and colleagues, underscoring how UNC's funding gains came alongside a narrower, more politically constrained research environment.
Can a university claim true success if saving its financial foundation means sacrificing vital public health and equity research?
What is the hidden cost when an institution chooses quiet compliance over open conflict to protect millions in federal grants?
UNC’s $600 Million NIH Lifeline: Surviving Federal Grant Cuts, Political Oversight, and the Human Cost
Overview
Amid sweeping federal funding disruptions and shifting research priorities, UNC-Chapel Hill managed to keep its NIH funding stable by strategically redirecting research toward favored fields like AI and advanced pharmaceuticals, even as the number of new grants dropped sharply. This resilience was achieved through a combination of proposal language adjustments, targeted lobbying to protect indirect cost rates, and securing large mega-grants to offset losses in traditional public health and DEI-focused projects. Despite these efforts, the university still faced significant grant terminations, forced project restructurings, and a chilling effect on research in marginalized and public health areas, highlighting the deep human and institutional costs of systemic politicization.