Federal funding for a major study on puberty blockers resumed in 2026 after researchers revised their grant application to remove explicit references to transgender youth. This followed a pause in 2025, prompted by Trump administration restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The episode underscores ongoing tensions over the use of federal funds for research involving transgender-identifying minors and highlights the scrutiny of grant practices amid shifting political priorities.
Explainer The Battle Over Higher Education’s Future: DEI, Admissions, and Federal Oversight
In January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to halt $780 million in grants broadly categorized as DEI. The White House executive order led to a pause in funding for several studies, including a multi-year project examining the effects of puberty blockers on children’s brains and mental health. The study, which began in 2021, originally focused on comparing mental health outcomes for 66 trans-identifying children given puberty blockers and 66 who were not. The research aimed to assess the impact of these medications on mental health and brain development in youth.
Researchers Revise Grant Language
Documents obtained by California endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that in March 2025, researchers communicated with a federal grants supervisor. In their correspondence, they acknowledged that their study "may generate concerns for the priorities of the current administration." To address these concerns, the researchers proposed removing all references to gender identity from their grant application. Instead, they stated that analyses would be based on sex, sex hormones, and age. The revised application described the study as examining puberty blockers in "adolescents" rather than specifically "transgender adolescents."
The original grant summary had highlighted potential mental health benefits for "transgender youth." In contrast, the revised version omitted any mention of gender identity, focusing instead on the use of puberty blockers in "a number of pediatric populations." Additionally, references to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and its guidelines were removed from the application materials. These changes were intended to align the study with the new federal guidelines and avoid triggering the administration’s restrictions on DEI-related research.
Funding Paused, Then Restored
NIH funding for the study, which had provided roughly $725,000 annually in 2022, 2023, and 2024, was paused in 2025 following the Trump administration’s directive. This pause affected the continuation of the research and placed the future of the project in question. According to Laidlaw’s review of grant records, funding resumed in 2026 after the researchers submitted their revised application, which reflected the changes in the project’s stated aims and language.
Laidlaw argued that these changes "alter the intent and purpose of the entire study," suggesting that the modifications were designed to evade new restrictions while continuing research on transgender-identifying youth. He called for penalties if any grant recipient is found to have misled federal agencies or taxpayers. Laidlaw stated:
"What is not disputable is that the grantees submitted a progress report in 2025 … with very significant changes to the study’s summary and aims. Those changes, in my opinion, alter the intent and purpose of the entire study."
— Dr. Michael Laidlaw, endocrinologist
Concerns Over Grant Transparency
The changes to the grant application have raised questions about transparency in federally funded research and whether the revised study still serves its original purpose. Laidlaw contended that the modifications could constitute deception to maintain funding under anti-DEI policies. Such actions could carry penalties ranging from NIH sanctions to civil or criminal liability for fraudulent submissions, as outlined in NIH grant policy.
While Laidlaw and other critics have called for investigations into the grant revisions, the researchers involved have not publicly addressed the allegations or provided comment on the intent behind the changes. The NIH has not issued a public statement regarding the resumed funding or the modifications to the study’s focus. The lack of public response from both the researchers and the NIH has contributed to ongoing debate about the transparency and oversight of federally funded research in politically sensitive areas.
The dispute comes amid ongoing litigation and congressional scrutiny of federal research funding priorities. A House Oversight Committee letter has questioned NIH practices on research involving gender identity. The outcome of these investigations and the future of similar studies remain uncertain, as policymakers, researchers, and advocacy groups continue to debate the appropriate use of federal funds in research related to gender identity and medical interventions for minors.
The situation illustrates the broader challenges faced by researchers working in areas subject to political and social controversy. As federal funding priorities shift, the language and focus of grant applications may be adjusted to align with current policies, raising questions about the integrity and transparency of the research process. The ongoing scrutiny of NIH grant practices is likely to continue as debates over DEI programs and research involving transgender youth persist.
