Commentary: Trump Administration Threatens Decades of Trauma Research Progress

E. Kate Webb & Christine L. Larson

Section Editor: Sydney Timmer-Murillo
Opinions expressed by the authors are their own and not necessarily those of APA, Division 56, or any member of the editorial board.

Trauma exposure is one of the most significant and prevalent risk factors for chronic mental and physical health conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and chronic pain (American Psychological Association, 2004). For decades, federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Defense (DOD), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have been the leading funders of research on trauma and its consequences in the United States. Federal funding has transformed our understanding of the social, biological, and psychological outcomes of traumatic stress and spurred lifesaving treatments for trauma-related disorders. For example, the NIH funded the first randomized controlled trial of prolonged exposure therapy —the current gold standard treatment for PTSD— as well as brief written exposure therapy. Despite these advancements, trauma remains a major public health issue, impacting up to 90% of Americans and costing over $232 billion each year (Davis et al., 2022). Historically, science informing trauma prevention and the development of interventions to heal from trauma has garnered bipartisan support. However, support for trauma research has been stripped by recent federal policies.

Let’s be clear: scientific research is under attack in the US. Recent Executive Orders (EO) and other actions from the federal government are defunding and censoring science. Research on trauma has directly been targeted. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14151 (The White House, 2025), which seeks to terminate “all ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government.” It has been reported that in response to this EO, federal grants across multiple agencies are being screened for terms suggestive of non-compliance, which may result in modifying or terminating funding of the award (Johnson et al., 2025). This list includes “trauma,” indicating that any trauma-related research is vulnerable to extra levels of review for funding decisions and possible exclusion, regardless of the scientific merit and potential public health benefits.

The recent orders, including EO 14168 (The White House, 2025), which targets sexual and gender minoritized individuals, and EO 14151, also position research focused on preventing trauma exposure and improving outcomes for communities and individuals disproportionately affected at risk for being defunded. In gaining a clearer understanding of the effects of trauma, our field has documented stark inequities: Socioeconomically disadvantaged and minoritized groups bear the greatest and unjust burden of trauma exposure and trauma-related psychopathology (Spoont & McClendon, 2020; Hatch & Dohrenwend, 2007). LGBTQ+ individuals are up to four times more likely to experience a violent assault and nearly 50% of LGBTQ+ individuals meet criteria for PTSD (Valentine et al., 2022). Further, research suggests increased risk for PTSD among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared to non-Hispanic White individuals is driven by lifetime exposure to racism-related stress and exacerbated by limited access to healthcare and a lack of culturally sensitive treatments for PTSD (Webb et al., 2024). Despite these findings, only recently has there been a small increase in federal support for research on health inequities. Now, under the current administration, research progress on traumatic stress and related health inequities is at risk of stagnation and suppression.

The stated intent of EO 14151 is to eliminate “shameful discrimination” in federal grants and other programs that is alleged to result from DEIA initiatives. The list of terms singled out for potential defunding includes, “marginalized,” “minority,” “socioeconomic,” “inequities,” “oppression,” “racially,” “ethnicity,” “gender,” “women,” and “victim.” There are a few terms that are notably absent from this list – “White,” “men,” “wealth,” “hetero,” and “cis.” Thus, applications for research involving marginalized groups will encounter additional scrutiny under the guise of rooting out “discriminatory programs,” whereas research on privileged groups (e.g., wealthy, straight, cis, White, men) is spared from this extra review.

While the administration claims to be opposing discrimination, the list confirms that discrimination against marginalized communities and upholding systems of oppression is the policy of the current administration. The EOs have already resulted in the mass termination of existing awards and the removal of taxpayer-funded, publicly available, datasets (Kozlov & Mallapaty, 2025). Eliminating funding and concealing public health data for projects involving LGBTQ+, ethnoracially minoritized, and other marginalized groups will conceal knowledge of the disproportionate effects of trauma on these communities and create obstacles for delivering care.

In addition to defunding and censoring topics deemed “unscientific” by the Trump Administration, study sections and advisory councils for many grants have been abruptly cancelled, meaning very few new grants can be funded and funding for existing non-competing renewals has been delayed (Kozlov, 2025). The federal government has also sought to dramatically reduce indirect costs on federal grants (National Institutes of Health, 2025). Indirect costs cover the essential operating expenses (facilities, administration) that are not covered by direct research budgets but are nonetheless required to conduct research. Thus, in combination with other policies, federally funded research is actively and intentionally being crippled. Notably, the EOs and the proposed cuts to indirect costs have been temporarily blocked in court (Palmer 2025). However, NIH funding is still being withheld (Molteni & McFarling, 2025), in defiance of court orders, and NIH operations have been crippled by widespread fear of retribution for noncompliance. As a result, a number of key administrators of the extramural program have left.

There is likely more chaos to come. While the details and tactics of the disruptions may change, the bottom line is that this administration seeks to enact dramatic cuts to federal research funding. The damage done by even short-term delays and cuts to federal funding for research will have long-term consequences, including disrupting clinical trials that patients rely on for desperately needed treatment, wasting tax payer money (e.g., purging publicly available dataset, canceling studies before there is return on investment), eliminating diversity supplements and fellowships that particularly affect talented early career scientists and scientists who are already under-represented in our field, and preventing scientists from securing funding to generate new, potentially lifesaving discoveries.

We encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in advocacy to support federal funding for trauma research and to educate friends and colleagues. For those of us at research institutions, we can urge our institutions and other systems to take action that can provide structural support. Institutions should be wary of preemptive compliance with anti-DEIA policies, particularly as EOs are revoked and halted by legal action. Institutions should engage with state leadership to identify how state funding opportunities can help cover funding deficits. Providing financial support, especially at the state-level, for scientists whose research is impacted by the anti-DEIA policies would send a strong message that their work is valued. We can advocate for acknowledgment of the impact these federal actions have had on early career scientists, and for adjustments of tenure expectations. Early career scientists may not have data available to publish. More senior colleagues with available data can share data and resources with early career faculty. Institutional and collegial support will be essential for preventing long-lasting disruptions to the careers of trauma scientists and to trauma research in general.

The rapid changes, uncertainty, and scope of the challenges make it easy to feel overwhelmed and as though our individual efforts don’t matter. That is the intent. However, now is the time for action, and we should prepare for sustained action. Any action, no matter how small, is a positive step. The words of the late Arthur Ashe can serve us well: “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.” Contact your representatives. Create posts about your important research and clinical work on social media. Share posts of other scientists. Have more time? Write letters to the editor, consider writing an op-ed or sharing the importance of trauma science and service on local TV news. The American Psychological Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists have excellent resources for engaging in a broad spectrum of advocacy activities. We encourage you to find others to join with in your advocacy efforts, for social support and to sustain efforts for the long term. While the near future is uncertain, it is clear that collective action from trauma psychologists is needed now more than ever.

Kate Webb, is an Assistant Professor at Duke University where she leads the Biological Embedding of the Environment and Stress (BEES) Laboratory. Her research focuses on understanding the biological underpinnings of stress and trauma-related disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The overarching goal of her work is to determine how socioenvironmental factors, individual characteristics, and neurobiology interact to influence the course of PTSD development. Kate’s work has been published in journals including JAMA Psychiatry, Nature Neuroscience, and Biological Psychiatry and covered by major news outlets such as BBC, Discover, and CNN. Her work has been funded by federal and private organizations, including the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychological Foundation, and the Phyllis & Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation.

Christine Larson, is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and co-founder of the Milwaukee Trauma Outcomes Project. Her research is focused on the neuroscience of emotion and how emotions are regulated, and how life experiences and the environment we live in affects emotion regulation circuits in the brain. She is best known for her work investigating how emotions become dysregulated in posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and her work on how the brain is affected by neighborhood disadvantage and racial discrimination.