Trump's NIH axed research grants even after a judge blocked the cuts

Motives for Cutting Transgender / NIH Research

• Many see the cuts as pure culture-war politics: “trans as the new witches,” a convenient out-group to distract from less popular agendas (tax cuts, deregulation, election manipulation).
• Commenters note the contradiction: politicians claim there’s insufficient evidence on puberty blockers and transition care, while simultaneously defunding the research that could provide that evidence.
• Others frame it as a deliberate strategy: start from the desired answer (“this is bad”), maintain uncertainty as a wedge issue, similar to tactics used against climate science and abortion access.
• One perspective defends reprioritization: voters supposedly want less spending and less focus on gender identity, DEI, vaccines, and climate—though others strongly dispute that Republicans are actually cutting overall spending or helping public health.

Research, Evidence, and Hormone Therapy

• Some argue that transition-related hormones have been studied for decades and are medically well understood, so the research isn’t novel.
• Others insist the risks are serious and further research is justified; the debate itself is portrayed as so politicized that some doubt any new studies would be trusted.
• Side threads correct misconceptions (e.g., GMOs don’t alter human biology in the way some suggest).

Control of Funding, Courts, and the Rule of Law

• A major concern: the administration allegedly ignores court orders and impounds congressionally appropriated funds (NIH, USAID), betting that legal challenges will be too slow.
• Commenters say grants are simply not being paid, not reallocated, with entire programs and institutions (including non-trans-related and cancer trials) suddenly frozen.
• Others push back that legality is still being adjudicated and caution against assuming every action is clearly illegal—but multiple participants counter with examples of halted trials, NIH/NCI layoffs, and new caps on indirect costs as evidence of systemic cuts.

Consequences for Health, Science, and Brain Drain

• Several predict long-term harm: canceled or delayed clinical trials, fewer PhD slots, and loss of research capacity that cannot be quickly rebuilt elsewhere.
• One line of argument calls dire predictions (“you or a loved one will die from a curable disease”) fearmongering; others note high cancer incidence and the central role of public funding in past medical advances.
• There is additional worry about parallel attacks on foreign students and immigration, accelerating brain drain from U.S. medicine and science.

Democracy, Parties, and Citizen Agency

• Thread participants debate whether the U.S. remains a functioning democracy: elections still occur, but many see the separation of powers as eroding and one party as openly hostile to democratic norms.
• Some blame voters directly for choosing Trump over an alternative; others argue the two-party system denies meaningful choice and that both major parties are captured by corporate interests.
• Various electoral reforms (e.g., score voting) are floated as ways out of the two-party trap.
• On what to do, views range from resignation (“nothing we can do”) to calls for local organizing, voting, protesting, and even accepting personal risk—drawing comparisons to civil rights activists and Eastern European dissidents.