Grants That Could Have Made a Real Impact

A number of the canceled grants were deeply aligned with urgent priorities in addiction and behavioral health including:

University of Florida Project Title: “Digital Interventions to Reduce Binge Drinking in Emerging Adults”

This grant aimed to tackle binge drinking among young adults — a major risk factor for overdose, sexual assault, and long-term substance use disorders.

Meharry Medical College Project Title: “Behavioral Health Workforce Training for Underserved Populations”

At a time of crisis in the behavioral health workforce, this grant supported training providers to serve high-need communities — a critical area for equitable access.

Columbia University Project Title: “Community-based Approaches to Address Behavioral Health Inequities”

Ground-level interventions focused on marginalized populations could have helped reduce disparities in care, particularly in urban settings.

University of Central Florida Project Title: “Technology-Enhanced Peer Recovery Support”

This innovative approach aimed to pair digital tools with peer support for people exiting treatment — directly targeting the post-discharge relapse window.

Grants That May Raise Eyebrows

Some terminated grants, that focused primarily on academic curiosity or niche research, are likely to be viewed as frivolous and lacking in public support. Here are some examples:

Research on gender expression in rodents

Multiple grants related to studying gender identity and behavior in animals were terminated, prompting critiques from both sides of the political aisle about the relevance and optics of the spending.

Abstract or exploratory grants lacking clear public health translation

Some funded work lacked a direct line to improving health outcomes, workforce support, or access to care — a point likely not lost on a fiscally conservative administration.

Social signaling among niche identity groups

Projects studying micro-social interactions among very specific populations (e.g., niche internet communities) may be seen as disconnected from core NIH health priorities.

What This Signals

The NIH grant terminations, combined with broader cuts at HHS, signal a new era in federal research funding. HHS will scrutinize grants with a more rigorous filter and a push for high-impact and visible return-on-investment projects.

Here is what that means to those applying for grants:

• Expect less tolerance for academic curiosity as the end result.
• There will be more demand for outcome-driven, scalable solutions
• Grants that tie directly to real-world health improvements will rise to the top.

What Grantees and Providers Should Do Next

1. Get Ahead of the Shift by reframing proposals to focus on measurable outcomes, workforce impact, and cost-effectiveness.
2. Demonstrate Community Relevance and focus on grants that link to vulnerable populations, digital health innovation, or care coordination.
3. Leverage Other Funding Sources With NIH pulling back, programs should pursue opioid abatement funds, philanthropy, and value-based care partnerships.

Final Thought