Over the past few months, a great deal of national news has focused on the federal funding terminations targeting Ivy League institutions and the political retribution against them, especially Harvard. While the Trump administration has claimed to pursue “woke” universities and colleges and taken aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, federal data on grant terminations show that the administration has targeted more than 4,000 grants for termination to over 600 universities and colleges across the country, affecting institutions in every state.* These data do not account for the billions more of additional funding the administration has frozen for colleges and universities. According to the Trump administration, it has terminated awards valuing between $6.9 billion and $8.2 billion; based on how much of the grants had already been spent by institutions, the administration has targeted between $3.3 billion and $3.7 billion for cuts.** This remaining funding is what the administration has touted as “savings.” While data from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and other federal sources have come under scrutiny for their accuracy, they provide the clearest picture of the Trump administration’s intended impact on a broad cross section of higher education and the communities it serves.
As such, this mapping project aims to show: 1) the widespread nature of grants to institutions of higher education that have been targeted for termination; 2) how much funding the administration claims to have cut or withheld from each institution, including what is verifiable using federal data; and 3) how states, researchers, and students are being affected. Higher education, research and development, and science at large are under attack. This article lays out the damage the administration is intent on inflicting and the cuts they are claiming as victories thus far.
No institution is safe: Grant terminations affect institutions of all kinds
Institutions affected by grant terminations range from some of the country’s largest public universities to private research universities, small liberal arts colleges, and community colleges. As a subset, land-grant universities and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have been particularly affected, with more than two-thirds of all land-grant universities and nearly half of all HBCUs targeted for funding terminations; even individual community colleges have had hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in funding targeted for termination.
Public institutions have had nearly twice the amount of funding targeted, at $2.1 billion in total, compared with private institutions, which have had approximately $1.2 billion targeted in total.
Overall, based on data from the Department of the Treasury, the Trump administration has targeted public universities and colleges the most with funding terminations: Public institutions have had nearly twice the amount of funding targeted, at $2.1 billion in total, compared with private institutions, which have had approximately $1.2 billion targeted in total.
It has become clear that the administration’s policy agenda is not merely to bend higher education institutions to its political will, but that attacking higher education is in and of itself a policy agenda. Vice President JD Vance said during a conference in 2021, “If any of us want to do the things we want to do for our country and the people who live in it – we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” The attack on higher education at large is evident in federal data as universities and colleges in both Republican- and Democrat-governed states are bearing the weight of the government’s funding cuts. In fact, Republican- and Democrat-governed states are facing similar impacts relative to their student populations in terms of funding terminated by the administration. Indeed, the administration may be trying to target institutions it believes are antithetical to its policy agenda, but faculty, students, and researchers across the country are bearing the burdens of grant terminations. As illustrated by the table below, 4 of the 10 states—South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, and South Carolina—that have lost the most funding per student have Republican governors, and six—Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New York—have Democratic governors.
The impacted grants represent critical federal investments in America’s future, and their terminations are evidence that this administration values short-term “savings” over long-term scientific and technological advancements. While the administration has touted terminating grants that do not match its political agenda—such as those related to “diversity” or that are “antithetical to the scientific inquiry”—the terminated grants span a very wide range of focuses and were awarded by 16 departments and agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce. These grants funded research to protect national security, including by reducing America’s energy dependence on foreign countries. They funded projects to improve agricultural practices and sustainability, and provided support for American farmers, including by expanding markets for beef and bison across the Great Plains and assisting farmers and ranchers in implementing climate-smart practices in Texas. They also funded initiatives to promote economic growth, improve and expand entry to the sciences, and encourage entrepreneurship. In addition, numerous Department of Education grants to higher education institutions that were intended to support the K-12 teacher workforce—particularly those made under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program—have been affected by these executive actions.
The majority of grants targeted for termination were awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and funded cutting-edge scientific and medical research and innovation. These grants were given not only to undergraduate schools but also to many medical schools, nursing schools, graduate research labs, and university medical centers. They funded research to improve postdoctoral training in cardiovascular diseases; find new therapies for incurable brain tumors; support recovery after a stroke; study the spread of viruses to prevent global pandemics; better understand the negative health effects of heavy metals in drinking water; understand the chemical exposure health risks affecting kids when they inhale soil and dust; and reduce the risk of illicit opioid use in relation to chronic pain. These grant terminations are also profoundly affecting university and college students. As the map above illustrates, many states are losing hundreds, even thousands of dollars in federal funding for every student in their state. This means that opportunities for students in those states are being limited, including opportunities for research, employment, and professional growth. Resources for research programs help fund labs, libraries, and technology purchases that enrich undergraduate and graduate learning as well as scholarships and salaries for graduate researchers and programs that help build the STEM workforce pipeline. Importantly, research opportunities have also been shown to bolster student success and encourage more students to pursue STEM degrees. Cutting grant programs means directly taking opportunities and resources away from students who benefit in numerous ways from attending universities with robust research programs.
Federal support plays an integral role in funding institutions
In order to understand the gravity of these funding terminations, it is critical for the public to recognize that federal funding cuts to research, development, and innovation at universities and colleges cannot be compensated by contributions from wealthy individuals, philanthropies, or foundations. Currently, about half of Americans believe that “corporations, foundations, and wealthy individuals would fund scientific research to fill the gap created by federal spending cuts.” Public universities that rely on federal and state funding have had tens of millions of dollars in federal funding targeted for termination, while some public university systems have had more than $100 million in federal funding targeted. Over the past few years, there have only been about a dozen donations of $100 million or more to higher education institutions on an annual basis. Philanthropic giving to colleges and universities is most concentrated at elite schools; in 2020, the 20 institutions that received the most donations received 28 percent of these funds, despite only serving 1.6 percent of the country’s undergraduate students. But just over the last few months, approximately 90 institutions have each lost more than $10 million in federal funding, according to federal data.
Many wealthy individuals and organizations have stated or indicated that they cannot compensate for the magnitude and expansiveness of these losses, and many donors are hesitant to open up their wallets due to fears of political retribution from the administration. Additionally, it can be difficult for many institutions, even large and elite institutions, to rely on their endowments for weathering this storm, especially as endowments themselves are under attack. Most endowment funding can be difficult to tap into as it is usually given by donors for specific purposes, and approximately 60 percent of colleges and universities in the United States have endowments of less than $50 million.
Despite all these pressing factors, the solution to funding cuts should not be for institutions to fall back on private individuals or organizations. Research conducted at America’s higher education institutions, especially its public institutions, must be driven by the public’s needs, not the interests of wealthy individuals or organizations. Research and development grants are public investments in America’s future. They should be a government priority, and the administration should not be able to unilaterally cancel grants that Congress—an equal and independent branch—appropriated to agencies and that federal departments and agencies awarded out to institutions months and even years ago.
Dismantling research and development at universities and colleges will hurt the economy and American competitiveness
Taken together, the Trump administration’s assault on higher education will do irreparable harm to research and development in the United States and the economy for years, even decades. Academic experts estimate that cuts to NIH and NSF funding alone will cost the U.S. economy between $10 billion and $16 billion annually in decreased economic output. Additionally, researchers estimate that proposed cuts to NIH funding would result in nearly 70,000 jobs lost nationwide. Losses in economic output are supported by estimates from the United for Medical Research coalition that find every $1 invested in scientific research through the NIH produces $2.56 in new economic activity. In general, based on economic analysis, federal investments in research and development have high rates of return and exceed nearly every other form of public or private investment. Another way to look at these cuts: A dollar saved by the Trump administration today on NIH funding is the loss of $2.56 in returns.
$10B–16B
Estimated annual cost of NIH and NSF funding cuts in the form of decreased U.S. economic output
70K
Estimated number of jobs that would be lost nationwide as a result of proposed NIH funding cuts
$2.56
Loss in returns that would result from every dollar saved by the Trump administration’s NIH cuts
75%
Share of polled U.S. scientists who said they are considering leaving the United States for Europe or Canada following the disruptions prompted by the administration
The cancellation of thousands of grants, along with ensuing litigation, has added to the instability that experts and researchers have faced over the past few months. The result is an overwhelmingly hostile environment in which most professors, scientists, and researchers do not want to work. In addition to funding uncertainties and massive budget cuts proposed to federally funded research, professors, scientists, and researchers have also been subjected to antagonistic immigration procedures, visa uncertainties at large, and even threats to revoke visas, as well as proposals from the administration to censor scientific publication.
The situation has grown so dire that 75 percent of scientists now say they are considering leaving their positions in the United States for Europe or Canada. Countries have already started recruiting U.S. researchers looking to leave, with France even setting up a “Safe Place For Science” program, which promotes “a safe and stimulating environment for scientists wishing to pursue their research in complete freedom.” The significant grant terminations and proposed budget slashes for federal science funding underscore that science and research in the United States are subject to the political winds of the day; they send the entire world a message that the research and innovation environments in the United States are not reliable in the long run. Compromising America’s research and innovation infrastructure in this way undermines the nation’s competitive edge across the globe and gives way for other countries, including China, to attract talent fleeing the United States and become the global leader in research and innovation. Already, China undertakes more research on artificial intelligence than the United States, the U.K., and the EU combined. The United States should be investing more, not less, in scientific research in order to maintain its scientific and geopolitical edge in the future.
The significant grant terminations and proposed budget slashes for federal science funding underscore that science and research in the United States are subject to the political winds of the day.
Colleges and universities form the bedrock of cutting-edge research, innovation, and opportunity in the United States and deliver programs that benefit their local communities as well as the nation as a whole. Grant dollars invested in institutions of higher education not only result in important advancements; they directly contribute to economic output and ensure that the United States remains a global leader in research and development. They also support faculty, students, and the broader communities they serve. When U.S. colleges and universities are under attack, science, innovation, and opportunity are under attack; and the very infrastructure that has helped sustain this country risks being dismantled. The damage being done today will reverberate for years to come.
It is imperative that institutions of higher education band together to stand up to the administration and rally their communities against this far-reaching attack. Data from this analysis show that no institution, big or small, is exempt from being targeted, and that the future success of many of these institutions and the future health and prosperity of Americans is on the line.
Methodology
Data for this project were collected from three primary sources: DOGE.gov’s “Wall of Receipts”; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) list of terminated grants; and the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Service’s USAspending site. All DOGE data was downloaded on July 3, 2025, HHS data on July 5, 2025, and USAspending data on July 5, 2025. The data only include information on grants the administration has targeted for termination, not grants that have been “frozen,” and data for terminated contracts are not included. Because DOGE data in particular have come under scrutiny for their accuracy, the authors pulled additional information from USAspending to compare DOGE’s award “values” and “savings” for each grant with the obligation and outlay amounts published on USAspending for that same grant. The authors gathered the raw data for grants from DOGE.gov’s “Wall of Receipts” grants section using the site’s new API. They then parsed the award IDs for all grants with a USAspending.gov link and ran all of them through USAspending’s API, which produced a rich dataset with each grant award and the corresponding USAspending.gov link. In order to calculate the amount of funding remaining in each grant (remaining value) prior to its termination, the authors subtracted the grant’s outlay amount from its total obligated value.
While DOGE has published some HHS grant terminations for higher education institutions—681 grants—HHS published more than 1,346 terminated grants to higher education institutions. To account for all terminated HHS grants, the authors compared the datasets for duplicates, and the data analysis for this report includes information on 2,089 HHS grants. From this the authors developed two datasets, one for data published by DOGE and HHS to represent what the administration has claimed as “savings,” and one data for USAspending data in order to show what is verifiable through that government database. For grants published on HHS’ list of terminated grants, the award value and savings the department claimed matched what was published on USAspending. Therefore, in these instances, the award value and terminated value (“savings”) are the same in both the DOGE/HHS dataset and the USAspending dataset, as these values are both what the administration claimed and what is verifiable on USAspending.
In some cases, there was no grant award ID listed by DOGE for a terminated grant, and therefore the authors were unable to pull USAspending data for that grant; in other cases, the USAspending link for a grant did not work or was listed as “currently unavailable.” In both of these cases, the authors were not able to calculate amounts for award value and terminated value for the USAspending dataset, and therefore these values were left blank for some grants.
There were numerous discrepancies in “savings” between what was reported on DOGE.gov and the USAspending.gov information available for that grant. In some instances, the remaining value of a terminated grant was more, and in some cases less than the “savings” DOGE reported. In some instances, this may be because DOGE accounted for the possible value of a grant by including nonfederal funding.
For each institution with terminated grants, the authors summed up the total award value of the terminated grants as well as the total remaining value of the grants. They did this for both DOGE and HHS grants as a dataset, and separately for the USAspending data. As noted, while there is ongoing litigation around NIH grants in particular—which appear as terminated grants on the HHS list—the authors included data on these grants to represent the damage the administration intends to inflict, including the funds that it means to claw back and projects it aims to cancel.
The data for some institutions in this report do not match data or funding cut figures calculated or released by individual institutions. This is likely due to discrepancies in federal data reporting as well as how some institutions are calculating their cuts. For example, some institutions may not be counting grants that have been reinstated by court orders in their current termination figures, despite the administration moving to appeal these rulings and thereby continuing its attempts to terminate them. Additionally, reporting indicates that despite a court order to reinstate NIH grants, those reinstatements are not occurring in all cases. In other cases, grants may have been reinstated by the administration on a case-by-case basis, as a result of lobbying by lawmakers or public pressure. This dataset may not reflect reinstatements that are not recorded in the publicly available data and as a result, may differ from those numbers reported by individual institutions or other sources. For example, Johns Hopkins University has publicly stated the administration has terminated $800 million in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) grants to the institution; however, the administration claimed award values and savings for the terminated USAID grants at much lower amounts compared with what the university has reported. The authors recognize that individual institutions likely have the best figures for the funds they have had terminated, but they believe it is important to publish data as reported by the federal government to keep the government accountable and for public transparency.
Institutions that are part of multicampus or multi-institution systems were treated as individual if they had individual Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) unit IDs, e.g., if they report their federal data as individual or separate. For those in multicampus or multi-institution systems, the total for the systems was also calculated. For example, all of Harvard’s undergraduate and graduate schools were considered as part of the same institution, but Cornell University’s medical campus is treated as a different institution under IPEDS, so the authors treated it as a separate institution for their analysis. However, to illustrate how institution systems, such as the University of Texas system or University of California system, are being affected as a whole, the authors calculated grant award values and remaining values across recognized institution systems.
Lastly, the authors wanted to demonstrate how states are being affected in terms of terminated grant funding that had been allocated to higher education institutions located in each state. The authors believe this provides an important perspective on how the state’s student body, educators, researchers, and communities served by its institutions will be affected. To do this, the authors used the sum of funds targeted for each institution in a state and divided it by the postsecondary student population in the state, or the 12-month full-time equivalent enrollment of both undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Title IV-eligible and U.S. service institutions in each state in the 2022-23 academic year according to the IPEDS “12-month enrollment component.”
For a detailed table including the data depicted above, please see here.
*Authors’ note: On June 16, a federal judge ruled that hundreds of NIH grant terminations were done illegally and ordered the funds to be reinstated. Approximately 900 grants stand to be reinstated based on the judge’s ruling. Yet the Trump administration has filed a motion to appeal, meaning the grants could remain canceled. Additionally, reporting indicates that despite the order to reinstate funding, grants are not being reinstated in all states. The authors used information on more than 4500 grant terminations—with the status of 900 of these grants now in question under the ongoing litigation. Because of appeals and inconsistencies in reinstatements, and to show an overall representation of the damage the administration intends to inflict on higher education institutions and research, the authors opted to include information on grants being litigated.
**Authors’ note: Based on DOGE and HHS data, the administration has terminated grants valued at more than $8.2 billion, with $3.7 billion remaining of the grants prior to their termination (“savings”). However, given public reporting of the administration inflating savings, the authors compared the award values and remaining funds for the grants the administration has targeted with government data from USAspending using award ID numbers. Based on USAspending data for the same set of grants, the grant awards were valued at $6.9 billion, with $3.3 billion remaining of the grants prior to their termination.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jared C. Bass, Sara Partridge, Bill Rapp, Alice Lillydahl, Bianca Serbin, Steve Bonitatibus, Beatrice Aronson, and others for contributing their talent and efforts to this analysis, including by putting together data and visualizations as well as by editing.