Listen to this article
Download AudioTrump’s DEI Cuts Harm Black Infant Health Research
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
Attacks on Black Infant Health Research
The Trump administration has significantly reduced funding for research specifically focused on Black infant health. This action comes under the guise of dismantling what it labels as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives (newsone.com). This move has sparked considerable concern among medical professionals and advocates for racial health equity.
One notable instance involves a federally funded study in Detroit. This research aimed to understand why Black babies are disproportionately born prematurely. However, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) abruptly terminated the study (newsone.com). The NIH claimed the project relied on “artificial and non-scientific categories” linked to DEI, asserting it did not “enhance health or advance science” (newsone.com). Researchers involved in the study strongly dispute this explanation, calling the decision politically motivated (newsone.com). This cancellation aligns with a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives across the federal government, including within health and science agencies. Many projects focused on minority and LGBTQ health have faced defunding under this same rationale (newsone.com).
Understanding DEI and “Non-Scientific Categories”
The term Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) generally refers to frameworks and practices designed to promote fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially those from groups that have been historically underrepresented or subject to discrimination. In the context of health research, DEI initiatives aim to address systemic disparities and ensure that research benefits all populations equitably. The NIH’s claim that the Detroit study used “artificial and non-scientific categories” linked to DEI suggests a rejection of race or social determinants as valid scientific variables for health research. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands how social factors influence biological outcomes.
The Detroit study, for example, explored how stress from racism and poverty might alter gene function, leading to premature births. This approach recognizes that health is not solely a biological phenomenon but is deeply intertwined with social and environmental conditions. When the NIH labels such categories as “non-scientific,” it implies that factors like race, socioeconomic status, or experiences of discrimination are irrelevant to health outcomes. This stance overlooks decades of public health research that demonstrate the profound impact of social determinants on health, particularly for marginalized communities. Medical experts and researchers widely agree that these social factors are integral to understanding and improving health.
Health-Related Social Needs are Healthcare
Medical experts and research consistently show that health-related social needs, including those disproportionately affecting Black communities, are essential to healthcare and directly impact health outcomes. Dr. Alex Peahl, an OB-GYN at the University of Michigan, emphasizes that “Health-related social needs are health care” (newsone.com). She states that improving the health of pregnant people and their families requires addressing all aspects of their lives, not just clinical ones (newsone.com).
Access to prenatal care, for instance, cannot be separated from issues like a lack of transportation, food insecurity, and other external stressors that disproportionately affect Black people (newsone.com). These are not minor inconveniences; they are fundamental barriers to receiving adequate care. Black and low-income individuals face significant care inequities in maternity care (jamanetwork.com). Existing prenatal care delivery structures may inadvertently create unjust barriers for those who stand to benefit most from comprehensive support (jamanetwork.com). Research by Dr. Amani M. Allen further highlights how racism drives systemic inequities within health sciences, including the impact of everyday racial discrimination on physical health and the correlation between hypertension, racial discrimination, and implicit biases for Black men (publichealth.berkeley.edu).
The Reality of Racial Health Disparities
Racial health disparities, particularly concerning infant mortality and maternal health, remain a stark reality in the United States. Infant mortality rates are disproportionately high among Black babies (newsone.com). Black and Latino babies are also more vulnerable to serious, life-threatening illnesses such as upper respiratory infections (newsone.com). These statistics are not mere numbers; they represent lives lost and families devastated.
In Minnesota, for example, Black babies are twice as likely to die before their first birthday as white babies (statnews.com). Furthermore, Black Minnesotans, who constitute 13 percent of the population, account for 23 percent of pregnancy-associated deaths (statnews.com). Black and low-income people are two to five times more likely to die in childbirth or experience severe maternal morbidity than their White counterparts (jamanetwork.com). These disparities underscore a critical need for targeted research and interventions, not less.
Key Racial Health Disparities in the U.S.
Structural Racism and Systemic Inequities
Structural racism refers to how societal institutions and policies perpetuate racial inequality, leading to disparities in areas like health. It is not simply individual prejudice but the ingrained biases within systems that create disadvantages for certain racial groups (frontiersin.org). These systemic inequities then contribute to health disparities by limiting access to resources, opportunities, and quality care for marginalized communities.
Multiple forms of racism, including structural racism in areas like the workplace and housing, as well as interpersonal and vicarious racism, can shape brain networks and physiological systems (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). These effects can lead to chronic disease and earlier mortality, particularly for Black Americans, highlighting how systemic inequities contribute to adverse health outcomes (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Research on structural racism in health care aims to understand how the larger healthcare system may be failing Black mothers and babies, moving beyond individual factors to systemic issues (statnews.com). The Trump administration’s actions, by dismissing research that identifies and addresses these systemic issues, effectively exacerbate existing inequalities.
Understanding Structural Racism
Structural racism: Refers to the ways in which societal institutions and policies perpetuate racial inequality, leading to disparities in areas like health. It is not just individual prejudice but the ingrained biases within systems that create disadvantages for certain racial groups.
Broader Attacks on Racial Disparities
The Trump administration’s actions extend beyond health research, impacting other areas that address racial disparities. In April, Donald Trump signed an executive order that effectively made housing discrimination easier (newsone.com). This order required federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to stop using “disparate impact” data to identify discriminatory policies and practices (newsone.com). Disparate impact refers to policies or practices that appear neutral but have a disproportionately negative effect on a protected group, such as racial minorities. By eliminating the use of this data, it becomes significantly harder to prove and address systemic discrimination in housing.
Days before the housing order, Donald Trump signed a similar order discouraging school administrators from using “disparate impact” data to address racial disparities in student disciplinary actions (newsone.com). This means that even if disciplinary policies disproportionately affect Black students, identifying and rectifying such disparities becomes challenging without the use of this data. Furthermore, in April, the Trump administration ended a wastewater settlement for a mostly Black Alabama town (newsone.com). The administration erroneously labeled this environmental justice initiative as “environmental justice as viewed through a distorting, DEI lens” (newsone.com). This decision left a whole town of Black people to continue living with well-documented wastewater sanitation issues, demonstrating a clear pattern of undermining efforts to address systemic racism across various sectors.
Legal Challenges and Future Outlook
Despite the administration’s efforts, a federal judge has ruled against the funding cuts to minority health research. A federal judge declared that the NIH’s funding cuts to minority health research were illegal and an example of “government racial discrimination” (newsone.com). This ruling offers a glimmer of hope for researchers and communities impacted by these decisions.
However, the ruling could be appealed by the Trump administration, prolonging the legal battle (newsone.com). The research team in Detroit, facing this uncertainty, has a 30-day window to appeal the NIH decision and is actively seeking private funding to continue their vital work (newsone.com). The ongoing struggle underscores the crucial importance of sustained advocacy and support for research that genuinely aims to enhance health outcomes for all, particularly for those who have been historically marginalized.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
