Back

Mapping the costs of mental health- and substance use-related grant cancellations

Beccia, A. L.; Liu, L.; Delaney, S.; Zubizarreta, D.; Ross, N.; Austin, S. B.

2025-08-02 health economics
10.1101/2025.08.01.25332818 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSince the 2025 Presidential Inauguration, the Trump Administration has terminated billions of dollars in federal funding for science; however, the impacts of these grant terminations on the mental health and substance use fields have not yet been examined. We thus aimed to quantify and map the costs associated with federally funded mental health- and substance use-related grants that have been prematurely terminated. MethodsWe used a comprehensive dataset of grants terminated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) compiled from multiple sources. After identifying terminated mental health- and substance use-related grants from this database via a two-step screening process, we quantified their number and associated lost funding for each congressional district, which we visualized using a series of maps to examine trends and regional variations. OutcomesWe identified 474 mental health- and/or substance use-related grants that were terminated by the NIH, NSF, or SAMHSA from February 28, 2025, through April 11, 2025, totaling $2,098,731,548 in lost funds. Congressional districts corresponding to urban centers with large academic and research institutions (e.g., New York City, Boston) experienced the most pronounced losses from NIH and NSF grants, whereas districts located throughout the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest were the hardest hit by the termination of SAMHSA block grants (i.e., those used to pay for community mental health and substance use services). InterpretationAgainst a backdrop of ongoing and intersecting mental health and substance use crises, the Trump Administration has slashed research dollars on these topics, creating a chilling effect on the field. Such cuts are likely to destabilize existing mental health and substance use services and exacerbate inequities between and within U.S. states, ultimately intensifying the challenges faced by local communities. FundingNone to report.

Published in SSM - Mental Health · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.