Autism Research Grants Net Over 100 Proposals

Gloved hand pipetting liquid into a tray

The Trump administration’s $50 million autism research overhaul has sparked fierce debate, as political oversight and deep funding cuts threaten to reshape how—and for whom—autism science is conducted in America.

Story Snapshot

Over 100 proposals submitted for a new federally funded autism research initiative; up to 25 winners to be announced by September.
Federal grantmaking now centralized under political appointees, sidelining career scientists and reducing transparency.
Major cuts to existing autism research and support programs, especially those tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Critics warn of politicization and loss of evidence-based research, while the administration touts “gold standard science.”

Federal Autism Research Overhaul: Political Control and Funding Shifts

Early in 2025, the Trump administration announced a $50 million autism research initiative, inviting the scientific community to submit proposals targeting the causes of autism. More than 100 projects were pitched, with the administration planning to select up to 25 for funding by September. The new approach marks a sharp break from past federal research, placing political priorities—and not just scientific merit—at the center of decision-making. An executive order issued in August further concentrated power by putting political appointees in charge of grant selection, pausing new funding until the process was fully restructured.

The administration has argued that this shift will promote “gold standard science” and ensure research aligns with national priorities. However, many existing autism studies and support programs, particularly those focusing on marginalized populations or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), have faced abrupt cancellations or funding delays. Advocacy organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) have criticized the new process for excluding autistic voices and reducing opportunities for public input. The end of public comment periods and limited communication from the Department of Health and Human Services have amplified concerns about transparency.

Stakeholders: Power Struggles and Exclusion Concerns

The Trump administration and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are driving the new policy, with the National Institutes of Health losing much of its traditional role in grant administration. Political appointees now have the final say in which proposals get funded, minimizing the influence of career scientists and long-standing advisory committees. While the administration’s stated objective is to cut “woke” agendas and promote research free from progressive influence, researchers and advocacy groups argue that the new approach risks sidelining topics that reflect the lived realities of autistic individuals and their families. Exclusion of stakeholder voices from the grant review process has been a flashpoint for criticism.

Many researchers warn that the emphasis on politically favored topics—such as a renewed focus on the debunked vaccine-autism link—could undermine both scientific integrity and the trust of the autism community. Academic leaders like David Mandell at the University of Pennsylvania highlight a contradiction: while the administration claims to support autistic families, funding for essential research and services is being slashed. For families relying on federal support for autism services, this creates uncertainty and a potential gap in care and resources.

Impacts: Disruption and Long-Term Risks to Autism Science

The immediate impact of the overhaul has been the disruption of ongoing research, particularly in areas focused on services, supports, and marginalized groups. Researchers and institutions dependent on federal funds now face uncertainty, as many projects are paused or canceled outright. The administration’s move away from DEI-related research has resulted in a chilling effect on proposals that address the diverse needs of the autism community. Critics argue that politicizing research priorities not only endangers scientific progress but could also erode trust between researchers, advocates, and families. In the long term, this approach may set a precedent for increased political control over other federal research funding, with broader implications for disability policy and special education support.

While the administration frames its actions as a restoration of common sense and a rejection of government overreach, many experts and advocacy organizations warn that the lack of transparency and stakeholder engagement could do lasting harm. The dispute between the administration’s call for “gold standard science” and the scientific community’s emphasis on evidence-based, inclusive research underscores a broader clash over who should control the future of autism policy and funding. As the process for awarding the $50 million in new grants unfolds, all eyes remain on whether research priorities will genuinely reflect the needs of American families—or the preferences of political leaders.