Louisville eating disorder clinic loses $300,000 to Trump's anti-diversity push

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
A bronze cast of The Thinker sits outside Grawemeyer Hall on the University of Louisville's campus. (Kentucky Lantern photo by McKenna Horsley)
If you or someone you know has an eating disorder, you can get help through the National Eating Disorder Association by calling 800-931-2237 or chatting online at nationaleatingdisorder.org. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 988.
The University of Louisville's Eating Anxiety Treatment (EAT) Lab, which treats and researches eating disorders, has lost nearly $300,000 in federal funding, money that covered salaries for two scientists, among other things.
Termination notices from the National Institutes of Health, housed in the Department of Health and Human Services, were sent to the lab over the last two weeks and shared with the Lantern. The funding cutoff appears to be part of President Donald Trump's sweeping efforts to root out and end support for diversity, equity and inclusion activities.
The notices say the research projects in question are 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.'
'Worse, so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion ('DEI') studies are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics, which harms the health of Americans,' the notices say.
Cheri Levinson is director of the Eating Anxiety Treatment (EAT) Lab. (Photo provided)
The two staff members whose jobs were defunded through this action — a post-doctoral fellow and Ph.D. student in clinical psychology — are non-white, but their research wasn't related to DEI, said Cheri Levinson, the director of the EAT Lab and an associate professor with the University of Louisville.
One project was focused on identifying who is most likely to develop eating disorders and learning how to prevent them. The second was learning how to most effectively treat eating disorders.
Cutting the work sends the message that government officials holding the purse 'want people to continue to suffer from mental health problems,' Levinson said.
The NIH has not yet responded to a Lantern request for comment.
Trump has issued executive orders gutting DEI programs and activities across the federal government. The Trump administration also has reduced funding for medical and scientific research at universities, including the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky, although federal courts have temporarily blocked those cuts.
' … if being a woman is a DEI issue'
Eating disorders are widespread and can be deadly. The COVID-19 pandemic increased their prevalence in Kentucky.
About 9% of Americans live with eating disorders, which can lead to a 'preoccupation' with food intake, weight, calories and more, according to the National Eating Disorders Association. Girls are more likely to have disordered eating, according to research that the Lantern has previously reported.
Luis Sandoval-Araujo, the doctoral student, said he's mostly researched how eating disorders developed in young girls. He studied a group of girls aged 6-8 and 10-12, following them over the course of two years to see what factors contribute to eating disorder development.
'The research doesn't really have anything to do with DEI,' Sandoval-Araujo said. 'I guess there's an argument to be made that the research is focused particularly on women, for example, because we're looking at 6- to 8-year-old girls, 10- to 12-year-old girls, and their mothers. So … if being a woman is a DEI issue, then that could be the arguments. But … that doesn't really make sense.'
Before its termination, the federal 'diversity supplement' was a way to ensure scientific fields were open to people of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds, former foster care youth, first generation students and other marginalized groups.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in February that the diversity awards being eliminated by the Trump administration 'are fundamentally identical to the non-diversity equivalents' but helped scientists from diverse backgrounds have equal access to funding.
'This funding mechanism, and other funding mechanisms like it, definitely, more often than not, are used by scholars of diverse identities, particularly racial and ethnic minorities,' said Sandoval-Araujo. 'So (cutting it) likely has a disproportionate effect on people of color, people from minoritized backgrounds, all that kind of stuff. Is it directly racist? I don't think so, but it's hard to ignore the impact.'
Sandoval-Araujo said that losing the diversity supplement will cost him a $25,000 stipend, but the loss will not interrupt his studies.
'Even with the loss of this grant, I'm still able to support myself,' he said. 'I have another year fellowship from the university directly that I'm going to be using for my funding. But if I didn't have a fallback option, for example, I'd have to spend additional time during my studies to be a teaching assistant or do some type of other assistantship in order to get my stipend, which is really not a lot.'
'It still stings, because you make plans around having that money, having that funding,' he said. 'It pays for my tuition, my stipend, a little bit of travel money for me to attend conferences and disseminate our work, which is really important and really impactful.'
The funding also covered extra training — outside of his university classes — that he needed for his work that is now going away.
'It costs a lot of money for me to attend the class on advanced machine learning techniques that I'm no longer going to be able to do because that money doesn't exist,' Sandoval-Araujo said.
Lab turns to GoFundMe
The lab is now trying to raise the lost funds on its own so Sandoval-Araujo and the post-doctoral fellow can maintain their work. Meanwhile, Levinson said she is working to put her staff on other projects to keep them in the lab.
A GoFundMe set up by the lab to make up for the federal cuts says the staff whose jobs are affected 'are essential to the lifesaving work we do developing better treatments and preventions for eating disorders. These are researchers who are dedicated to advancing our understanding of eating disorders — complex mental health conditions that affect millions of lives but remain deeply misunderstood and underfunded.'
The fundraiser also asserts: 'These grants were terminated because of the color of these trainees' skin, with no consideration to the harm that these terminations will cause on the progress of the work and the trajectory of these trainees' careers.'
It's unclear what will happen to the active patients who were involved in this research, Levinson said, but she warned that the cuts could cause real harm.
The decision to cut money that was promised through August 2026 'actively risks lives in an active clinical trial,' Levinson said. 'It also risks just so many more lives that we don't even know how they would be saved by the work that these young scientists are doing.'
Cuts are 'infuriating'
Kimberly Osborn, who graduates with her doctorate in counseling psychology this month, planned to work as a post-doctoral fellow at the EAT Lab and research a topic she's deeply passionate about: the intersection of eating disorders, trauma, suicidality and sleep.
Osborn, a former foster youth who survived an eating disorder and suicidality as a teenager, saw firsthand the need for evidence-based eating disorder care and treatment.
She applied for 'diversity supplement' funding but the program was cut before she could get it. That means that while she will continue to assist Levinson in research as a post-doc, she won't have the funding to do her own research, which 'delays me.' She plans to apply for other grant opportunities, but that process could take a year.
She said the grant termination affecting her two colleagues demonstrates a 'lack of critical thinking.' The diversity supplement funding, she said, isn't about giving minority communities 'the upper hand.' Rather, she said, it was a way to 'balance it out for people' who are doing work and 'just need extra support.'
In the termination notices for two of her colleagues who already had been promised funds, the NIH said that the award had been 'related to research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.'
Osborn finds the allegation that the lab's research is non-scientific 'infuriating' and 'completely untrue.'
'I work with patients. I see the impacts of eating disorders,' she said. 'Dr. Levinson, along with a lot of the trainees that she supports — many of which are diversity scholars — are directly making an impact on improved outcomes and literally saving lives. To say that just because it's done by someone who is from a diverse background, or who have these kinds of supplements … is offensive and untrue.'
Data published in the medical journal JAMA in 2023 showed about 1 in 5 children have disordered eating.
'This harms everyone,' Levinson said. 'Everybody knows somebody that has an eating disorder. We might not talk about it a lot, but the work that we're doing on my team is making a huge impact to stop eating disorders and these sorts of terminations are not only harmful, but they're undoing decades of work to be able to get to the point where we can make a difference and make it so that people don't have to die and suffer and lose their joy because of eating disorders.'
Help is available
If you or someone you know has an eating disorder, you can get help through the National Eating Disorder Association by calling 800-931-2237 or chatting online at nationaleatingdisorder.org.
The Louisville Center for Eating Disorders provides nonemergency services, including outpatient therapy. Visit louisvillecenterforeatingdisorders.com or call 502-205-1114 for more information.
The Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 988.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.

The Hill

6 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump THREATENS US Food Security By Slashing Science Funding, Experts Warn

The Trump administration's cuts to climate research and weather forecasting are 'blinding' the U.S. to oncoming threats to its food supply — and kneecapping efforts to protect it. Heat waves and drought driven by fossil fuel burning could pose an existential threat to key parts of the American food supply, according to a recent study published in the journal Nature. Forecasting and adaptation could cut those crop failures almost in half, the study found. But those measures are under attack from President Trump's mass staff reductions at agencies tracking weather and climate. READ MORE:

Yahoo

7 hours ago

• Yahoo

Iranians saw America as better friend than Russia before war: Official

(NewsNation) — Iran's Health Ministry spokesman told NewsNation that Iranians viewed America as a better friend than Russia before President Donald Trump backed Israel's attacks. 'There was no perception about America prior to this. Some didn't like America, some had no opinion, and some considered America a better friend than Russia,' spokesman Hossein Kermanpour in an interview with NewsNation. A week into their war, Israel and Iran exchanged more strikes Friday as new diplomatic efforts led by the Europeans took place in Geneva. Kermanpour said Iranians were 'very surprised' by Trump and European support for the Israeli operation, adding that it confirmed suspicions that 'America is not to be trusted.' He said the strikes came 'in the midst of fruitful negotiations.' Iran nuclear weapons claims: What we know and what we don't However, he said that Iranians do not support U.S. involvement in the conflict with Israel following the recent strikes. Iran's Health Ministry reported more than 3,000 people injured in Israeli strikes, with 90% being civilians, and about 400 killed, according to Kermanpour. Kermanpour said about 2,000 of the injured have been treated and discharged. The casualties include a 2-month-old baby who was killed and a 4-year-old boy among the wounded, making them the youngest victims and injured, respectively. The Health Ministry spokesman said the attacks occurred 'while the people were sleeping' and targeted 'more than ten provinces of the country, including Tehran,' killing what he described as 'a significant number of civilians and military,' calling them 'martyrs.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.