- Institutional self-censorship: leaders declined grant submissions on sexual and gender minorities fearing political scrutiny.
- Such decisions enact bureaucratic violence by creating institutional political barriers that impede scientific progress and exacerbate public health harms.
- These restrictions undermine the public health workforce by limiting research training, capacity, and the ability to address health disparities.
Am J Public Health. 2026 Nov;116(11):1734-1739. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2026.308701.
ABSTRACT
In the second Trump administration, federal officials have pursued political priorities that conflict with public health goals, including revising vaccination and nutritional guidelines in ways that contradict established science and terminating federally funded research grants. At the state level, similar political challenges have emerged, such as efforts to suspend mandatory school-entry vaccination requirements. Less attention has been paid to how academic institutions within these contexts may also contribute to politically driven public health harms. This essay provides a case study of an academic institution in Florida restricting public health research because it was perceived as politically unfavorable. Specifically, the essay examines how institutional leaders decided not to submit research grant proposals that focused on populations such as sexual and gender minorities, because of concerns about drawing scrutiny from state and federal politicians. Using the concept of bureaucratic violence, I argue that academic institutions’ decisions to forgo these types of submissions enact a form of bureaucratic violence that creates political barriers at an institutional level to advancing science. Such efforts also have implications for the public health workforce. (Am J Public Health. 2026;116(11):1734-1739. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2026.308701).
PMID:42842877 | DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2026.308701
Share Evidence Blueprint
Save to Google Notes
Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF
⭐ My Revision List
