The Trump administration’s Department of Agriculture has officially canceled a $600,000 grant that was originally intended to study the menstrual cycles of trans-identified females.
The grant, which was designated for the Southern University of Agricultural and Mechanical College in Louisiana, aimed to explore menstruation patterns among transgender men and non-binary individuals.
However, after receiving public attention earlier this year, the Trump administration decided to terminate the funding.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the cancellation in a post on X, formerly Twitter, referencing a report from The College Fix that highlighted the funding cut. Rollins stated, “CANCELLED: $600,000 grant to study ‘menstrual cycles in transgender men’.”
🚨CANCELLED: $600,000 grant to study “menstrual cycles in transgender men”
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) March 8, 2025
Keep sending us tips. THANK YOU, @approject! The insanity is ending and the restoration of America is underway. 🇺🇸💪❤️ https://t.co/7S53WQ3CP3
The grant proposal outlined the purpose of the research, explaining that menstruation typically begins around age 12 and continues until menopause, which generally occurs around age 51.
It noted that over the course of a lifetime, a woman experiences approximately 450 menstrual cycles. The proposal also acknowledged that menstruation is not exclusive to women and that transgender men, intersex individuals, and some non-binary people may also experience monthly cycles.
“At any given moment, about 26% of the world’s population is menstruating,” the grant summary stated. The study aimed to address what it described as “growing concerns” surrounding menstruation in diverse populations and was scheduled to continue through April 2027.
The research grant came under scrutiny after being flagged by the American Principles Project, a conservative nonprofit organization.
The group reviewed and highlighted over 340 grants approved by the Biden administration, revealing that a total of $128 million in taxpayer funds had been allocated to various institutions, including hospitals and universities, for projects across the United States.
Critics of the grant argued that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund studies they deem unnecessary or politically motivated.
Supporters of the research, however, contended that understanding menstrual health in transgender and non-binary individuals is essential for providing equitable healthcare and improving scientific knowledge in the field of reproductive health.
The controversy surrounding the grant cancellation underscores the ongoing debate over government spending on gender-related research.
Under the Biden administration, many research initiatives focusing on LGBTQ+ health and gender identity have received funding, while the Trump administration had previously taken steps to roll back federal support for such studies.
The termination of this grant reflects a broader ideological divide over the role of government in funding research on gender identity and reproductive health.
Menstruation in transgender men and non-binary individuals has become an increasingly discussed topic in medical and social sciences. While some individuals who transition opt for hormone therapy that may suppress menstruation, others continue to experience menstrual cycles.
Researchers have argued that understanding how hormonal treatments and gender identity impact menstruation is critical for developing inclusive healthcare policies and services.
Despite the cancellation, advocates for transgender and reproductive health research maintain that such studies are necessary to address the needs of diverse populations. They emphasize that medical research should be guided by scientific inquiry rather than political pressures.
As debates over government-funded research continue, questions remain about how future administrations will approach funding for studies related to gender identity, reproductive health, and LGBTQ+ issues.
Whether future administrations will reinstate or expand funding for such projects will likely depend on shifting political priorities and public opinion on the role of inclusivity in scientific research.