Which research projects or labs lost funding related to Elon Musk or his foundations?

1. Federal biomedical and basic‑science grants — sweeping NIH and NSF cuts

Investigations and contemporaneous reporting describe large cuts across NIH and NSF grant programs that researchers directly attribute to a DOGE mission led by Musk; one data aggregator estimated roughly $3 billion in grant reductions across NIH and NSF, and outlets reported thousands of disrupted or terminated awards as agencies re‑prioritized spending under the new efficiency push ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Clinical trials and ongoing research programs left in limbo

Coverage documents how NIH grant cancellations and reviews have already disrupted hundreds of clinical trials and routine oversight, leaving participants and investigators in precarious positions when monitoring or continuation funding vanished; a sector analysis found trials outside the U.S. and many preventive or behavioral studies were especially vulnerable ^[4].

3. Local university research budgets and lab closures threatened

State and university leaders reported concrete institutional impacts: University of Nebraska leaders said proposed cuts tied to the efficiency agenda would cost their campuses roughly $27 million in research funding and force scaling back of cancer and heart research and staff layoffs, while officials in Wisconsin and elsewhere warned that capping indirect cost rates and abrupt agency policy changes would imperil labs, trainees, and core facilities ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Pediatric cancer funding provision removed after Musk’s public opposition

A contentious episode involved the Gabriella Miller Kids First pediatric‑cancer funding provision being stripped from a spending bill after Musk publicly condemned the package; critics and some reporters linked Musk’s social‑media pressure to the removal, though independent fact‑checking concluded Musk’s precise role in drafting the bill changes is uncertain and Musk denied directing the cuts ^{[3] [7]}.

5. Administration and defenders frame cuts as efficiency, critics call them ideological

Administration spokespeople and allied advisers defended the cuts as correcting “diminishing returns” and reorienting federal science spending, arguments echoed by a Trump science adviser who said the DOGE review offered a chance to “revitalize” research funding priorities; opponents — scientists, senators, and advocacy groups — characterize the moves as arbitrary, harmful to lifesaving research, and politically influenced by wealthy outsiders ^{[8] [6]}.

6. What was directly funded by Musk’s private philanthropy — limited evidence of abrupt pullbacks

Public profiles of the Musk Foundation list grants in renewable energy, human space exploration, pediatric research, STEM education and safe AI, and document substantial charitable giving through the foundation and donor‑advised vehicles, but the sources in this packet do not identify specific research labs or projects that lost Musk Foundation grants abruptly or were defunded by the foundation itself; most reporting on lost funding points to federal cuts tied to DOGE rather than philanthropic rescissions ^{[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]}.

7. Limits of the reporting and competing narratives

The record assembled here shows clear downstream impacts on NIH/NSF‑supported projects, clinical trials, and university budgets linked to a Musk‑led efficiency campaign, and credible claims tying Musk’s public interventions to the removal of a pediatric‑cancer funding rider; however, available sources also show contested causal claims (Musk’s denials, fact‑checks), legal pushes that temporarily blocked some cuts, and a lack of source material in this set that names individual academic labs whose private philanthropic support from the Musk Foundation was withdrawn ^{[7] [8] [1] [4]}.