20% of the US population is rural, but certainly not 20% of scientists are. Not fostering scientists from these places certainly DOES reduce our knowledge, reduces our health, and reduces scientific inquiry.

OOF.

"Research based on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness"

To add insult to injury, the termination letter reads like the free version of chatGPT imitating a nut job, not a piece of official US correspondence:

This student went against the odds to make it where he is, leaning on his brilliance and tenacity. He moved to WI and attended UW-Madison.
Would love to hear from #repgusbilirakis @baldwin.senate.gov #ronjohnson about how defunding the brightest young scientists from rural America makes us great?

The work was going to better understand how evolutionary pressures in people's ancestry altered their risk for disease. It was helping to make the promise of precision genetic medicine a reality. It was at the forefront of global biomedical research, now quickly being ceded to Europe and China.