Medical Research Funding

What do I need to know about how we fund medical research?

Medical research is the scientific effort¹ to expand our understanding of health and disease. It is different from the care doctors provide to individual patients, but it helps create the knowledge, tools, and medications that doctors use. Its goal is to help everyone live longer, healthier lives.

The total cost of medical research represents decades of investment in the talent, training, teams, technology, and facilities that make life-saving breakthroughs not just possible but routine. In the US, the federal government, private companies, universities, states, associations, and philanthropic foundations collectively invest more than $245 billion (PDF)² in medical research each year. Federal funding has normally happened through agencies including the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and most notably the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

For decades, the NIH has been the largest public funder of medical research in the world,³ responsible for over 80% of the world’s grant investment⁴ in biomedical research. Its budget is roughly eight times as much as the medical research budgets of the DOD, the VA, and USAID combined.⁵ In recent years, it has spent more than 25 times as much on research⁶ as the next largest funder (the Wellcome Trust in the UK). In 2024, the total budget of the NIH exceeded $47 billion,⁷ split across three major categories:

1. 84% went toward “extramural” research⁸ conducted at universities, medical schools, and other research institutions;
2. 11% went toward self-funded “intramural” research at the NIH itself, previously the largest biomedical research institution⁹ in the world; and
3. The remaining 5% covered the operating expenses of the agency.

Federal research grants are not gifts or donations, they’re binding legal agreements¹⁰ between the federal government and the recipient’s institution. These grants are extremely competitive,¹¹ and their terms are carefully negotiated and routinely audited.¹² It’s helpful to understand that the US specifically invests in research as an ecosystem because a large network of interconnected collaborations generates vastly more innovation and discovery (PDF)¹³ than any single lab or discipline.

What is happening?

The Trump administration and Congress are eliminating billions of dollars of funding for medical research while also gutting the scientific workforce. Specifically, they are:

• terminating or delaying more than $2.2 billion in research grants; More on this
• radically altering budget structures and reducing future funding; More on this
• eroding expertise and ending training programs. More on this

On this page, we’ll break down those lines of attack, along with the countermoves and resilience efforts we’re seeing across American society.

Who is affected?

Nearly everyone, whether they are sick, disabled, or currently healthy. Federally funded US science is a global driver of life-saving care and medical innovation. Although the government only funds about one quarter (PDF)¹⁴ of the total US investment in medical research and development (R&D) each year, those federal dollars have an outsized impact because they flow into basic research¹⁵ that powers everything else. For example, out of 356 new drugs¹⁶ approved between 2010 and 2019, 354 were made possible by government funding. This system was optimized to transform basic research into safe and effective products at unimaginable speed.¹⁷ It cannot be quickly turned on again after it’s been turned off.

Economic analysis suggests that a 25% loss of federal funding — less than the Trump administration’s proposed cuts — would damage local and state economies so severely that the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be reduced by an amount comparable to the 2008 Great Recession.¹⁸ The overall domestic impact of the cuts to NIH funding is currently estimated¹⁹ at $11 billion in economic losses and 49,000 jobs, with $17 billion in future economic losses predicted annually.

Of course, the destruction of the medical research system will disproportionately affect groups that have been historically neglected by science and medicine. These are the people who are more likely to have worse health outcomes,²⁰ to be underrepresented within the ranks of the research community,²¹ and to focus their careers on studying these issues.²² They are at risk because of who they are and what they study.

Patients

Every day that diagnostics, treatments, and cures are delayed has a human cost. In the US, two million people will be diagnosed with cancer²³ in 2025 alone. More than 900,000 will die from heart disease,²⁴ and more than 50 million cope with chronic pain.²⁵

When clinical trials are abruptly ended, some patients are left stranded with experimental drugs in their systems or devices in their bodies.²⁶ Others, including those with rare diseases, are suffering as treatment possibilities are delayed and precious time slips away.²⁷ Staffing reductions have created months-long delays in NIH clinical trials²⁸ for the hardest-to-treat diseases, including aggressive metastatic cancers²⁹ where patients’ chances of survival decline by the day. As of August 2025, 383 clinical trials³⁰ involving over 74,000 participants were affected by disruptions to grant funding.

People especially affected by cuts include cancer patients³¹ and Long COVID patients.³² Others face specific health risks and hazards³³ related to military service³⁴ or are affected by the health impacts of climate change³⁵ such as extreme heat or air pollution, which disproportionately affect some communities.

It’s not just patients in the US who are affected. Children in Pakistan with tuberculosis,³⁶ pioneering South African virologists,³⁷ and Europeans living with HIV³⁸ are all experiencing consequences of these funding cuts. Trust in the US as a reliable research collaborator will be difficult to restore.

The scientific workforce

At last count, NIH grants directly support more than 300,000 researchers, at more than 2,500 institutions³⁹ across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and other territories. When scientists, communications specialists, facilities staff, and all the people making biomedical research possible are counted, NIH funding underpins more than 407,000 US jobs⁴⁰ at universities, nonprofits, and for-profit companies across the country.

The NIH directly employed more than 5,000 scientists⁴¹ before these cuts; its Intramural Research Program⁴² has long been the largest biomedical research institution in the world. These positions typically require 5–10 years of specialized training after college, often supported by taxpayer dollars. The scientists who have lost their funding are flooding the US job market.⁴³ The hyper-specific nature of research skills makes it difficult for federal researchers to find work in the private sector,⁴⁴ which is itself also affected by NIH cuts.⁴⁵

With many scientists leaving the country to find work elsewhere⁴⁶ and many more considering it (75%,⁴⁷ according to a March survey), experts urgently warn of functionally irreversible “brain drain.”⁴⁸ Scientists are experiencing not just direct financial harm but the moral injury of being forced to abandon their work.⁴⁹

Funding cuts put trainees in an especially precarious position. For students working toward graduate degrees, eligibility for funding, fellowships, and career advancement are all tightly time-limited. This year’s disruption threatens to derail an entire generation of medical researchers.⁵⁰ The uncertainty has become so severe that many university programs entirely paused or cut biomedical graduate admissions for 2025.⁵¹ The low-cost labor conducted by graduate students plays a pivotal role in how universities conduct research⁵² and undergraduate instruction alike.

Other workers and students

Catastrophic impacts on research departments are feared to divert university funding away from arts and humanities departments.⁵³ Such cascading impacts could devastate universities that rely on public funding rather than private wealth⁵⁴ and radically change higher education in the long term.⁵⁵ Changes in the level and predictability of research support radiate beyond the university as well, with the potential to harm companies and workers who, for example, provide research labs with supplies and services,⁵⁶ and to significantly affect local labor markets.⁵⁷

Attack: Grant terminations and obstructions

Last updated: December 4, 2025

The NIH has canceled or frozen more than 5,000 active grants⁵⁸ and taken action to cancel, delay, or disrupt billions in research funding. At its highest, the impact was estimated to be almost $5 billion⁵⁹ although some grants have been reinstated⁶⁰ as a result of litigation and reversals. There is still a substantial loss of research funding: more than $2.2 billion⁶¹ in grant funding is currently terminated or frozen, and the NIH is funding significantly fewer grants overall than in previous years.⁶² Experts say it will take years to understand what has been lost so far, but some of the damage is likely to be irreversible.⁶³

The changes to grants management have been rapid, large-scale, and chaotic.⁶⁴ In the past, grant terminations have typically been associated with misconduct and extraordinarily rare;⁶⁵ from 2012 to 2024, there were fewer than five.⁶⁶ Since February, however, hundreds of researchers across the country have received termination letters telling them that their work “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”⁶⁷ This specific phrase references an update to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rules⁶⁸ from the first Trump administration that allows them to unilaterally sever grants in service of the president’s political agenda. This executive branch maneuver is called “impoundment,”⁶⁹ and it functionally overrides Congressional authorization and appropriation. In March, the NIH rescinded their scientific integrity policy,⁷⁰ significantly reducing safeguards against political interference.⁷¹

Some recent NIH actions, including termination of “gain of function” studies on pathogens⁷² and new policies barring proposals that solely rely on animal testing,⁷³ go against scientific consensus. In August, HHS announced that it would cancel mRNA vaccine research contracts.⁷⁴ The decision was justified with a discredited report⁷⁵ that is widely dismissed⁷⁶ by scientific experts as being misleading and inaccurate.⁷⁷ Some terminations are overtly ideological and result from DOGE-directed screening⁷⁸ and searches for flagged keywords⁷⁹ like “women,” “trans,” “nonbinary,” “diversity,” or “COVID.” NIH institutes have issued inconsistent, sometimes conflicting guidance.⁸⁰ Director Jay Bhattacharya has denied the existence of a banned word list.⁸¹ Banned words⁸² or no, the ongoing attack on “woke DEI ideology” targets research focused on HIV/AIDS,⁸³ LGBTQ+ health,⁸⁴ reproductive health,⁸⁵ addiction and mental health,⁸⁶ health equity and systemic racial disparities,⁸⁷ vaccine research,⁸⁸ and more. These are most clearly laid out in Bhattacharya’s recent strategy memo,⁸⁹ which explicitly restricts research on transgender health, and systemic racism. Other grant terminations and freezes have little to do with research topics, and are instead attempts to strip universities of their independence⁹⁰ and control academic freedom⁹¹ with demands for changes in admission and hiring practices and proposals for ongoing federal oversight. An analysis of grant terminations⁹² has shown that these disproportionately affect racial and gender minority researchers.

In addition to terminating active funding, the administration is significantly altering the process for reviewing new proposals and making new awards:

• Immediately after inauguration, NIH expert review panels were put on an abrupt and indefinite pause,⁹³ as part of a freeze on communications⁹⁴ across health agencies. Months later, those review panels started meeting again,⁹⁵ albeit in unusually short sessions.
• In July, the NIH “disinvited” dozens of vetted expert reviewers,⁹⁶ planning to replace them with new candidates whose social media are to be screened for DEI content and views critical of the president.
• An August 7 executive order⁹⁷ placed oversight of funding priorities and decisions in the hands of presidentially appointed agency employees⁹⁸ rather than experts or experienced staff. This was reinforced by the NIH, which issued internal guidance⁹⁹ that political priorities may override peer review scores in grantmaking decisions.
• In November, the NIH announced changes to the long-established process by which they select grant awardees.¹⁰⁰ This potentially means that the NIH will rely less on the evaluation of scientific experts to decide which grants are funded, and that there may be less transparency in the process of making those decisions.

Where this stands

Terminations and suspensions of existing grants

• Due to numerous actions by the administration and resultant lawsuits, the status of medical research funding is mixed and broadly uncertain.
• On August 21, the US Supreme Court issued a fractured ruling¹⁰¹ on DEI-based NIH grant terminations and delays.¹⁰² Previously, a group of health research organizations and scientists¹⁰³ and a coalition of 16 states¹⁰⁴ had secured a legal stay to block the anti-DEI policy and reinstate the plaintiffs’ funding.¹⁰⁵ Rather than addressing the legality of the terminations, the Supreme Court focused on jurisdiction, ruling that the suits should have been filed in the Court of Federal Claims¹⁰⁶ instead of in the district court. The specifically contested funds will not be released while that litigation proceeds, and the ruling affects nearly $2 billion¹⁰⁷ of research funding.
• An initial ban on payments to international collaborators¹⁰⁸ was softened in May.¹⁰⁹ The NIH issued its new guidance for international collaboration applications¹¹⁰ on September 12.
• Even when grants have been reinstated, it still isn’t business as usual for researchers.¹¹¹ Some have yet to receive promised funds. Others have received funding under altered terms, such as compliance with the executive order¹¹² on “gender ideology.” This uncertainty has limited researchers’ ability to plan long-term studies and hire staff.

Interference with grant review and award processes

• A new analysis by STAT shows that despite badly lagging earlier this year, NIH spending has recovered enough¹¹³ to allay some fears. An analysis in May¹¹⁴ had raised the fear of “shadow terminations” for grants that should have had routine annual renewal. Experts were concerned¹¹⁵ that the funding backlog would be spun as a huge NIH “budget surplus” to justify steep budget cuts for the next fiscal year. At the end of the 2025 fiscal year, the NIH was on track¹¹⁶ to spend its entire $48 billion budget, though with fewer new projects funded compared to previous years.
• At least 43 grant applications were quietly removed from the process before peer review without any reason.¹¹⁷ While a small number relative to the terminations and delays, this adds to the interference and uncertainty surrounding NIH grants.
• On July 7, the NIH capped the number of grant applications that a researcher can submit, citing concerns about principal investigators using AI tools to write excessive numbers of grants.¹¹⁸ If NIH funding is significantly cut, this could hurt a large number of investigators who suddenly need to submit higher numbers of proposals¹¹⁹ to compete for reduced funds.
• On July 29, the Office of Management and Budget sent a memo prohibiting the NIH from paying for anything other than staff salaries and expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year. The move would have ended all research support for scientists not employed by the NIH (who conduct the majority of NIH research), effectively eliminating an estimated $15 billion in grant funding. The decision was reversed the same day.¹²⁰ The OMB blocked CDC-funded programs¹²¹ by similar means before restoring funding¹²² three weeks later.
• A new up-front grant funding system,¹²³ in which multi-year grants are paid out in the first year rather than incrementally, was the subject of Senate debate¹²⁴ but has already moved forward.¹²⁵ While the administration argues that this system will increase researcher flexibility, the result is that many fewer grants can be awarded each year,¹²⁶ and the likelihood of a grant being funded has sharply decreased¹²⁷across NIH institutes. Multiple¹²⁸ analyses¹²⁹ of newly funded grants demonstrate that success rates for grant applications have reached an all-time low, negatively affecting every NIH institute.
• The fall 2025 government shutdown disrupted work on current and new federally funded research¹³⁰ as NIH staff were furloughed. Some existing grantees were unable to access funds¹³¹ and new grant applications were not processed or reviewed. Additionally, funding for programs supporting medical research and technology transfer in small high-tech businesses¹³² remain frozen.

New conditions on university grants

• The administration is using allegations of civil rights violations and management failures as grounds for freezing biomedical research funding at universities. Ivy League institutions have been specifically targeted in an apparent effort to gain unprecedented control over these schools.¹³³
• After initial stoppage of payments to Brown, Columbia, Cornell, and Harvard, among others,¹³⁴ some institutions are now reaching settlements¹³⁵ or receiving some of their suspended funding after legal decisions.¹³⁶ In July, Columbia agreed to pay $221 million¹³⁷ to the federal government, and Brown University agreed to invest $50 million¹³⁸ in workforce development programs. In November, Cornell agreed to pay a $30 million¹³⁹ fine and invest an additional $30 million in agriculture development programs. Three weeks later, Northwestern agreed to pay $75 million¹⁴⁰ along with altering its policies on transgender healthcare. Fueling concerns about increasing governmental oversight¹⁴¹ and loss of autonomy,¹⁴² many of these settlements include agreements to transfer authority to the government by, for example, granting access to racial and admission data from all university applicants.¹⁴³ Negotiations to unfreeze hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding remain under way with Duke.¹⁴⁴
• Nine universities, including MIT, University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, and Dartmouth, have been invited to sign a deal¹⁴⁵ that would give them preferential access to federal grant funding in exchange for compliance with the administration. The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,”¹⁴⁶ which would require universities to restrict DEI, cap international student enrollment, and promote conservative viewpoints, has been rejected by seven of the nine universities¹⁴⁷ as of October 21. The deal was offered to all institutions¹⁴⁸ after the first of the nine invited universities, MIT, rejected it.
• The US House has added the SAFE Research Act to its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment would ban federal funding¹⁴⁹ to researchers who collaborate with China or other “hostile foreign entities.” The ban is retroactive, making any researcher who has collaborated, co-authored a scientific paper, or mentored a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow from one of the named countries during the previous five years ineligible for federal funding. The House version must be reconciled with the Senate’s version of the NDAA prior to it being passed.

Countermoves: Legal actions

Numerous lawsuits have been filed¹⁵⁰ in response to medical research funding cuts:

• The day after the January 27 memo (PDF)¹⁵¹ freezing all federal grant disbursements, a group of small businesses and nonprofits sued¹⁵² the Office of Management and Budget. Federal judge Loren L. AliKhan temporarily blocked¹⁵³ the freeze, but the administration exploited a loophole¹⁵⁴ to maintain it through March. Whistleblower records submitted as part of a separate lawsuit¹⁵⁵ claim that the NIH continued to cancel research grants in violation of a court order¹⁵⁶ and that government lawyers have refused to respond to discovery requests.
• Healthcare practitioners,¹⁵⁷ nonprofits,¹⁵⁸ and states¹⁵⁹ have filed lawsuits challenging executive orders restricting transgender rights and funding for LGBTQ+ health initiatives and gender-affirming care. (For more on this topic, see our Transgender Healthcare page.)
• Faculty members and researchers from Harvard University,¹⁶⁰ Columbia University,¹⁶¹ and the University of California¹⁶² system¹⁶³ have filed suits, stating that cuts to their funding were unlawful, arbitrary, and made without notice or explanation. Universities themselves have not followed suit, with the notable exception of Harvard.¹⁶⁴ On September 3, federal judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration’s freeze of over $2 billion in research grants to Harvard University was illegal.¹⁶⁵ While payments for a fraction of these grants have been restored, on September 29 HHS referred Harvard to debarment,¹⁶⁶ which would cut off the university’s access to federal funds. In two separate rulings, federal judge Rita F. Lin ordered over $500 million in frozen grants¹⁶⁷ to be restored to UCLA. In a separate suit, Lin forbade the administration¹⁶⁸ from threatening to withhold federal funding and seeking payments from the University of California based on alleged discrimination. Whether or not the universities receive the money will set an important precedent for higher education.¹⁶⁹

Countermoves: Congressional opposition

Congressional representatives from both parties¹⁷⁰ have sought to bring attention to the issue:

• In February, every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed a letter (PDF)¹⁷¹ urging HHS to allow the work of the NIH to continue uninterrupted. In July, 14 Senate Republicans sent a letter¹⁷² to the Office of Management and Budget urging them to release delayed NIH funding, warning of “hinder[ing] progress on critical health challenges.”
• In May¹⁷³ and again in September,¹⁷⁴ Congress held contentious and wide-ranging public hearings¹⁷⁵ to question HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about his agency’s priorities, funding, and budget plans. In those sessions, Kennedy’s claims that they have “not fired any working scientists” and are “not withholding money for life-saving research” were repeatedly and flatly debunked.¹⁷⁶
• A bill¹⁷⁷ was introduced in the House on June 12 to unfreeze NIH medical research funding and prevent grant terminations.
• The US Government Accountability Office sharply criticized¹⁷⁸ the inappropriate application of impoundment by the NIH and HHS, concluding that the NIH’s withholding of grant funding was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act.

Countermoves: Community campaigns & resilience efforts

Tracking grant terminations, delays and reinstatements

• The government is not providing an accurate, transparent accounting of grant terminations and delays. Instead, journalists and others are relying on Grant Witness¹⁷⁹ (previously called Grant Watch). Volunteer data scientists have built this massive database to track the status and total number of delayed, terminated, and reinstated research grants. The database is constantly updated from crowdsourced records and official reports.

Resistance from professional groups

• In addition to leading several lawsuits against the administration, local chapters of professional unions are collectively bargaining to stand up for their most severely affected members.¹⁸⁰ In addition to lawsuits, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published a report¹⁸¹ documenting federal and state-level attacks on academic freedom, and launched a PAC¹⁸² to increase its political involvement.
• Professionals are digging into the procedural specifics of grant rules¹⁸³ in order to pursue administrative or legal appeals to unlawful terminations. As institutions have begun contesting terminations, there have been haphazard reinstatements of grants,¹⁸⁴ often quietly and without clear explanation.¹⁸⁵ Public outcry has possibly contributed to high-profile reversals like the one for the flagship Women’s Health Initiative.¹⁸⁶
• Faculty in the Big Ten conference have been pushing their universities to pool legal and financial resources in mutual defense compacts.¹⁸⁷ At least 7 of the 18 Big Ten institutions¹⁸⁸ have voted to join.

Alternative funding

• Many universities are deploying internal “bridge” funding to support research labs¹⁸⁹ that have suddenly lost their grants. In nearly all cases, these emergency funds are a short-term, stopgap measure; they do not replace the entirety of the lost funding.
• Researchers whose grants have been canceled are sharing ideas¹⁹⁰ for alternative strategies to continue their scholarly work. Some have turned to philanthropic support from organizations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.¹⁹¹ The Gates Foundation also announced that they are ramping up funding — aiming to spend down most of their endowment by 2045¹⁹² — but warned that philanthropy cannot compensate for the massive cuts in US health funding.¹⁹³ Some labs are even crowdfunding their work.¹⁹⁴

Protest actions

• Graduate students launched Stand Up for Science¹⁹⁵ in February and immediately began drawing large crowds to dozens of local and national protests.¹⁹⁶ The grassroots organization coordinated large-scale partnerships and actions via the Summer Fight for Science.¹⁹⁷ Among their key demands are an end to political interference and censorship of science, the full restoration of funding, and a 20% increase in federal funding for science over the next three years.
• A coalition of student, faculty, and educational workers’ groups organized a nationwide rally¹⁹⁸ protesting the administration’s attacks on higher education and calling on university administrators and elected officials to reject the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”
• Scientists are coordinating to publish op-eds in their hometown newspapers¹⁹⁹ and share public letters²⁰⁰ describing the community impact of their research. Hundreds of graduate students have written letters.²⁰¹
• Thousands of scientists, academics, physicians, and researchers have signed an open letter²⁰² opposing the administration’s executive order about “restoring a gold standard for science.”²⁰³
• NIH, NSF, EPA, and NASA employees²⁰⁴ have all signed agency-specific open letters that have collected tens of thousands of signatures.²⁰⁵
• Williams College²⁰⁶ and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists²⁰⁷ have publicly declined federal funding, naming the terms of the awards as incompatible with the organizations’ core values of academic freedom, diversity, and equity.

Attack: Budget cuts & cost controls

Last updated: November 20, 2025

The future of the budget for medical research funding remains uncertain, under repeated threats of cuts and changes to administrative processes.

The proposed 2026 NIH budget request²⁰⁸ slashes NIH funding by 43% compared to 2025 — an $11.6 billion cut in funding — to $15.1 billion. This includes funding nearly 1,800 fewer grants, providing $359 million less toward researcher training (down to $655 million), and making a $1.3 billion cut in the NIH’s own intramural research work (down to $3.6 billion). This would leave the NIH with the smallest budget it has had in more than 20 years²⁰⁹ — longer if we adjust for actual spending power.²¹⁰ Economists have calculated that over the next 25 years, the proposed NIH budget would reduce spending by $500 billion but cost $8.2 trillion in lost life expectancy.²¹¹

In February, the NIH attempted to cap “indirect rates” at 15%.²¹² Indirect costs refer to all the overhead expenses,²¹³ like facilities and administrative costs, that research institutions incur. Indirect rates reflect documented historical costs and cost analysis; they are routinely renegotiated by HHS to reflect the specific context of each institution.²¹⁴ Some universities have indirect rates of 60% or more, but the average is 28%.²¹⁵ This means that, on average, for every $100 a researcher receives to cover project staff and supplies, the institution needs $28 to cover the costs of personnel, buildings, libraries, and everything else it needs to keep operating.

Where this stands

• Instead of supporting proposed cuts to the NIH, the Senate Appropriations Committee put forward an increase of $400 million.²¹⁶ The bipartisan move raised hopes in the scientific community. On September 9, 2025, the House Appropriations Committee maintained the NIH base budget at $48 billion.²¹⁷ Budget discussions were halted by the government shutdown on October 1, 2025.
• The proposed 15% cap on research overhead (“indirect costs”) was blocked by a judge²¹⁸ on April 4; the administration has appealed the injunction. The 15% indirect costs cap²¹⁹ was also rejected in the Senate Appropriations bill.
• In some cases, entire lines of politically disfavored medical research — such as the health impacts of climate change²²⁰ — have been cut from future budgets.

Countermoves

• Researchers have built SCIMaP,²²¹ an interactive tool allowing people to explore the consequences of indirect-funding cuts in terms of job losses and economic impacts in their own states and counties.
• When the NIH attempted to cap indirect rates at 15% in February, the agency was immediately and successfully sued²²² by 22 state attorneys general,²²³ a group of academic institutions,²²⁴ and a coalition of associations representing hospitals and medical, pharmacy, and public health schools.²²⁵ The government has appealed the permanent injunction.²²⁶
• Ten national associations of universities, medical schools, and other research institutions have formed a task force to develop a more efficient and transparent model for federal funding,²²⁷ addressing concerns about indirect costs without hindering research. The Joint Associations Group (JAG) has developed provisional models²²⁸ that offer well-received alternatives to sweeping indirect-cost cuts.²²⁹
• At the local level, mutual aid and participatory action research are emerging as key solutions²³⁰ to psychosocial and other health challenges.²³¹ Community science projects, such as those monitoring air quality linked to asthma, heart disease, and other health issues,²³² build local capacity to rigorously collect and analyze data.²³³
• The Senate Appropriations Committee has rejected²³⁴ HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal to reorganize health-related programs into a new agency known as the Administration for a Healthy America.
• California Democratic lawmakers have proposed a state equivalent²³⁵ of the NIH and NSF, making use of $23 billion in voter-approved bonds to compensate for federal funding cuts.

Attack: Cutting staff & eliminating training programs

Last updated: November 20, 2025

In addition to stable funding, successful research depends on personnel, power, and a training pipeline. That is:

• the collective skills and capacities of current researchers;
• the perceived value of scientific expertise and its integration into decision-making; and
• the ability to train the next generation of researchers.

The administration is undermining all three.

Since the beginning of the year, repeated waves of deliberately cruel firings, layoffs, buyouts, and reductions in force²³⁶ have removed tens of thousands of people from federal jobs. A lack of data, reversals and reinstatements,²³⁷ and ongoing legal challenges complicate any attempt to understand how many experts have been affected, much less which jobs are vacant or no longer exist. On July 8, the Supreme Court overrode the temporary freezes that had been placed on the cuts,²³⁸ an action that is likely to lead to widespread job losses.

The researchers who do remain at the NIH are increasingly constrained and sidelined. Earlier this year, researchers were under gag orders,²³⁹ entirely forbidden from communicating externally, including with their peers²⁴⁰ at scientific conferences.²⁴¹ Meanwhile, powerful public figures are amplifying harmful narratives undermining scientific expertise.²⁴² The administration also seeks to eliminate, reorganize, and relocate the research units of the NIH in the coming fiscal year. This is a move that hundreds of biomedical research organizations oppose²⁴³ as dictating science “in violation of process and procedures.” There are 27 institutes and centers now; the target is just eight.²⁴⁴ Taken together, these changes substantially diminish the decision-making power of medical researchers who remain in their federal roles.

Funding cuts also undermine the education and preparation of the biomedical workforce. Research labs are powered by undergraduates, graduate students, and recently minted PhDs with postdoctoral research appointments. At each of these career stages, trainees are building critical skills and the necessary experience to one day run their own labs. This training pipeline is a critical priority,²⁴⁵ and it too is being dismantled. Since March, numerous training programs have been canceled,²⁴⁶ including the 2025 summer research internships at the NIH.²⁴⁷ Many of the terminated programs were specifically designed to support minoritized scientists.²⁴⁸ In addition, many trainees are paid through federal grants that were awarded to their advisors, and the loss of those monies impact the stability of early-career scientists’ research programs²⁴⁹ and their confidence in their chosen careers.²⁵⁰

Finally, the medical research workforce is vulnerable to anti-immigration policies. International researchers make up half of the biomedical workforce overall.²⁵¹ They are vital contributors to the research enterprise²⁵² and have an outsize impact on innovation and patents.²⁵³ International researchers and trainees are being stripped of their visas,²⁵⁴ detained at the border,²⁵⁵ and threatened with deportation. The US earned its biomedical dominance with a combination of intensive investments and immigration policies that brought in talent from around the world.²⁵⁶ Both are now being throttled.

Where this stands

• The government is not providing accurate, transparent reports of how many federal scientists and associated support staff have been removed from the government workforce. In addition to HHS losses, an unknown number of researchers in other agencies, institutes, and universities are affected.
• From January through August, the best estimate is that HHS lost about 20,500 workers,²⁵⁷ approximately 18% of its workforce, including 3,000 scientists and public health specialists. In some cases, entire research labs were dismantled. Amid an active outbreak, all 27 members of the CDC’s hepatitis lab were fired²⁵⁸ in April. All but one member of the only team coordinating federal research on pain²⁵⁹ were fired at the same time.
• In some cases, layoffs were subsequently reversed,²⁶⁰ though in many cases, those reinstated workers were then placed on administrative leave²⁶¹ by HHS. On July 14, however, thousands of them were permanently fired²⁶² following a Supreme Court ruling. In October, four NIH institute directors were permanently fired,²⁶³ including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Jeanne Marrazzo. Marrazzo was one of two prominent NIH scientists who had filed whistleblower complaints,²⁶⁴ alleging that they were fired²⁶⁵ for objecting to the administration’s attempts to politicize grant funding, vaccines, and other issues. In November, NIH program director Jenna Norton, one of the organizers of the June “Bethesda Declaration” critical of NIH leadership, was placed on administrative leave.²⁶⁶
• In November, the NIH posted job ads²⁶⁷ for 11 director positions, with just a two-week window for applications. Previously, NIH directors were hired following a formalized multi-step process involving both internal and external scientific experts, lasting up to 9 months.
• Conditions at the CDC have been particularly tumultuous. In mid-August, 600 employees received termination letters²⁶⁸ just days after a gunman fired more than 500 rounds into the CDC headquarters in Atlanta.²⁶⁹ Before the end of the month, newly appointed CDC director Susan Monarez was forced out of her job²⁷⁰ and three high-profile CDC directors publicly resigned²⁷¹ in protest of untenable changes in policy and attitude at the agency. Monarez testified²⁷² before the Senate that she was fired for refusing to yield to the administration’s vaccine policies.
• Universities are reducing²⁷³ PhD admissions²⁷⁴ or rescinding PhD program offers.²⁷⁵ Although applications have been re-opened for post-baccalaureate research internships at the NIH,²⁷⁶ program directors report that many NIH-funded training programs have been canceled nationwide.²⁷⁷ Following months of uncertainty,²⁷⁸ new eligibility restrictions²⁷⁹ for the National Science Foundation’s prestigious Graduate Research Fellowship Program have sparked concern among students, faculty, and research institutions.
• The University of California announced it would stop funding²⁸⁰ their President’s Postdoc Fellowship Program, established in 1984 to increase the diversity of UC’s faculty, citing budget constraints and following criticism from conservatives and pressure from the Trump administration. The decision was reversed (PDF)²⁸¹ two weeks later.

Countermoves

• A coalition of labor unions, scientific societies, nonprofit organizations, states, counties, and cities joined forces to sue the president and agency heads²⁸² over the large-scale reduction in force.²⁸³ Litigation continues after the Supreme Court allowed firings to continue²⁸⁴ in July by pausing the temporary restraining order issued on May 9 and extended on May 22.²⁸⁵
• Separately, some of those same labor unions have sued the administration²⁸⁶ on behalf of those federal employees whose dismissal letters inaccurately attributed their dismissal to poor performance.²⁸⁷ On May 3, Judge William Haskell Alsup issued a preliminary injunction. The government has since appealed. In May, a group of 19 states sued the administration²⁸⁸ over HHS Secretary Kennedy’s firing of thousands of workers and elimination of dozens of HHS departments,²⁸⁹ citing the congressional mandate to provide these services. A preliminary injunction²⁹⁰ was granted, which was appealed by the administration.
• City councils²⁹¹ and counties²⁹² are providing local information hubs for recently separated federal employees, while larger coalitions have assembled a state-by-state guide²⁹³ and legal defense network²⁹⁴ for those affected by layoffs.
• Mutual aid groups²⁹⁵ are gathering resources, connecting affected researchers to lawyers, and offering Know Your Rights training for academic communities.