In a spending bill passed on March 15, President Trump has cut a significant portion of funding to major healthcare and research industries. This move is part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government and scrutinize what he views as excessive or mismanaged agency spending. Among the most significant reductions is funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest source of support for biomedical research. Budget cuts to the NIH threaten to jeopardize the future of scientific research and stall the development of new, life-saving medical innovations. With these reductions set to remain in effect through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, the long-term consequences for public health, medical progress, and America’s global leadership in science remain uncertain.
The cuts from NIH’s funding come from their indirect costs. This means that the base budget of $47.4 billion, which covers salaries and laboratory supplies, is unaffected. Instead, the cuts affect funding for “utilities, equipment, security and legal compliance”, according to the NIH grant policy statement. In early March, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to cap NIH funding after 22 states sued to stop the policy. The states that sued—including New York, California, Massachusetts, and North Carolina—are among the top recipients of NIH funding. With NIH funding cuts paused in these states, the administration instead enforced reductions by suspending grant meetings, effectively halting new funding approvals. With these cuts, universities and research institutions that rely on NIH and government funding are severely compromised, threatening jobs and halting medical advancements.
The 2016 21st Century Cures Act established the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative and the All of Us genomic medicine project. Both of these initiatives were created to address global crises in medicine and provide funding for specialized research. Last year, their funding fell by one third, but this year, their funding has been cut even further. The BRAIN Initiative’s funding has been cut from $280 million to $127 million, giving less money to foundational neuroscience research. The All of Us project has seen its budget drop 71% since 2013, bringing it to $158 million. This initiative was meant to recruit volunteers to donate DNA samples for research on diseases, but without their required funding, their recruitment strategy for the future is uncertain, as it means there is less money for transportation for individuals living in low-income areas.
Biomedical start-ups, many of which depend on federal grants for survival, have been disproportionately impacted by the continuing resolution. As government funding declines, private investment has surged to fill the void, though questions remain about whether it can fully compensate for lost federal support. Supporters of the cuts argue they will push biotech firms toward greater efficiency and long-term productivity. Critics, however, warn that slashing budgets risks stifling innovation and delaying urgently needed medical advances. While alternative funding mechanisms like the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) exist to support research outside NIH priorities, their scope is limited. Research institutions are now scrambling to secure alternative funding, but it’s unclear whether these efforts can bridge the gap left by NIH cuts or sustain the same level of scientific progress.
It is still uncertain how the Trump administration plans to reallocate funds withheld from research institutions. The lack of transparency has gained the attention of the public, who argue that it gives the administration too much power without accountability. Some members have threatened a government shutdown over the potential to jeopardize scientific progress, something the United States prides itself on. The scientific community will continue to hold their breaths as more information comes in.
