Soon after the advent of the second Trump administration, a 40 percent cut to the National Institutes  of Health (NIH)’s budget was proposed. The United States, a country whose medical research is  heavily reliant on federal grants, thus found itself bracing for a cataclysmic shift. In the name of “government efficiency," and with targets put on DEIB, researchers and the general public face the  looming uncertainty of research defunding. Along with the decision by President Trump to withdraw  from the World Health Organization, the proposed funding cuts not only threaten to weaken the United States’ position as first place on the world podium for life sciences research but also  undermine the health and wellness of the country's more than 300 million residents.  

     The United States is the leading country in terms of the amount of share of health sciences research it conducts [1]. Since the aftermath of World War II, America has invested heavily into medical  research, for the most part through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), founded in 1930 under the  Ransdell Act. The act’s namesake, Senator Joseph Ransdell, promoted the then-new agency as aiding human health through scientific research, essentially outlining the characteristics of  translational research [2]. With an ever-growing budget, the NIH served the mission endowed by  Ransdell. Research through the agency has led to over 100 Nobel prizes and significant developments in medical knowledge, including, but not limited to, the discovery of viral links to  cancer and the development of open-heart surgery [3].  

     Nonetheless, the share of federally funded basic research has evolved from 70 percent in the 1960s  and 70s to less than 50 percent since 2013. This decrease was led not only by “flattening” federal grants but also a strong rise in drug company spending [4]. Additionally, since 2003, while the NIH  budget has modestly risen; its budget adjusted for inflation has declined more than 20 percent. In recent years, researchers have had to face a weak research-grant proposal success rate, meaning that fewer research projects were approved for funding by the government. In 2014, the success rate was 18 percent, compared to 45 percent in 1974. This funding instability potentially causes a peak of  research projects that end in vain when funding goes down [5]. These signs of a strained system are joined by the fact that while the United States remains well in the lead in terms of the share of research it does on the global stage, that lead dipped close to 3 percent between 2023 and 2024. To contrast, China’s share in health science research went up more than 14 percent that year [1].  

     Uncertainty increased for the research community when soon after Trump’s inauguration, his administration announced it would cut spending by $4 billion a year by cutting “indirect” spending  going to medical research by putting a 15 percent cap on indirect funding. This meant a loss of funds  going to associated costs which include buildings, equipment and staff [6]. A more extreme measure  was included in President Trump’s proposed budget: a staggering $18 billion decrease in NIH  funding, equivalent to a loss of 40 percent compared to the year prior [7].  

     The devastating potential effects of such a cut cannot be overstated, including when considering  development of drugs. From 2010 to 2019, 99 percent of new drugs used some research funded by  the NIH [8]. Researchers estimated the consequences of a 33 percent cut in biomedical research  funding, finding that there would be a 15.3 percent decrease in patients associated with new drugs and 15 percent less new therapies. The decrease would hypothetically lead to a 0.24-year decrease of the U.S. life expectancy, which already stands lower than that of many developed countries. In monetary terms, with an estimated value attribute to each person per year at over $100,000, the cut would cause a monetary loss of $8.2 trillion. To add, the cut would mean less economic stimulation from NIH operations in multiple states including Pennsylvania and Missouri. As pharmaceutical  stocks would suffer losses, the stock market would have to endure a ripple effect [9]. It is hence important to consider the breadth of consequences such large funding cuts could provoke.  

     The 15 percent cap on indirect costs was eventually blocked permanently by the First Circuit of the 

US Court of Appeals in January 2026 [6]. The 40 percent decrease was not included in the budget that Congress ended up passing. Important legal struggles have pushed against these proposals, including by education and civil liberty organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union  (ACLU) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) [7].  

     While the most substantial risks to healthcare have been dodged, consequences to the world of research remain. As of January 2026, of the more than 5000 NIH grants cancelled under the Trump administration, 2000 remain in contention and are still frozen [10]. The Supreme Court held that a more than 700 million dollar cut to DEIB-related research was permitted [11].  

     Funding through 2026 lagged, and when it was eventually reinstated, it was revealed that it went to 22 percent fewer grants. This meant that grant acquisition was far more competitive. Additionally, a policy shift threatens less money and less time for research. Traditionally, the NIH would fund research grants with five annual installments and a two-year research extension could be requested. Under the new system, the NIH pays everything upfront for four years of work providing the option for only a one-year extension. This would then translate to less money on average and less time to spend it. The National Science Foundation, which is another government agency, though unlike the NIH, doesn’t solely provide grants for medical science research, has seen a 29 percent decrease in  the amount of graduate research fellowships awarded[12].

     The effects of these funding shocks on scientists cannot be overstated. Reportedly, in addition to  thousands of workers having been fired at health agencies, “many researchers are hanging on by a  thread.” Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Education Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, explained that while the grant application began normally, the administration ended up cancelling many grant review panels, leading to a loss of a year of funding for many. Kelchen abandoned the research he planned to do, showing that a year of turmoil had far reaching effects.  

     The Hill spoke to 10 researchers, and all said they feared for the future of their fields, with Heather Pierce, a senior director at the Association of American Medical Colleges, saying that the administration's changes have "significant impacts on retention, on recruiting, on training.” The attractiveness of a research career now is threatened. It is questionable that with the White House claiming that the “NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending,  misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health,” research like that regarding breast cancer at Harvard, aiming to reduce risk for Americans, has slowed. [13,14]  

     As researchers face job insecurity and reduced morale, and Americans face reduced health security, America risks paying the price on the global stage. As said prior in the article, the United States  continues to conduct the largest share of health sciences research, yet that dominance has been declining, with a 3 percent drop in share from 2023 to 2024. On the contrary, China’s share in health sciences research spiked more than 14 percent during that same time period.  

     The Association of American Universities, in July 2025, stated that at a time of already intense competition with other global powers, the Trump administration threatens to “destroy our global scientific leadership.” The Association also stated that the STEM talent pipeline is now at risk. A brain drain out of the United States is now a looming reality, without mentioning the heightened difficulty for foreign talent coming to the United States. China, Australia, Canada and Europe are all recruiting science-based researchers, with China presenting increased incentives for them [15]. 

     The world of research is facing unprecedented amounts of uncertainty, as the current executive’s commitment to research funding remains unclear. Evolutions in government policy and research institution responses to these changes will likely have a significant effect on the success of  research projects, the release of novel therapeutics, and ultimately, patient outcomes.

​Works Cited

1. Nature Index. 2024 research leaders: leading countries/territories in health sciences.  Published 2024. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/research leaders/2024/country/health-sciences/all 

2. Ledley FD. How the NIH became the backbone of US medical research. The Scientist.  Published December 28, 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.the-scientist.com/how the-nih-became-the-backbone-of-us-medical-research-73871 

3. American Medical Association. Slashing NIH funding imperils the foundation of medical  research. Published August 1, 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.ama assn.org/about/leadership/slashing-nih-funding-imperils-foundation-medical-research 

4. Data check: US government share of basic research funding falls below 50%. Science.  Published 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.science.org/content/article/data-check us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 

5. Kuehn D. The NIH funding crisis is really a biomedical research workforce crisis. Urban  Institute. Published February 9, 2015. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.urban.org/urban wire/nih-funding-crisis-really-biomedical-research-workforce-crisis 

6. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Trump Administration cuts $4 billion from medical  research funding. Climate Law Blog. Published February 7, 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026.  https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/trump-administration-cuts-4-billion-medical research-funding 

7. Bush E. Trump tried to gut science research funding. Courts and Congress have rebuffed  him. NBC News. Published 2026. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trump-science-research-funding-cuts congress-rebuffed-rcna256793 

8. Center for American Progress. How cuts to NIH research funding would hurt states.  Published 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-cuts to-nih-research-funding-would-hurt-states/ 

9. Cutler DM, Glaeser E. Cutting the NIH—the $8 trillion health care catastrophe. JAMA Health  Forum. 2025;6(5):e252791. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.2791  

10. Kozlov M, Tollefson J, Garisto D. US science after a year of Trump: what has been lost and  what remains. Nature. Published 2026. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-026-00088-9/index.html 

11. Supreme Court lets Trump cut $783 million of health research funding amid anti-DEI push.  PBS News. Published 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-lets-trump-cut-783-million-of-health research-funding-amid-anti-dei-push 

12. Bhatia A, Fan A, Smith J, Hwang I. The U.S. is funding fewer grants in every area of science  and medicine. The New York Times. Published December 2, 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/2/02/upshot/trump-science-funding-cuts.html 

13. Cochran LL. Researchers drop projects, consider switching fields after a year of Trump  funding cuts and layoffs. The Hill. Published 2026. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5692876-trump-funding-cuts-defense-education medical-research/ 

14. Bebinger M. After NIH grant cuts, breast cancer research at Harvard slowed, and lab workers  left. NPR. Published December 9, 2025. Accessed July 24, 2026. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/12/09/nx-s1-5630892/nih-nci-breast cancer-research-harvard-joan-brugge 

15. Association of American Universities. Federal research cuts threaten U.S. innovation and  leadership. Published 2025. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.aau.edu/key issues/federal-research-cuts-threaten-us-innovation-and-leadership