Trump’s NIH Funding Cuts Spark Outrage Among Scientists

The science world’s in a tailspin right now. Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, his administration’s been swinging the budget axe at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and it’s hitting hard. A leaked 2026 budget proposal shows plans to slash the NIH’s $47 billion budget by a whopping 44%, dropping it to about $26.7 billion. That’s got researchers, universities, and even some red-state lawmakers freaking out, saying it’s gonna gut medical progress on stuff like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and HIV.

The cuts kicked off fast. By April, the NIH had already yanked at least $2.3 billion in grants, with nearly 800 projects—think HIV studies, vaccine research, and cancer trials—shut down cold. Scientists are calling it a “decimation of science,” especially since the NIH funds over 300,000 researchers across 2,500 institutions. Take Pamina Gorbach, a UCLA epidemiologist tracking HIV patients for a decade—her grant got canned, and now her clinic’s facing layoffs. “If you’re living with HIV and not on meds, you die,” she told The Guardian.

Trump’s team, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., says the cuts are about ditching “wasteful” projects, like studies on “woke” topics—think transgender health or diversity initiatives. They’ve also proposed merging NIH’s 27 institutes into just eight, wiping out ones focused on minority health and nursing research. RFK’s even pushed for a pause on infectious disease studies, which has folks like Dr. Francis Collins, former NIH head, warning that this could set American health back for generations.

The blow’s hitting everywhere, not just blue-state Ivy Leagues. About 40% of the 220 organizations losing grants are in Trump-won states like Texas, Florida, and Ohio. The University of Alabama at Birmingham, for example, could lose millions for studies on epilepsy and memory. Smaller schools and historically Black colleges are getting hammered too, with no clear way to cover the gaps.

There’s been some pushback. A federal judge in Boston, Angel Kelley, slapped a permanent block on Trump’s plan to cap “indirect costs” (like lab upkeep) at 15%, which would’ve cut another $4 billion. But the broader budget slashes? Those need Congress to sign off, and while there’s usually bipartisan love for the NIH, the current Republican-led Congress might roll with Trump’s agenda.

Scientists are sounding alarms on X, with posts calling it a “catastrophic” blow to America’s scientific edge. For now, labs are scrambling, students are losing funding, and the U.S.’s rep as a biomedical powerhouse is taking a serious hit.  Furthermore, increased tariffs are just around the corner - tough times for academic labs indeed. 

Sources: Science, STAT News, The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR