Trump Administration Reduces NIH Grants by Over $1.8 Billion

The Trump administration discontinued its $18.1 billion grant to the National Institutes of Health within just 40 days.

This information comes from an analysis published in JAMA on Thursday, which utilizes data from the Department of Health and Human Services to monitor accountability within the government grant system.

The analysis offers the most extensive overview to date regarding the reduction of NIH funding following the Trump administration’s significant efforts to eliminate perceived waste and inefficiency in federal spending.

Michael Liu, a student at Harvard Medical School, noted that while some grants are still uncertain due to new terminations and temporary revivals due to court orders, the HHS grant tracker remains the most reliable and current dataset available.

From February 28th to April 8th, the administration processed close to 700 grants at 24 NIH labs and centers, concentrating on areas such as aging, cancer, child health, diabetes, mental disorders, and neuropathy.

“These cuts haven’t been evenly distributed,” Liu remarked. “The National Institute on Health and Health Disparities in Minority has faced the steepest reductions, with approximately 30% of its funding cut—ten times the average.”

President Trump’s upcoming budget proposal aims to eliminate all funding for the National Institute focused on health disparities among minorities, labeling the Institute as “full of DEI spending.” His January executive order called for the cessation of a program centered on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The proposal also suggests an overall reduction in NIH funding, slashing its budget for the next fiscal year to $27 billion, a decrease of around $18 billion, which would eliminate gender-focused research and studies on climate change. The administration plans to emphasize research on chronic diseases and other epidemics.

So far, most NIH grants that have been finalized have been directed toward research projects, with about 20% allocated to early career grants, training, or development. The analysis indicates that larger grants are more prone to termination, though it’s unclear if they were intentionally targeted based on the data.

“These sizable grants typically support large clinical trials and extensive research centers,” Liu explained. “Halting these initiatives is incredibly damaging, as it prevents patients from receiving necessary medications or interventions.”

Liu also pointed out that the analysis suggests that the rescinded grants are severely disrupted by both public and private institutions.

Among the grant recipients, Columbia University faced the highest number of terminations, totaling 157. The Trump administration targeted Columbia for funding cuts, citing “ongoing omissions at schools amid the persistent harassment of Jewish students” following significant Palestinian protests on campus. Columbia recently laid off 180 staff members associated with federal grants affected by these cuts.

“Columbia’s leadership continues to engage with the federal government to seek a resolution for resuming these research activities,” an official wrote in a letter to the Columbia community. “We are actively planning to address all potential contingencies, but tensions with federal authorities impact our financial situation and our research mission.