logo
World's premier cancer institute faces crippling cuts and chaos under Trump administration

World's premier cancer institute faces crippling cuts and chaos under Trump administration

The Trump administration's broadsides against scientific research have caused unprecedented upheaval at the National Cancer Institute, the storied federal government research hub that has spearheaded advances against the disease for decades.
NCI, which has long benefited from enthusiastic bipartisan support, now faces an exodus of clinicians, scientists, and other staffers — some fired, others leaving in exasperation.
After years of accelerating progress that has reduced cancer deaths by a third since the 1990s, the institute has terminated funds nationwide for research to fight the disease, expand care and train new oncologists. 'We use the word 'drone attack' now regularly,' one worker said of grant terminations. 'It just happens from above.'
The assault could well result in a perceptible slowing of progress in the fight against cancer.
Nearly 2 million Americans are diagnosed with malignancies every year. In 2023, cancer killed more than 613,000 people, making it the second-leading cause of death after heart disease. But the cancer fight has also made enormous progress. Cancer mortality in the U.S. has fallen by 34% since 1991, according to the American Cancer Society. There are roughly 18 million cancer survivors in the country.
That trend 'we can very, very closely tie to the enhanced investment in cancer science by the U.S. government,' said Karen Knudsen, CEO of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and a globally recognized expert on prostate cancer.
'We're winning,' Knudsen said. 'Why we would let up, I really don't understand.'
'It's horrible. It's a crap show. It really, really is,' said an NCI laboratory chief who has worked at the institute for three decades. He's lost six of the 30 people in his lab this year: four scientists, a secretary, and an administrator.
'If we survive I will be somewhat surprised,' he said.
After a mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Government Efficiency to slash contract spending by more than a third, the cancer institute is cutting contracts to maintain precious biological specimens used in its research, according to three scientists. 'The required contract cuts are going to be devastating,' a senior scientist said.
On the NCI campus in Bethesda, Maryland, scientists describe delays in getting essential supplies — 'literally anything that goes into a test tube or a petri dish,' a recently departed clinician said — because of staffing cuts and constant changes in policies about what they can order.
Even the websites that publish new evidence on cancer treatment and diagnosis aren't being updated, because HHS fired workers who managed them. And when NCI scientists do communicate with outsiders, what they say has been severely restricted, according to documents viewed by KFF Health News. Forbidden topics include mass firings, President Donald Trump's executive orders, and 'DEIA' – diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
The turmoil at the National Institutes of Health's largest arm could haunt the country and the world for years to come.
'I really, really don't understand what they're trying to achieve,' said Sarah Kobrin, chief of NCI's health systems and interventions research branch. 'It just doesn't make sense.'
'Efforts that are lifesaving now are being curtailed,' one scientist said. 'People will die.'
Years of bipartisan support
Initially, some workers said, they thought the cancer institute might be spared. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called chronic disease — cancer is one — ' an existential threat ' to the country. Cancer research, with multiple NCI-funded breakthroughs in genetics and immunotherapy, has sidestepped the political minefields around other public health issues, like vaccination.
'People who care about cancer might be the biggest lobby in the country,' said Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, which has monitored oncology science and policy since 1973.
Count Mike Etchamendy, 69, of Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County as part of that lobby. Since 2013 he's flown to the East Coast scores of times to participate in five clinical trials at the cancer wing of NIH's Clinical Center.
'They call it the House of Hope,' Etchamendy said. Between drugs, therapeutic vaccines, and expert treatment for his rare bone cancer, called chordoma, he said, he believes he's gained at least 10 years of life. He's proud to have served as a 'lab rat for science' and worries about NCI's future.
'People come from all over the world to learn there,' Etchamendy said. 'You cut funding there, you're going to cut major research on cancer.'
In response to a list of detailed questions from KFF Health News about the cuts and chaos at NCI, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the reporting amounted to a 'biased narrative' that 'misrepresents a necessary transformation at the National Cancer Institute.' Nixon declined to elaborate but said research into cancer and other health conditions continues to be a high priority 'for both NIH and HHS.'
'We are refocusing resources on high-impact, evidence-based research — free from ideological bias or institutional complacency. While change can be uncomfortable for those invested in the status quo, it is essential to ensure that NCI delivers on its core mission,' he said.
Much of NCI's work is authorized by the National Cancer Act of 1971, which expanded its mandate as part of President Richard Nixon's 'War on Cancer.' Three of four of the cancer institute's research dollars go to outside scientists, with most of the remainder funding more than 300 scientists on campus.
And Congress was generous. Harold Varmus, one of more than 40 Nobel laureates whose work was funded by NCI, said budgets were usually handsome when he was NIH director from 1993 through 1999. President Bill Clinton 'would say to me, 'I'd like to give you a bigger increase, Harold, but your friends in Congress will bring it up.' He'd offer me a 5% increase,' Varmus recalled, but 'I'd end up getting more like 10%' from Congress.
Congress appropriated $2 billion to NCI in fiscal 1993. By 2025, funding had risen to $7.22 billion.
'Scrubbing of science'
During a May 19 town hall meeting with NIH staff members, Jay Bhattacharya, the institute's new director, equivocated when asked about funding cuts for research into improving the health of racial and ethnic minorities — cuts made under the guise of purging DEI from the government.
According to a recording of the meeting obtained by KFF Health News, Bhattacharya said the agency remained 'absolutely committed to advancing the health and well-being of every population, including minority populations, LGBTQ populations, and every population.'
Research addressing the health needs of women and minorities is 'an absolute priority of mine,' he said. 'We're going to keep funding that.' But a study considering whether 'structural racism causes poor health in minority populations' is 'not a scientific hypothesis.'
'We need scientific ideas that are actionable, that improve the health and well-being of people, not ideological ideas that don't have any chance of improving the health and well-being of people,' he said. That comment angered many staffers, several said in interviews. Many got up and walked out during the speech, while others, watching remotely, scoffed or jeered.
Several current and former NCI scientists questioned Bhattacharya's commitment to young scientists and minorities. Staffing cuts early in the year eliminated many recently hired NCI scientists. At least 172 National Cancer Institute grants, including for research aimed at minimizing health disparities among racial minorities or LGBTQ+ people, were terminated and hadn't been reinstated as of June 16, according to a KFF Health News analysis of HHS documents and a list of grant terminations by outside researchers.
Those populations have higher rates of certain cancer diagnoses and are more likely to receive diagnoses later than white or heterosexual people. Black people are also more likely to die of many cancer types than all other racial and ethnic groups.
Jennifer Guida, a researcher who focuses on accelerated aging in cancer survivors, said she recently left NCI after a decade in part because of the administration's DEI orders. According to several workers and internal emails viewed by KFF Health News, those included an HHS edict in January to report their colleagues who worked on such issues, and flagging grants that included DEI-related terms because they didn't align with Trump's priorities.
'I'm not going to put my name attached to that. I don't stand for that. It's not OK,' said Guida, who added that it amounted to a 'scrubbing of science.'
Racial discrimination is one factor that contributes to accelerated aging. 'There are a growing number of cancer survivors in the U.S.,' Guida said, and 'a significant number of those people who will become cancer survivors are racial and ethnic minorities.'
'Those people deserve to be studied,' she said. 'How can you help those people if you're not even studying them?'
In May, NCI informed leaders of the Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity, a program that links 14 large U.S. cancer centers with minority-serving colleges and universities, that their funding would be cut. The project's Notice of Funding Opportunity — the mechanism the government uses to award grants — had been suddenly taken offline, meaning NCI staffers couldn't award future funding, according to three sources and internal communications viewed by KFF Health News. These 'unpublishings' have often occurred without warning, explanation, or even notification of the grantee that no more money would be coming.
The cancer partnerships have trained more than 8,500 scientists. They're designed to address widely documented disparities in cancer care by having top medical schools place students from rural, poor, and minority-serving schools and community clinics in research, training, and outreach.
Research shows that patients from racial and ethnic minorities receive better medical care and have improved outcomes when their clinicians share their background.
'I'm from an immigrant family, the first to graduate in my family,' said Elena Martinez, a professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California-San Diego, who leads one of the partnerships with colleagues at largely Hispanic Cal State-San Diego. 'I wouldn't be here without this kind of program, and there won't be people like me here in the future if we cut these programs.'
Silencing the science communicators
In early April, when the dust settled after mass firings across HHS, workers in NCI's communications office were relieved they still had their jobs.
It didn't last. A month later, HHS fired nearly all of them, three former workers said. Combined with retirements and other departures, a skeleton crew of six or seven remain of about 75 people. 'We were all completely blindsided,' a fired worker said. NCI leadership 'had no idea that this was happening.'
As a result, websites, newsletters, and other resources for patients and doctors about the latest evidence in cancer treatment aren't being updated. They include Cancer.gov and NCI's widely used Physician Data Query, which compile research findings that doctors turn to when caring for cancer patients.
Gary Kreps, founding director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, said he relied on Physician Data Query when his father was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer, taking PDQ printouts when he met with his dad's doctors. 'It made a huge difference,' Kreps said. 'He ended up living, like, another three years' — longer than expected — 'and enjoyed the rest of his life.'
As of May 30, banners at the top of the Cancer.gov and PDQ websites said, 'Due to HHS restructuring and reduction in workforce efforts, the information on this website may not be up to date and pages will indicate as such.' The banners are gone, but neither website was being updated, according to a fired worker with knowledge of the situation.
Outdated PDQ information is 'really very dangerous,' Kreps said.
Wiping out NCI's communications staff makes it harder to share complex and ever-changing information that doctors and patients need, said Peter Garrett, who headed NCI's communications before retiring in May. Garrett said he left because of concerns about political interference.
'The science isn't finished until it's communicated,' he said. 'Without the government playing that role, who's going to step in?'
A budget to 'destroy clinical research'
Following court decisions that blocked some NIH grant cancellations or rendered them 'void' and 'illegal,' NIH official Michelle Bulls in late June told staffers to stop terminating grants. However, NCI workers told KFF Health News they continue to review grants flagged by NIH to assess whether they align with Trump administration priorities. Courts have ordered NIH to reinstate some terminated grants, but not all of them.
At NCI and across NIH, staffers remain anxious.
The White House wants Congress to slash the cancer institute's budget by nearly 40%, to $4.53 billion, as part of a larger proposal to sharply reduce NIH's fiscal 2026 coffers.
Bhattacharya has said he wants NIH to fund more big, breakthrough research. Major cuts could have the opposite effect, Knudsen said. When NCI funding shrinks, 'it's the safe science that tends to get funded, not the science that is game changing and has the potential to be transformative for cures.'
Usually the president's budget is dead on arrival in Congress, and members of both parties have expressed doubt about Trump's 2026 proposal. But agency workers, outside scientists, and patients fear this one may stick, with devastating impact.
It would force NCI to suspend all new grants or cut existing grants so severely that the gaps will close many labs, said Varmus, who ran NCI from 2010 to 2015. Add that to the impact on NCI's contracts, clinical trials, internal research, and salaries, he said, and 'you can reliably say that NCI will be unable to keep up in any way with the promise of science that's currently underway.'
The NCI laboratory chief, who has worked at the institute for decades, put it this way: 'If the 40% budget cut passes in Congress, it will destroy clinical research at NCI.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Coffee prices are already high. Trump's tariffs on Brazil could raise them.
Coffee prices are already high. Trump's tariffs on Brazil could raise them.

USA Today

time12 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Coffee prices are already high. Trump's tariffs on Brazil could raise them.

President Donald Trump has threatened a 50% tariff against Brazil, a major producer of green coffee beans. That could lead to higher coffee prices. The best part of waking up? If you're pinching pennies, it may no longer be a fresh cup of coffee. Trump on July 9 threatened a 50% tariff against Brazil, one of the U.S.'s largest suppliers of green coffee beans, starting Aug. 1. That could spell trouble for coffee drinkers, who have already seen price hikes in recent years related to supply chain constraints. "Americans are going to feel the impact of the tariffs in their morning brew. That's a very significant tax on the leading producer of coffee,' said food economist and Michigan State University professor David Ortega, adding that consumers would likely notice higher prices within months of the new tariffs going into effect. Why are coffee prices high right now? Tariffs threaten to add more pressure to an industry already navigating a recent price surge fueled by droughts in countries like Brazil and Vietnam. As of June, the average price of a pound of ground roast coffee cost $8.13, up from $6.25 the year prior and $4.52 in 2020, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 'Inventories were down, but demand is as high as ever,' said Ron Kurnik, owner of Superior Coffee Roasting, a roastery in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Kurnik, 49, said a pallet of imported green coffee beans that would have cost him roughly $6,000 a year ago runs closer to $9,000 today. He said he's also facing higher packaging costs, since most of his packaging is shipped in from China, due to tariffs. That's translated to higher prices for his customers. As of June 1, a 12-ounce bag of Superior Coffee Roasting coffee costs $13.99, up from $11.99. Kurnik warned the nearly 17% increase may be just the first in a series of pricing changes, especially if Trump's tariffs on Brazil hold. 'About one-third of our purchasing goes to coffee from Brazil. It's definitely one of our staples,' he told USA TODAY. His roastery is far from the only business that leans heavily on imports from Brazil. About 80% of U.S. unroasted coffee imports were sourced from Latin America in 2023, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with Brazil making up roughly 35% of those imports. To keep costs low, Kurnik is looking into sourcing more coffee from alternative countries like El Salvador and Colombia. He said buying from local producers isn't an option; while Hawaii and Puerto Rico grow coffee, the quantities are too low and prices too high to completely replace imports. 'It's just going to be a really bumpy ride trying to navigate where we're buying, how much we're going to be buying," Kurnik said. But 'I'm still optimistic. If you're not, you shouldn't be owning a business.' The impacts of higher coffee prices would be far-reaching in the U.S. The National Coffee Association estimates two-thirds of American adults drink coffee each day, with consumers spending nearly $110 billion on the drink each year. Price hikes are expected to be most noticeable in grocery stores, with coffee shops seeing less of an impact. Large coffeehouse chains tend to lock in long-term contracts with a diverse array of suppliers, and the final price of a store-bought latte is influenced by far more than just the price of coffee beans. "There's a lot more value-added that you're paying for at a coffee shop," Ortega said. "So it really depends on the type of coffee you're buying, where it's coming from." Still, some coffeehouses' prices are going up. Kurnik said his coffee shop, Superior Cafe, hiked prices on coffee-based drinks anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents in June. Trump wants more factory jobs in the US. But is there anyone to hire? Other morning staples are getting more expensive Other breakfast staples are also susceptible to higher prices in the months to come. Orange juice prices could be pressed higher if tariff threats hold, as Brazil is a top supplier to the U.S. Plus, high demand and curbed production from record-high temperatures in Japan are driving up prices for matcha, another staple at coffee shops, according to Reuters. Ortega said other caffeinated drinks, such as energy drinks or soda, could see a boost from higher coffee prices on the margin, but 'there's really no easy substitute for a morning cup of coffee for most people.' 'When it comes to our coffee culture, coffee is the predominant source of caffeine we get in the morning in the U.S.,' he said. This year's coffee prices will ultimately depend on whether tariffs hold. In June, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told the Wall Street Journal the Trump administration may consider exceptions for produce that can't easily be grown within the U.S., including coffee.

Trump bashes ‘foolish Republicans' for getting ‘duped' on Epstein
Trump bashes ‘foolish Republicans' for getting ‘duped' on Epstein

The Hill

time12 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump bashes ‘foolish Republicans' for getting ‘duped' on Epstein

President Trump on Wednesday bashed 'foolish Republicans' who he said were aiding Democrats by focusing on documents related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Trump during an Oval Office meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain repeated his claim that the documents connected to Epstein were a 'hoax' started by Democrats. Epstein was arrested on sex trafficking charges and died by suicide in 2019, during Trump's first term. 'Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net, and so they try and do the Democrats' work,' Trump said. 'I call it the Epstein hoax. Takes a lot of time and effort. Instead of talking about the great achievements we've had…they're wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems who died three, four years ago. I'd rather talk about the success we have with the economy,' Trump added. Prominent Republicans and Trump supporters, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), have in recent days called for greater transparency from the administration around files related to Epstein's case. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) called for a special counsel to review the administration's handling of the Epstein files. Trump supporters, including some now serving in his administration, have for years espoused conspiracy theories around Epstein's death and suggested the government was covering up information that connected prominent Democrats to the disgraced financier. But Trump has in recent days appeared exasperated by the fixation on Epstein. He has said Attorney General Pam Bondi can release 'credible' evidence related to Epstein, but has otherwise questioned why some of his followers are so fixated on the issue. 'Certain Republicans got duped by the Democrats and they're following a Democrat playbook,' Trump said. 'We do have bigger problems,' he added. The Justice Department and FBI issued a joint memo last week that stated Epstein did not have a client list and confirmed he died by suicide in his New York City jail cell in 2019. The findings incensed members of the MAGA movement, who have for years pushed conspiracy theories about Epstein's death and claims that prominent Democrats would be named on a client list. Epstein, accused in several cases of sex trafficking young girls, ran in high-powered circles with figures that included Trump, former President Clinton, Britain's Prince Andrew and a number of other celebrities and ultrawealthy individuals. Epstein's associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been convicted of sex trafficking.

‘Two can play that game': Newsom hits Trump push to gain House seats
‘Two can play that game': Newsom hits Trump push to gain House seats

The Hill

time12 minutes ago

  • The Hill

‘Two can play that game': Newsom hits Trump push to gain House seats

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) warned on Tuesday that 'two can play that game' after President Trump said he's vying to pick up five House seats in Texas during a mid-cycle redistricting. 'Trump said he's going to steal 5 Congressional seats in Texas and gerrymander his way into a 2026 win. Well, two can play that game,' he wrote in a post on X, linking to a clip of his experience on 'Pod Save America' in which he weighed several options on potential redistricting in his state. 'Special sessions. Special elections. Ballot initiatives. New laws. It's all on the table when democracy is on the line,' he added. Trump said on Tuesday that he thinks the Lone Star State can nab five seats for Republicans after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) called for a special session later this month, which includes redistricting, among other priorities. 'And there could be some other states we're going to get another three, or four or five in addition. Texas would be the biggest one,' Trump said. The president suggested he was fine with allowing Democratic states to redraw their own lines, opening the door to other blue states conducting mid-cycle redistricting. The push comes as Republicans are bracing for an unfavorable midterm environment, in which the president's party typically faces headwinds. California has an independent commission, which creates the state's maps. The independent commission was borne out of a 2008 ballot measure that voters passed, later updated in 2010. Whatever solution Newsom chooses to pursue, he would have to contend with working round the independent commission or getting rid of it altogether. 'I'm talking to members of my legislature, whatever our alternatives, we could do a special session. I could call for one today, if I chose to, we could then put something on the ballot, and I could call a special election,' Newsom said on the 'Pod Save America' podcast. 'We can change the constitution with the consent of the voters, and I think we would win that. I think people understand what's at stake in California.' He also suggested they're looking into the legal question of whether or not the independent commission has to be involved during mid-cycle redistricting.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store