The trickle-down effect of President Trump's massive NIH budget cuts
The trickle-down effect of President Trump's massive NIH budget cuts U.S. medical research is at a precipice as President Trump proposes cutting $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Cuts to health research could impact clinical studies and trials at the NIH
The Trump administration wants to cut health spending in the coming year, and plans to cut the budget at the National Institutes of Health by $18 billion.
Trump administration officials say they are restoring trust in public health and cutting waste.
Universities said the Trump administration is marking important studies as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and mistakenly cutting their funding.
Fyodor Urnov left the Soviet Union for the United States more than 35 years ago with a dream: To become a scientist and cure rare diseases in the country that was a beacon for biomedical research.
Umrov recently was a key member of a team that used gene editing technology to treat a 'stinking cute' New Jersey baby born with a severe disability. That breakthrough, like decades of other medical research he's done, was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
But millions of dollars in NIH research has now ground to a halt at universities across the country after the Trump administration cut studies it says are driven by diversity initiatives or a fixation on COVID-19. And the remaining research stands at a precipice as President Donald Trump's budget proposes cutting $18 billion from the NIH next year – the largest cut to any single government agency.
NIH grant money doesn't sit in Washington – it gets funneled down to research universities across the country, where professors, graduate students, and doctors do their life's work. The schools include prestigious Ivy League institutions, such as Harvard University, and dozens of lesser-known private and public colleges.
'I really hope that we're going through a focused, phased of review of how funding is distributed,' Urnov said. 'I just cannot imagine a future where American biomedical research is not the shining light that leads the world.'
On Jan. 16, a federal judge in Boston said NIH's cancellation of more than $1 billion in research grants on the basis of DEI was illegal and reinstated them. He signaled he could issue a more sweeping decision in the case as it moves forward. But Trump officials say they are restoring trust in public health and cutting waste.
'In recent years, Americans have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago,' Kush Desai, a spokesman for the White House, said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is focused on restoring the Gold Standard of Science – not ideological activism … to finally address our chronic disease epidemic.'
Texas university loses virus catalog funding
The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, which receives about $150 million in NIH grants annually, has already lost $19.3 million, according to Scott Weave, the scientific director for Galveston National Laboratory.
Weaver said he's most concerned about the World Reference Center, a collection of thousands of viruses that has been preserved since the 1950s to help scientists conduct emergency research into new viral threats, such as Zika or West Nile virus. In recent years, the research focused on COVID-19.
NIH terminated the center's grant funding in full on March 24. In a letter obtained by USA TODAY, the agency wrote: 'These grant funds were issued for a limited purpose: to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, the grant funds are no longer necessary.'
Weaver said that framing is incorrect. The project on viruses isn't just focused on COVID-19. Historically, the center worked on mosquito-borne viruses, not respiratory ones. The group only pivoted briefly to help with the pandemic health emergency. He believes the grant was eliminated in error.
'I think it would've been clear if anyone with an understanding of science had read the information about of our grant that we were not a COVID grant,' Weaver said.
Research programs mistaken for DEI
Andy Johns, who administers research grants at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described a similar situation. The school lost $7.7 million in NIH contract terminations, which he said began in February but picked up pace in March and April.
The cuts include a study on how to improve tobacco regulatory science to reduce health disparities, a study to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in rural communities, a study on neurobiological susceptibility to peer pressure and drug use among teenagers, and a study on malaria in Africa.
'The ones that might sting the most are ones that get caught up because they're perceived as being involving a particular issue that they don't actually involve – where a project may have been deemed as DEI, but there's actually not a DEI focus in any way shape or form,' Johns said.
Sometimes, only a small portion of a research project involves analyzing how research affects a specific demographic, experts said, but this has been enough for the Trump administration to flag the grant as DEI.
Johns said professors involved in the defunded studies asked NIH to let them continue the underlying scientific research and simply omit the demographic analysis. But the university hasn't haven't seen much success with this approach, he said.
Weaver, the Texas researcher, mentioned a grant that helped students who graduated from small colleges that lack research opportunities get research experience before applying to PhD programs. He said NIH cut that on the grounds it was a DEI initiative.
Weaver said that while the grant may have technically fit into that category, it was 'more opportunity-based.' He lamented what stripping the campus of the program means: 'I've really taken a lot of pleasure in seeing them succeed and go on and thrive as scientists.'
Layoffs in Maryland and California
Daniel Mullins, a health outcomes professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he laid off off five people and reduced the workload of a sixth worker after NIH told them to stop work on a five-year, $9.4 million grant for a health care study.
The grant helped Mullins study how to make patients more likely to participate in clinical trials − a vital step in the approval of new medicines. He describes the program as a 'health equity hub,' but says there's no one disease or demographic of people it is specifically designed to help.
Mullins' biggest challenge has been walking into work every day and seeing people who are about to lose their jobs. 'I asked the department chair and the dean if we could just fund these people a little bit so they could at least find a job,' he said.
Kim Elaine Barrett, the vice dean of research at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, said her school lost grants aimed at building a biomedical workforce that is more representative of the population. Other terminated grants provided stipends and salaries for graduate students and junior faculty.
Barrett said the school historically received just over $200 million a year from the National Institutes of Health. She said the funding loss affects about 100 people.
"If the situation continues for much longer, and/or gets worse, then we will have to start looking at layoffs, and not just for trainees, but for lab personnel in general," Barrett said. "A lot of faculty derive some or all of their salaries from research grants."
'I wish we had better medications'
At Northwestern University, just outside of Chicago, Dr. Benjamin Singer, the vice chair for research in the Department of Medicine, said the university has been 'very gracious' in helping his research group fill in the funding gaps to keep his research group's work going.
Singer treats patients in the intensive care unit, and some of his research focuses on how a specific cell can help rebuild a damaged lung – research that can benefit people suffering from pneumonia. His group also identifies targets for potential future prescription drugs.
'I take care of critically ill patients at a high risk of dying,' Singer said. 'When they're really up against a tough spot, I think, 'I wish we had better medications. I wish we had better therapies to help your mom, your son, your daughter.''
The University of Minnesota, which reported losing 24 NIH grants as of early May, created a program to help researchers continue their work if their funding was terminated or they received a stop-work order from the federal government.
'I just can't be clear enough, however," said Rebecca Cunningham, the university's president. "There is no mitigation for the loss of federal funding.'
Contributing: Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When you lose your health insurance, you may also lose your primary doctor – and that hurts your health
When you lose your health insurance or switch to a plan that skimps on preventive care, something critical breaks. The connection to your primary care provider, usually a doctor, gets severed. You stop getting routine checkups. Warning signs get missed. Medical problems that could have been caught early become emergencies. And because emergencies are both dangerous and expensive, your health gets worse while your medical bills climb. As gerontology researchers who study health and financial well-being in later life, we've analyzed how someone's ties to the health care system strengthen or unravel depending on whether they have insurance coverage. What we've found is simple: Staying connected to a trusted doctor keeps you healthier and saves the system money. Breaking that link does just the opposite. And that's exactly what has us worried right now. Members of Congress are debating whether to make major cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs. If the Senate passes its own version of the tax-and-spending package that the House approved in May 2025, millions of Americans will soon face exactly this kind of disruption – with big consequences for their health and well-being. Someone can lose their health insurance for a number of reasons. For many Americans, coverage is tied to employment. Being fired, retiring before you turn 65 and become eligible to enroll in the Medicare program, or even getting a new job can mean losing insurance. Others wind up uninsured due to a different array of changes: moving to a different state, getting divorced or aging out of a parent's plan after their 26th birthday. And those who buy their own coverage may find that they can no longer afford the premiums. In 2024, average premiums on the individual market exceeded more than US$600 per month for many adults, even with subsidies. Government-sponsored insurance programs can also leave you vulnerable to this predicament. The Senate is currently considering its own version of a tax-and-spending bill the House of Representatives passed in May that would make cuts and changes to Medicaid. If the provisions in the House bill are enacted, millions of Americans who get health insurance through Medicaid – a health insurance program jointly run by the federal government and the states that is mainly for people who have low incomes or disabilities – would lose their coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Health insurance is more than a way to pay medical bills; it's a doorway into the health care system itself. It connects people to health care providers who come to know their medical history, their medications and their personal circumstances. When that door closes, the effects are immediate. Uninsured people are much less likely to have a usual source of care – typically a doctor or another primary care provider or clinic you know and trust. That relationship acts as a foundation for managing chronic conditions, staying current with preventive screenings and getting guidance when new symptoms arise. Researchers have found that adults who go uninsured for even six months become significantly more likely to postpone care or forgo it altogether to save money. In practical terms, this means they're less likely to be examined by someone who knows their medical history and can spot red flags early. The Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law enacted during the Obama administration, made the number of Americans without insurance plummet. The share of people without insurance fell from 16% in 2010 to 7.7% in 2023. The people who got insurance coverage, particularly those who were middle age, saw big improvements in their health. In research that looked at data collected from 2014 to 2020, we followed what happened to 12,000 adults who were 50 or older and lived across the nation. Our research team analyzed how their experiences changed when they lost, and sometimes later regained, a regular source of care during those six years. Many of the participants in this study had multiple chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. The results were striking. Those who didn't see the same provider on a regular basis were far less likely to feel heard or respected by health care professionals. They had fewer medical appointments, filled fewer prescriptions and were less likely to follow through with recommended treatments. Their health also deteriorated considerably over the six years. Their blood pressure and blood sugar levels rose, and they had more elevated indicators of kidney impairment compared with their counterparts who had regular care providers. The longer they went without consistent health care, the worse these clinical markers became. Preventive care is one of the best tools that both patients and their health care providers have to head off major health problems. This care includes screenings like cholesterol and blood pressure checks, mammograms, PAP smears and prostate exams, as well as routine vaccinations. But most people only get preventive care when they stay engaged with the health care system. And that's far more likely when you have stable and comprehensive health insurance coverage. Our research team also examined what happened to preventive care based on whether the participants had a regular doctor. We found that those who kept seeing the same providers were almost three times more likely to get basic preventive services than those who did not. Over time, these missed preventive care opportunities can add up to a big problem. They can turn what could have been a manageable issue into an emergency room visit or a long, expensive hospital stay. For example, imagine a man in his 50s who no longer gets cholesterol screenings after losing insurance coverage. Over several years, his undiagnosed high cholesterol leads to a heart attack that could have been prevented with early medication. Or a woman who skips mammograms because of out-of-pocket costs, only to face a late-stage cancer diagnosis that might have been caught years earlier. Patients whose conditions take too long to be diagnosed aren't the only ones who pay the price. We also studied how stable care relationships affect health care spending. To do this, we linked Medicare claims cost data to our original study and tracked the medical costs of the same adults age 50 and older from 2014 to 2020. One of our key findings is that people with regular care providers were 38% less likely to incur above-average health care costs. These savings aren't just for patients – they ripple through the entire health care system. Primary care stability lowers costs for both public and private health insurers and, ultimately, for taxpayers. But when people lose their health care coverage, those savings disappear. Emergency rooms see more uninsured patients seeking care that could have been handled earlier and more cheaply in a clinic or doctor's office. While hospitals are legally required to provide emergency care regardless of a patient's ability to pay, much of the resulting cost goes unreimbursed. Hospitals foot the bill for about two-thirds of those losses. They pass the other third along to private insurance companies through higher hospital fees. Those insurers, in turn, raise their customers' premiums. Larger taxpayer subsidies can then be required to keep hospitals open. For the nearly 80 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid, the program provides more than coverage. It contributes to the health care stability our research shows is critical for good health. Medicaid makes it possible for many Americans with serious medical conditions to have a regular doctor, get routine preventive services and have someone to turn to when symptoms arise – even when they have low incomes. It helps prevent health care from becoming purely crisis-driven. As Congress considers cutting Medicaid funding by hundreds of billions of dollars, we believe that lawmakers should realize that scaling back coverage would break the fragile links between millions of patients and the providers who know them best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jane Tavares, UMass Boston and Marc Cohen, UMass Boston Read more: Why do cuts to Medicaid matter for Americans over 65? 2 experts on aging explain why lives are at stake LGBTQ+ patients stay up-to-date on preventive care when their doctors are supportive, saving money and lives throughout society A brief history of Medicaid and America's long struggle to establish a health care safety net Jane Tavares receives funding from from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging, and Milbank Memorial Fund . Marc Cohen receives funding from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging and Milbank Memorial Fund .
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Trump shatters ethics norms with a Qatari jet and a $499 smartphone, experts lament Biden's ‘failure' to pass reforms
Ethics watchdogs rarely mince words about President Donald Trump. They've called him the most corrupt and conflicted president in US history. And since he returned to the White House, they've watched with horror as he privately dined with wealthy investors for his personal memecoin fund, brazenly accepted a $400 million luxury airplane from Qatar and purged inspectors general from federal agencies. Adding to their long list of gripes, the president's company announced Monday that it was launching Trump Mobile, a wireless service with monthly plans and a $499 smartphone, which would be regulated by many of the federal agencies now run by Trump appointees. That has led to soul-searching among Washington, DC's self-appointed ethics watchdogs at advocacy groups and think tanks, who are wondering how this could've been prevented. Some have championed liberal causes for years; others aren't beholden to either party but are stunned by Trump's sea-change to the ethics landscape. While they primarily hold Trump responsible for his own actions, they're increasingly concluding that former President Joe Biden also deserves some of the blame. 'The single biggest failure of the Biden administration was that he and Congress didn't pass any post-Watergate-style reforms,' said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, director of government affairs at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight. 'President Biden had zero interest in doing that, and congressional Democrats didn't have much interest.' Many of these experts, including Biden allies, say much more could've been done to get legislation across the finish line when Democrats had unified control in DC. House Democrats passed a landmark ethics and democracy bill in late 2021, but it languished. It would've banned officials from taking foreign money (as Trump has with his memecoin). It would've tightened the rules for who can serve as acting leaders at federal agencies (a loophole Trump used to install loyalists). It would've protected civil servants from being reclassified and fired (which Trump is trying to do). it would've added job protections for inspectors general (Trump summarily fired more than a dozen in January). And it would've added transparency to the pardon process (which Trump has wielded to reward allies). But one former Biden administration official faulted Trump alone. 'Blaming Biden when Trump breaches ethical norms is a prime example of the Democratic Party's problem right now,' the former Biden administration official told CNN. 'The suggestion is that the previous administration should have passed more laws? They're not following the current ones. The reality is, there is no way to Trump-proof the government.' In response to CNN's questions about Trump breaking ethics norms, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Trump is 'restoring the integrity of the Executive Branch' and claimed Trump's administration is the 'most transparent in American history.' The Office of Government Ethics didn't respond to requests for comment about how Trump is avoiding conflicts of interests. (In February, Trump fired the Biden-appointed director of the agency, who was confirmed in December by the Senate in a party-line vote.) The Trump Organization rolled out a new ethics pledge in January. Attorneys for the company said Trump won't be involved in managing his real estate empire, that they won't pursue new deals with foreign governments, and that an outside adviser would review all major deals – including deals with foreign businesses that will be allowed to continue. Trump took these steps voluntarily, 'to avoid even the appearance of any conflict,' the lawyers wrote, even though some federal ethics laws don't apply to the president, and 'neither federal law nor the United States Constitution prohibits any President from continuing to own, operate and/or manage their businesses' while in the White House. Presidents have limited time and political capital to enact their agenda. Some outside experts said it was clear that Biden prioritized other landmark laws – on Covid-19 relief, health care, climate change, infrastructure and gun control – instead of ethics reforms. 'That should have been the low-hanging fruit for Congress and the president when there was unified control,' said Daniel Weiner of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice. Hedtler-Gaudette said that during strategy sessions about reforms, Biden White House officials would often say they were doing their part by 'promoting a culture of compliance' by adhering to ethics laws. 'But compliance means you're complying with the weak set of laws that are already on the books,' Hedtler-Gaudette said, 'and not improving them.' House Democrats did pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act in December 2021, but the Democratic-run Senate never took action on the legislation. (Ten Republicans would've needed to cross party lines to break a filibuster for the Senate to even consider the bill.) 'The Biden administration did not put its weight behind that, and those sorts of reforms really need the buy-in of the administration,' Weiner said. 'It should've been a priority.' A former Democratic Hill staffer, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said ethics bills 'fell by the wayside' under Biden to make space for more pressing national needs. 'We were still in the worst parts of the pandemic. There were a lot of critical, in-your-face issues that needed to be fixed,' they said. 'We had just defeated Trump, and it was difficult for Democrats to wrap their heads around the fact that he could really come back. These ethics bills would've moved up the priority list if we had internalized that possibility.' Donald Sherman, the top lawyer at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, said Trump has redefined what the mainstream deems acceptable. 'Government corruption isn't unique to one political party,' Sherman said. 'But Trump is singular in shifting the Overton window so far, in breaking rules that most people in government could never even imagine breaking, that it's impossible to ignore.' CREW calls itself nonpartisan and has filed ethics complaints in the past against top Democrats, including under Biden. But like many 'good government' groups, it has increasingly adopted a staunch anti-Trump posture, as he keeps pushing the limits. In that vein, CREW led the unsuccessful effort to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the Constitution's 'insurrectionist ban.' These watchdog groups are looking back longingly to when Trump's power was at its nadir. Trump's approval rating tanked after the January 6, 2021, insurrection. And when Biden was sworn in, Democrats had unified control of Washington for the first time in a decade. In those early weeks of the Biden era, a bipartisan House majority voted to impeach Trump, and a bipartisan Senate majority supported the effort, though it fell short of the 67 senators needed for conviction. 'The period after January 6, in the first years of President Biden's term, was an example of a missed opportunity,' Sherman said. 'This is a glaring moment now, because the corruption of President Trump's first term has predictably escalated.'
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Cosco Eyes Stake in MSC-BlackRock Panama Ports Deal
Cosco Shipping could potentially be a new partner in the deal that would transfer two ports on the sides of the Panama Canal to Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and BlackRock. China's largest container shipping company is one of multiple Chinese state-backed companies that is in discussion to invest in the consortium to buy more than 40 ports from port operator CK Hutchison Holdings, according to a report from Bloomberg. More from Sourcing Journal Apparel Tariffs Climbed to Historic Highs in April China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here? Trump Touts Higher Duty Rate for Chinese Imports Under New Trade Deal The addition of Chinese investors emerged as a potential option as the current iteration of the deal has hit regulatory roadblocks in the country amid a power struggle with the U.S. over influence on the trade artery. The Panama Canal Authority acknowledged the sale could put the waterway's neutrality at risk. China's antitrust body is currently probing the deal after reports that President Xi Jinping was unhappy with the port sale by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison. It is unclear what stake Cosco would have if a port deal took place, or what ports it would gain control over. The deal itself followed President Donald Trump's rhetoric that the U.S. should 'take back' the canal, partly due to Washington's worries that Hutchison's ownership of the adjacent ports poses national security concerns for U.S. trade interests. But according to the Bloomberg report, the idea to include Chinese investors in the MSC/BlackRock consortium came to be after high-stakes tariff negotiations in Switzerland concluded last month between Chinese and U.S. officials. Cosco's—or any other Chinese company's—involvement could still sound off some bells due to their state-owned status, according to analysis by Drewry provided after a webinar on the deal held Thursday. 'This will be problematic in many jurisdictions, for example Cosco was limited to taking only a 24.99 percent stake in Container Terminal Tollerort in Hamburg' in 2021, Drewry said. A previous Financial Times report from early June indicates that Hutchison is also considering exploring a sale of some or all of its remaining 10 ports in greater China in a separate deal as a way to appease the U.S. and China. 'We would expect that if sold that both Cosco Shipping Ports and China Merchants Ports would be likely candidates, but there may be competition concerns here given existing strength of these companies in the Chinese port sector,' according to Drewry. A 145-day period for exclusive talks between Hutchison and the consortium ends in late July. The parties have already missed an initial goal of signing an agreement on the Panama part of the deal by early April. If a deal goes through as initially planned, it would cost $22.8 billion for the ports to switch hands, with CK Hutchison netting more than $19 billion in cash from the transaction. MSC would be the lead investor in this acquisition through its Terminal Investment Limited (TIL) terminal operator subsidiary, various reports have said. The ocean freight giant is setting itself up as the dominant figure across container shipping and port terminals if a tentative deal to acquire the Panama ports clears approval. But that remains a big if—and a resolution isn't going to come quick. 'We're going to be talking about this deal for at least a year, if not longer, while it makes its way through regulatory approvals,' said Eleanor Hadland, senior associate of ports and terminals at Drewry, during the webinar. An approved deal would thrust MSC into the position of largest global terminal operator worldwide, up from its rank of seventh in 2023, Drewry said. When including the 43 ports from Hutchison, which comprise 199 berths in 23 countries, MSC would have a terminal capacity of 196 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs), giving the firm equity interest in more than 15 percent of global capacity. 'While it's unlikely that MSC/TIL will be allowed to take over all of Hutchison's assets due to market concentration concerns from the relevant competition authorities, it's also unlikely that this would make a large enough dent in the combined portfolio to affect this final outcome of going up to first place in the rankings,' said Eirik Hooper, senior associate of ports and terminals at Drewry. The MSC shakeup would spark an uptrend of 'hybrid' global terminal operators (GTOs), Hooper pointed out. For the first time, three hybrid operators would be represented among the top five GTOs, including MSC, Cosco (fourth) and Maersk (fifth) through its APM Terminals division. Hooper acknowledged the risks of consolidation within the industry, namely for liners without terminal-operating capacity, noting that the larger ports will typically see greater alignment between ownership of the terminal and the customer base of the terminal. However, these carriers can still reap benefits in a hybrid-dominated environment, he said. 'In small-medium ports, even where terminals are operated by a hybrid GTO, they are catering to all liners calling at the port. While this may sound less than ideal, terminal service agreements specify the berth windows, productivity and price therefore minimizing the risk of 'preferential treatment' for aligned carriers,' Hooper said. 'In some markets, the investment by a hybrid operator may be motivated to improve service levels for their own shipping services, but equipment upgrades and service level improvements will benefit all users.' Sign in to access your portfolio
