
NIH funding cuts put current and future cancer patients at risk
National Institutes of Health budget cuts proposed by the Trump administration and staff layoffs at the largest funder of cancer research threaten to stall innovation, doctors and researchers said.
The big picture: Cancer remains the second-leading cause of death in the U.S. As former President Biden said Monday after announcing he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, the disease "touches us all."
For many common cancers, rates continue to rise, especially for women. And recent studies have found diagnoses for several cancers have increased among people under the age of 50, including colorectal cancer.
Yes, but: Now, potentially life-saving research faces an uncertain future, researchers say.
Zoom out: For researchers already hit hard by DOGE-driven cuts and NIH grant cancellations, the president's 2026 budget proposal with nearly $18 billion in proposed cuts posed another blow.
The American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network said in a May 2024 fact sheet that "[i]ncreased and sustained investment" at the NIH and its National Cancer Institute has been key to reducing the nation's cancer mortality rate, which the NCI says continues to decline.
A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told Axios it "remains committed to advancing cancer research and other serious health conditions."
What they're saying: However, "[t] hese are the most difficult times that we have ever experienced," Steven Rosenberg from the National Cancer Institute told PBS when asked about layoffs and budget cuts.
What is the NIH, and how does it contribute to cancer research?
The NIH describes itself as the nation's medical research agency and as the largest public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world.
It falls under the Department of Health and Human Services and is made up of 27 institutes and centers, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI).
Flashback: The NCI was established through the National Cancer Act of 1937, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Since President Nixon's declaration of a "war on cancer" in the early 1970s, research enjoyed increasing shares of federal biomedical research funding with strong bipartisan support.
The Trump administration has upended the once-bipartisan consensus on funding cancer research.
Zoom in: The NCI is the government's principal agency for cancer research and training with a team of around 3,500, according to its website.
The NCI received a total of $7.22 billion in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
What has happened to the NIH under the Trump administration?
The potential impacts of NIH cuts are in flux and far-reaching.
In February, the NIH said it would make dramatic cuts to the rate it pays for institutions' administration and overhead costs, saying it would cap the indirect cost rate on new and current grants at 15% of the total cost.
That announcement sent shockwaves through the academic research world, with some institutions receiving reimbursements of more than 50%.
Friction point: Nearly two dozen states sued in response to the administration's overhead cost cap, alleging the billions of dollars in cuts could lead to layoffs, disrupt medical trials and close labs.
A federal judge granted a temporary freeze then later made it permanent — teeing up the administration's appeal.
Beyond that, the NIH has cut funding for research and institutions that it says do not support the agency's mission, Axios' Carrie Shepherd reported, which includes some diversity, equity and inclusion studies.
Some of the terminations follow the president's anti-DEI executive orders, while other grants addressed topics like vaccination and LGBTQ+ health, KFF Health News reported in April.
A Senate committee report released last week by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) documenting what he called "Trump's war on science" found the NIH has committed $2.7 billion less to researchers through March, compared to the same timeframe last year.
The Democratic staff's analysis also reported a 31% decline in cancer research grant funding in the first three months of 2025, compared to the same timeframe in the previous year.
"[T]he Trump administration's funding freeze did not just affect new research," the report read. "Renewals of existing grants also plummeted, disrupting studies that had already gone through peer review, some of which had already started to produce results."
Yes, but: The Department of Health and Human Services, which is overseen by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., slammed the report as a "politically motivated distortion," and called Sanders' characterization of a "war on science" "unequivocally false."
What are doctors and researchers saying about the state of cancer research?
Jalal Baig, an oncologist and writer, said in a recent MSNBC op-ed that because "no two cancer centers" are alike in their "indirect" costs, "a uniform, fixed cap would disrupt or halt operations for many."
While that plan is blocked by a judge's injunction, he said job cuts have had "palpable effects," pointing to reports of treatment delays for patients using an experimental therapy fighting gastrointestinal cancers.
Kimryn Rathmell, the former director of the National Cancer Institute, told the Associated Press that "discoveries are going to be delayed, if they ever happen."
The bottom line: " Countless Americans depend on the continued progress of cancer research to save lives and improve cancer care," Baig wrote. "And without it, many potential insights and treatments needed to propel oncology forward will never be realized."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
The Bulletin June 4, 2025
The rundown: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vow to "Make America Healthy Again" could fall short when it comes to chronic disease, experts have warned. Here's how. Why it matters: Nearly 130 million Americans are estimated to have at least one form of chronic disease, which could be heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity or hypertension, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The proposed cuts to Medicaid funding and work requirements for eligibility to the benefits, which are set to come as part of the broader GOP budget bill, could leave many with chronic disease without access to vital care. As many as three in four adults enrolled in Medicaid report having one or more chronic conditions, and many are unable to work the hours needed to meet the new eligibility requirements, according to nonprofit health policy research and news organization, KFF. So, while some may be medically exempt, others will lose their health coverage, meaning their conditions could worsen without access to care. Read more in-depth coverage: Health Experts Call Out RFK Jr. Policy Changes: 'New Inconsistency Every Day' TL/DR: Experts told Newsweek that, while the Trump administration's ambition to "defeat" the "epidemic" is clear, whether its policies will help or hinder chronic-disease patients remains to be seen. What happens now? Ross Brownson, director of the Prevention Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, told Newsweek that Medicaid cuts would "likely have a detrimental effect on chronic disease risk among the most vulnerable populations," adding Medicaid-enrolled adults have significantly higher rates of chronic disease than individuals privately insured. Deeper reading Can Trump Tackle US 'Chronic Disease Crisis'? Experts Weigh In
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies
WASHINGTON — In just a few short months, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun to transform U.S. health policy: shrinking staff at health agencies, restructuring the focus of some regulators and researchers, changing Covid vaccine regulations and reshaping the mission of his department to focus more on alternative medicine. The directives are all part of the same issue set that drove a slice of health-conscious, left-leaning Americans to eventually vote for a Republican president whose favorite meal is from McDonald's, Trump and Kennedy catered to a type of voter who has grown distrustful of America's health care establishment — but possibly fomented a new type of distrust in federal health policy along the way. Bernadine Francis, a lifelong Democrat who backed Joe Biden for president in 2020 before supporting Donald Trump in 2024, told NBC News in an interview that she approves of Kennedy's efforts so far, despite his 'hands being tied' by entrenched forces in the administration and in Congress. 'From what I have seen so far with what RFK has been trying to do,' she said, 'I am really, really proud of what he's doing.' Francis is among the voters who left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump because 'nothing else mattered' apart from public health, which they — like Kennedy — felt was going in the wrong direction. Concerns about chemicals in food and toxins in the environment, long championed by Democrats, has become a galvanizing issue to a key portion of Trump's Republican Party, complete with an oversaturation of information that in some cases hasn't been proven. It's wrapped up, as well, in concerns about the Covid vaccine, which was accelerated under Trump, administered under Biden and weaponized by anti-vaccine activists like Kennedy amid lockdowns and firings in the wake of the devastating pandemic. 'We knew in order to get RFK in there so he can help with the situation that we have in the health industry, we knew we had to do this,' said Francis, a retired Washington, D.C., public school administrator, who said she left her 'beloved' career because she had refused the vaccine. 'It seemed to me, as soon as [Biden] became president, the vaccine was mandated, and that was when I lost all hope in the Democrats,' Francis told NBC News, referring to vaccination mandates put in place by the Biden administration for a large portion of the federal workforce during the height of the pandemic. There are not currently any federal Covid vaccine mandates. There have been 1,228,393 confirmed Covid deaths in the United States since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy's hand-picked commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a John Hopkins scientist and researcher, told NBC News in an interview that he wants to transform the agency, which he said faced 'corruption' over influence from the pharmaceutical and food industries. 'I mean, you look at the food pyramid, it was not based on what's best for you, it was based on what companies wanted you to buy,' he said, referring to the 1992 and later iterations of official government nutritional guidance. He said there would be 'entirely new nutrition guidance' released later this year, as soon as this summer. He praised the FDA's mission of research and regulation, saying the agency is 'incredibly well-oiled, and we've got the trains running on time.' He also highlighted the 75-page 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report — which focused on ultraprocessed foods and toxins in the environment — as having set 'the agenda for research' at the FDA, HHS and agencies overseeing social safety net programs such as Medicare and food stamps moving forward. (The MAHA report initially cited some studies that didn't exist, a mistake that Kennedy adviser Calley Means said was a 'great disservice' to their mission.) 'I think there's a lot we're going to learn. For example, the microbiome, which gets attention in the MAHA report, needs to be on the map. We don't even talk about it in our medical circles,' Makary said. 'The microbiome, food is medicine, the immune response that happens when chemicals that don't appear in nature go down our GI tract.' Pressed on other areas of the administration, like the Environmental Protection Agency, making decisions that run counter to the pro-regulatory ideas presented in the MAHA report, Makary said he can 'only comment on the FDA' where they are 'committed to Secretary Kennedy's vision.' But Kennedy's public health agenda goes beyond looking at the food supply and chemicals. Recently, Kennedy said in a video posted on X last month that the Covid vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a change in CDC guidance that skipped the normal public review period. Days later, after critics questioned the decision and raised concerns over a lack of public data behind the move, the administration updated its guidance again, urging parents to consult with their doctors instead. Pressed about the confusion and whether Americans are now trading one side of public distrust in the health system for another, Makary defended Kennedy, who has been criticized for spreading misinformation. 'My experience with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is that he listens. He listens to myself, he listens to Jay Bhattacharya, listens to Dr. Mehmet Oz, he listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance,' Makary argued, referring to the director of the National Institutes of Health and the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, respectively. 'So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking.' Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer oncologist and integrative medicine doctor — a physician who combines conventional treatments with research-based alternative therapies — has tried to help her patients wade through medical misinformation they encounter online and in their social circles. Mussallem has an incredible story of personal survival: While in medical school, she was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and, after conventional therapies like chemo saved her life, was diagnosed with heart failure. After undergoing a heart transplant, Mussallem ran a 26-mile marathon just one year later. 'I learned a lot in medical school, but nothing compared to what I learned being a patient,' said Mussallem, who dedicates, on average, 90 minutes each in one-on-one sessions with her patients. 'This is not about any one political choice. But we know lifestyle matters.' For example, a new study from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that finds eating food that lowers inflammation in the body may help people with advanced colon cancer survive longer. Mussallem's mission, along with her colleagues, is to elevate the modern medicine that saved her life, as well as encouraging her patients to live healthy lifestyles, including regular exercise, minimally processed foods, less screen time, more social connection and better sleep. But politics do get in the way for millions of Americans who are inundated daily with social media influencers and 'nonmedical experts,' as Mussallem puts it, who stoke fear in her patients. 'Patients come in with all these questions, fears,' she said. 'I've heard this many times from patients, that their nervous system is affected by what they're seeing happening in government.' Mussallem acknowledges that 'a lot of individuals out there' have questioned traditional medicine. For her, it isn't one or the other — it's both. 'We have to trust the conventional medicine,' she said. 'With the conventional care that marches right alongside more of an integrative modality to look at the root causes of disease, as well as to help to optimize with lifestyle, is where we need to be.' This article was originally published on