Decline in NIH Funding: Impacts of New Grant Review Processes

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a leading funder of medical research, is experiencing a significant decline in grant funding, falling approximately $1 billion behind previous years. This downturn has raised concerns about the agency's ability to support vital scientific projects. The NIH awarded only about 1,900 new and competitive grants from October 2025 to late March 2026, less than half the number typically granted by that point in the fiscal year during the Biden administration.

New York Times

The slowdown in funding is attributed to a new vetting process implemented by the NIH, which utilizes a "computational text analysis tool" to screen grant proposals for terms associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This initiative, part of a campaign against what the Trump administration labels "woke science," has resulted in delays and complications in the grant approval process. As a result, many proposals are left in limbo, causing frustration among NIH officials and researchers alike.

New York Times

The NIH has also faced staffing shortages, losing thousands of employees due to layoffs and early retirements. Some branches are reportedly operating with less than half the necessary workforce to process grants effectively. This has led to projections that the NIH could leave up to $500 million in appropriated funding unspent due to processing difficulties. The agency is attempting to address these issues by temporarily reallocating career scientists to expedite grant approvals.

New York Times

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has faced criticism during congressional hearings regarding the NIH's funding delays. Senator Susan Collins expressed concern over the administration's retreat from health disparities research, while other lawmakers have voiced frustration over the perceived circumvention of funds designated for scientific research. Andrew Nixon, a health department spokesman, attributed the funding shortfall to delays caused by a government shutdown and stated that the NIH is committed to obligating all appropriated funds.

New York Times

Supporters of the new grant review process, such as Roger Severino from the Heritage Foundation, argue that it is necessary to eliminate what they view as the politicization of research that occurred during previous administrations. However, critics contend that the increased scrutiny is stifling essential research, particularly in areas addressing health inequities. The new vetting process has reportedly flagged a significant portion of grant proposals, complicating the funding landscape for researchers.

New York Times

The ongoing challenges at the NIH underscore a critical juncture for medical research funding in the United States. As the agency navigates staffing shortages and new review processes, the implications for scientific advancement and public health remain significant. The NIH's ability to adapt to these challenges will be crucial in determining the future landscape of medical research funding.

New York Times

• “It means that people get fired because there is uncertainty about whether the grant will come through,” — Dr. Joshua Gordon, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University

New York Times

• “It is very frustrating to understand that this administration can circumvent dollars that were designated for our scientists,” — Senator Angela Alsobrooks, Democrat of Maryland

New York Times

• “There was a tremendous amount of bloat that grew up like barnacles on the N.I.H. research ship,” — Roger Severino, Vice President, Heritage Foundation

New York Times

There are discrepancies regarding the extent of funding delays and the number of grants awarded. While some sources indicate that the NIH is significantly behind in grant approvals, others suggest that timelines are returning to typical patterns. Additionally, the analysis of NIH grant data may be incomplete, potentially missing up to 10% of awards for the current fiscal year.

New York Times