As the financial ramifications of federal research cuts come into focus, several organizations are warning of the looming threat to Americans’ health.
Massachusetts has lost over $1.3 billion in terminated research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), making it one of the most impacted states by the federal cuts, according to the researchers behind Grant Witness.
Since President Donald Trump took office for the second time, the NIH has axed 760 research grants impacting scientists and research institutions in Massachusetts, according to Sept. 17 data from Grant Witness. The project compiles data from government databases, news reports and verified submissions made by affected researchers, and is thought to be an underestimate of the actual figures.
So far, 103 of Massachusetts’ grants have been ordered to be reinstated. These awards are not included in the current loss estimate provided by Grant Witness.
The state is home to several premier research institutions, such as Harvard University, an organization embroiled in a months-long legal battle with the Trump administration over the cuts. Most recently, a federal judge ruled that the government’s freeze orders and funding cancellations are to be “vacated and set aside.”
Other Massachusetts organizations that have lost federal research funding are Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston University Medical Campus and Tufts University Boston, among others.
Another severely affected state is New York, where 957 grant cancellations add up to a projected loss of $1.29 billion. To date, 221 awards have been ordered to be reinstated in New York, out of 1,178 total terminations in the state.
Other states heavily impacted by the cuts are Illinois, California, Texas, Washington and Rhode Island.
On the flipside, Wyoming, West Virginia and Delaware have been the least affected by the changes, with zero dollar losses tied to grant cancellations, according to Grant Witness.
Previously, the NIH had an annual budget of nearly $48 billion, making the agency the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. Under Trump, federal health agencies have started to pull funding for science that doesn’t align with his executive orders, which declare that the U.S. government only recognizes two sexes and demand that diversity efforts are dismantled.
Overall, it’s estimated that NIH has slashed $12 billion in research funding under Trump’s most recent administration.
The grant terminations have been the subject of numerous lawsuits. In late August, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could ax $783 million in federal research funding related to diversity issues, reversing a lower court’s decision.
However, the court blocked Trump’s anti-diversity guidance from being used to withhold future funding.
While the high court greenlit those terminations, other judges have ordered some cuts to be reversed, prompting reinstatements.
As of publication, the NIH has not responded to Fierce Biotech’s questions regarding the total amount for terminated research grants or if reinstated grant money has been delivered to recipients.
‘Slowed the search for treatments’
Pulling the funding puts Americans’ health in jeopardy, according to a Sept. 18 report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The nonprofit represents people in medical education, clinical care and biomedical research.
While other sources can provide biomedical research financing, no other organization comes close to the scope and support of the NIH. In the fiscal year 2025, the agency bankrolled vetted projects for over 300,000 researchers across more than 2,500 institutions in all 50 states, according to the AAMC report.
NIH-sponsored research served as the foundation for all 356 new drugs that scored an FDA approval between 2010 and 2019, AAMC highlights.
“The indispensable component here is the partnership between the public—taxpayers—and the universities” that conduct the research, Victor Ambros, Ph.D., told AAMC. The researcher was a co-winner of the 2024 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for discovering how gene activity is regulated. Ambros said his early research was supported by the NIH and ultimately led to the award-winning breakthrough.
“The NIH has had the strong commitment to supporting basic science with the anticipation that it might pay off in unexpected ways,” Ambros said.
Even leaders with the Knight Cancer Institute (KCI) at Oregon Health & Science University—the recipient of a recent record-breaking $2 billion donation—underscored the importance of federal financing.
KCI’s Brian Druker, M.D., who helped develop the landmark cancer drug Gleevec, told Fierce Biotech that philanthropy will never replace the collective funding power of taxpayers. The NIH’s yearly budget alone is 24 times greater than KCI’s gift, which will be paid out over a decade.
A March analysis by Science even suggests that the grant cancellations waste money, with half-spent grants and half-finished projects essentially going down the drain.
Numerous institutions and researchers have spoken out about the potential long-term effects that the cuts may have on public health.
“Disrupted funding has interrupted critical research at academic health systems and medical schools across the country—and has slowed the search for treatments for a broad range of diseases, including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and many other illnesses,” AAMC president and CEO David Skorton, M.D., said in the Sept. 18 report.
Abrupt cancellations have prompted some clinical trials to stop in their tracks, jeopardizing patient health, according to a June letter known as the Bethesda Declaration that was signed by more than 300 current and former NIH staffers.
"NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety, abruptly stopping medications or leaving participants with unmonitored device implants," the declaration reads.
On the university side, though Harvard notched a recent legal win to restore federal funding, other schools have instead signed deals with the government, agreeing to rewrite policies in order to unlock the money.
Earlier this week, The Los Angeles Times published an article detailing a settlement proposal the government sent to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The Trump administration alleged that the University of California system failed to properly handle complaints of antisemitism and is now looking to radically overhaul the university's practices.
The college system hasn’t accepted the settlement, but University of California President James Milliken detailed the potential harm that the funding loss could have in a Sept. 15 letter to the community.
“Losses of significant research and other federal funding would devastate UC and inflict real, long-term harm on our students, our faculty and staff, our patients and all Californians,” Milliken wrote. “It would also end life-saving research from which all Americans benefit.”
“The work happening across UC saves lives, drives economic growth and creates opportunity for families in every community,” he continued. “Far too many people depend on us for the university to retreat from its mission.”
The school system is continuing to work with officials to assess every option to resolve the matter, Milliken concluded.
A long road ahead
NIH’s future is muddied by uncertainty, with President Trump proposing to cut the agency’s budget by $18 billion for the next fiscal year. However, the House Appropriations Committee recently rebuffed that plan, instead approving a proposal to move forward the same funds allocated for 2025: $48 billion.
“Congress must restore full funding for NIH in FY 2026, which will allow the biomedical enterprise to fulfill its commitment to improving health for every American,” AAMC president and CEO Skorton urged in the Sept. 18 publication.
In the meantime, certain states are taking matters into their own hands.
In California, Democratic politicians want to create a state version of the NIH, according to a Sept. 13 report from The New York Times. The plan requires lawmakers and voters alike to approve a proposed $23 billion in bonds that would go toward universities, researchers and healthcare organizations.
The announcement follows Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey’s proposal to provide $400 million for research in the state.