Significant reductions in federal funding for health agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), are causing serious concern regarding the future of cancer research and care in the United States. As research institutions grapple with layoffs and hiring freezes, the long-term implications for oncology research programs and biomedical advancements are becoming increasingly evident.
Since the start of the current administration in January 2025, multiple measures have been implemented to decrease workforce numbers and budget allocations for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In February, the NIH introduced a 15% cap on grants for indirect costs, which previously ranged from 25% to 70% at many universities. According to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, approximately $2.7 billion in research grants were cut from the NIH within the first three months of 2025. Moreover, NIH grant rejections have more than doubled, with over 2,500 applications denied to date.
The impact of these funding cuts is already being felt across various sectors. A report from the Association of American Medical Colleges revealed that the NIH terminated 777 grants by May 5, 2025, amounting to over $1.9 billion in medical research funding. In response to these budget constraints, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on March 27, 2025, that 10,000 termination notices would be issued, including 1,000 at the NIH. Following this, an additional 250 NIH employees were laid off in May, with around 50 staff at the NCI affected.
Despite assurances from federal officials that operations at the HHS would not be compromised, emerging reports indicate otherwise. Scientists at the NCI campus in Bethesda, Maryland, have experienced delays in acquiring essential supplies, while some contracts to maintain biological research specimens have been cut. An article by KKF Health News, informed by interviews with over 20 current and former NCI employees, highlights these ongoing challenges.
Experts are increasingly concerned about the broader ramifications for the cancer research ecosystem. Dr. Daniel Spratt, chairman and professor of radiation oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, expressed that while there may not be an immediate reduction in the oncology workforce, the cuts could significantly impact research priorities and the types of studies conducted.
“There’s anxiety because there’s uncertainty, it’s scary, especially for those with large research portfolios and ongoing research,” Dr. Spratt stated. The historical context of the U.S. as a leader in oncology research, supported by substantial federal investments, raises concerns about potential setbacks in cancer biology and therapeutic development.
Dr. Spratt noted that if federal funding continues to decline, alternative funding avenues such as foundation support, philanthropy, and industry partnerships will be crucial. He stressed the need for creative solutions to reduce the costs of clinical trials, which have become exceptionally high in the U.S. due to stringent regulations, without compromising safety.
Equity-focused research is also at risk. Some researchers have shifted their focus from race-based investigations to broader analyses of socioeconomic and environmental factors influencing health disparities. “Some of those programs continue, but they’re under much more scrutiny. In other cases, funding has simply disappeared,” Dr. Spratt added.
Experts advocate for a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the impact of these funding cuts, which includes lowering research costs, enhancing clinical trial efficiency, and fostering collaboration between academia, government, and industry. Dr. Spratt emphasized the importance of ensuring that research continues to translate into meaningful patient benefits.
As the landscape of federal funding remains uncertain, the research community is urged to adapt and rethink how to sustain their programs. “We must navigate the current climate by aiming for a more cost-effective, robust ability to perform research that helps people,” Dr. Spratt concluded.
In the face of these challenges, there remains hope for the future. Dr. Spratt believes that high-impact science focused on patient benefit can still find success amid adversity. The resilience of the scientific community in the U.S. will be vital as it continues to strive towards advancements in cancer care and research.
