National Institutes of Health Investment in Medical Research: Changes Under the Trump Administration

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s leading agency for funding health and medical research. Part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the NIH consists of 27 institutes and centers, each focused on a specific area of research, including cancer, mental health, infectious disease and aging. This blog explores the potential impact of NIH funding losses in Kansas for research institutions, local economies, public health efforts and the broader scientific community. This blog explores the potential impact of recent NIH funding losses in Kansas for research institutions, local economies, public health efforts and the broader scientific community.  

Overview of NIH Grants 

The NIH distributes nearly all of its annual $48 billion budget through more than 60,000 competitive research grants for 300,000 researchers across 2,500 universities, hospitals and independent research institutions. These grants fund a variety of research initiatives, such as clinical trials, health disparities research and training programs for health-related professions. In fiscal year (FY) 2023, the NIH provided funding for an estimated 410,000 jobs and contributed approximately $93 billion to the U.S. economy, representing nearly a 250 percent return on its initial investment. 

Most NIH grants are awarded through a peer-review process and often issued as multi-year commitments. Funding is usually renewed each year based on available budgets and project performance. Because of this structure, large budget reductions may result in the cancellation of previously approved research, as reflected in the $1.6 billion drop in NIH funding awarded nationally between Jan. 19 and April 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024, with terminations occurring in Kansas and across the country. 

Local Impact of NIH Grant Terminations 

Recent grant terminations have been more extensive than in the previous decade, both nationally and in Kansas. Dr. Jeremy M. Berg, former director of the NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, stated that between 2015 and 2024, annual NIH grant terminations averaged fewer than 20, typically due to illness or misconduct. However, since January, the Trump administration has cancelled over 2,100 grants for research related to diversity, equity and inclusion, racial disparities, vaccine hesitancy, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) issues, as well as over 160 clinical trials. The NIH has not disclosed the procedure or process used to halt grants. 

In Kansas, NIH grants fund a wide range of research. During FY 2024, Kansas-based research entities received $140,702,977 in total research funding from the NIH. The funding aims to support infrastructure, workforce development and competitiveness in science and technology through grants and partnerships across universities, government and industry. Not only do these funds aim to drive scientific discoveries, but they also provide funding for faculty salaries, graduate training and collaboration with community partners.   

Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, The University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) in Kansas City, Kansas, has seen one grant termination. At KUMC, the “Evaluating the HITSystem to Improve Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission (PMTCT) Retention and Maternal Viral Suppression in Kenya” grant was terminated on May 15. The grant focused on adapting and scaling an e-health tool to enhance PMTCT outcomes using algorithmic alerts to support Early Infant Diagnosis providers and short message service (SMS) texts to mothers’ phones to prompt appointment attendance. KUMC partnered with global and local collaborators — including the Kenya Medical Research Institute and Children’s Mercy Hospital — to implement and evaluate the system, resulting in improvements in early diagnosis and treatment of HIV-exposed infants and reduction in the age at which HIV-positive infants began antiretroviral therapy (ART), enabling earlier treatment. The NIH awarded KUMC with $3.5M and $3.1M had been used. The remaining $374,000 was terminated.  

Though based in Missouri, the University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC) received NIH funding for a community-based COVID-19 testing project serving African American churches in the Kansas City metro, including in the state of Kansas. The $1.99 million grant was terminated before completion, with $1.07 million spent by March 21, 2025. The remaining $920,000 was terminated.

Potential Economic Impacts of NIH Changes

Terminated grants may lead to a decrease in economic activity. The Science & Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP) created by the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with the Universities of Maryland, Utah and Oregon and the Georgia Institute of Technology, reported that, since the Kansas NIH grant has been terminated, there has been a $ 2.5 million economic loss with 11 jobs lost. 

SCIMaP also estimates that NIH guidance released in February 2025 that would cap indirect cost rates at 15 percent would lead to an annual loss of $53 million and 228 jobs (Figure 1). These projected losses reflect more than just reduced research activity; they can potentially represent a compounding impact on Kansas’ innovation capacity, local economies, and public health and research infrastructure. 

Indirect costs are the behind-the-scenes expenses that make research possible. This includes things like buildings, lab equipment, administrative support and safety systems—infrastructure that is not tied to a single experiment but supports all research activity. 

In fiscal year 2023, the NIH awarded over $35 billion in competitive grants to more than 2,500 institutions. Of that, about $26 billion covered direct research costs such as salaries for researchers, lab supplies, and data collection. The remaining $9 billion helped cover indirect costs. 

Indirect costs typically average between 27 and 28 percent of NIH total awarded costs. At many institutions, indirect cost rates can range from 40 to 60 percent. However, a proposed federal policy would cap indirect cost rates at 15 percent, significantly reducing how much support institutions would receive for maintaining research infrastructure. The NIH guidance asserted that the percent maximum indirect cost rate) and the Gates Foundation (10 percent). However, research institutions argue it could lead to job losses, reduced research capacity and less support for public health innovation. 

In April, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the NIH cap on indirect cost rates. However, on June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion related to the authority of federal courts to issue “universal injunctions,” which may impact how this lawsuit proceeds in the future.  

Figure 1. Potential Economic Impact of Federal Health Research Cuts in Kansas, 2025

Note: SCIMaP uses the Grant Watch database to track terminated grants, which includes reports from government sources and researchers. Please note that terminations (and sometimes restorations) of grants are ongoing, so data are subject to change. There can also be lags between when a grant is terminated or restored and when the change appears in the database. To estimate future economic loss, the difference between current funding for indirect costs and proposed funding was calculated with a 15 percent maximum for current NIH grants using data from a public database of NIH grants that were active in 2024.  

Source: Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP) Impact of Federal Health Research Cuts, 2025 

Responses and Challenges Related to NIH Budget Reductions   

The White House FY 2026 budget proposal includes cuts to NIH research funding by a reported $18 billion compared to FY 2024 levels.  Opposition from scientists, public health leaders and legal advocates has emerged in response to the recent NIH budget reductions and grant terminations, leading to federal court intervention. On April 2, the American Public Health Association (APHA), along with several partner organizations, filed a lawsuit challenging the cancellation of research grants related to LGBTQ+ issues and gender identity. The lawsuit came in response to the White House Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” which led to the termination of the grants.  

On June 9, more than 60 NIH employees sent a letter to NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kenney Jr. and members of Congress expressing deep concern over proposed funding cuts outlined in the FY 2026 budget proposal. The letter, known as The Bethesda Declaration, was signed by 484 current and recently terminated NIH staff and 74 Nobel laureates. It highlighted the potential consequences of the scale-back, including wasted resources, terminated near-complete research and disruptions to critical health studies, while undermining scientific integrity and peer review.  

On June 10, Dr. Bhattacharya appeared before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies to answer questions about the proposed 40 percent reduction to the NIH’s overall budget — from $48 billion to $27.5 billion. Questioned on the potential impact, he acknowledged the reductions would be significant but framed budgetary decisions as a negotiation process and asserted that an expedited appeals process is addressing paused or terminated grants, restoring some funding.  

On June 16, a federal judge ruled that hundreds of grant terminations were illegal and discriminatory and ordered funding to be restored. On June 25, NIH staff were told by a Senior Official at the NIH in an internal memo to pause the queue of grants set to be terminated. It is not clear whether the NIH had reinstated the grants affected by the ruling. 

Looking Ahead 

As the FY 2026 federal budget process progresses, the long-term effects of changes to NIH funding levels are still being assessed. While some grants have been restored through the NIH’s appeals process, other research activities remain paused or discontinued, and future funding availability remains uncertain. 

The Kansas Health Institute will continue to track developments related to NIH funding and its impact on Kansas institutions, researchers and public health programs.