The Fight to Protect the NIH

The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected Trump’s proposed 40% cut, but the White House is still undermining science behind the scenes.

---

Hi - I write this to cut through the noise and bring you the truth about what’s happening in science and public health. If that matters to you, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Every new subscriber helps me reach more people and do more of this work.

---

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 26–3 to advance a bill that would increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by $400 million (~1%). The vote was a deliberate rejection of a broader effort to dismantle public science. While the White House called for a 40% cut to NIH, along with a plan to restructure and consolidate the agency’s 27 institutes, the Senate’s bipartisan vote signaled that Congress still sees value in protecting medical research, cancer treatment, and lifesaving science.

After the committee vote, Senator Patty Murray said “To the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration, this committee’s resounding message is yes.”

But while this is certainly encouraging, it’s far from over.

This was just one committee vote in one chamber of Congress. There’s a long road ahead before NIH funding is finalized, and plenty of opportunities for the administration to block or reverse it, even if Congress approves the money.

But it’s worth understanding what just happened, because it’s a sharp contrast to what the White House wants, and a reminder that not everyone in government is aligned on how we treat science.

Why the Fight Isn’t Over

The Senate Appropriations Committee vote is only one stop on the path toward funding the NIH. That bill now needs to pass the full Senate, then face the House’s version, then go through negotiation between both chambers. Only after that would a final package land on the president’s desk where Trump can choose to sign it or veto it.

And while he would likely sign the final appropriations bill, the executive branch could still cancel or delay NIH funding using a rescissions package, a formal process that allows the president to ask Congress to revoke funds it already approved. Even if Congress rejects the request, the proposal can still be used to stall funding long enough to derail it, especially as the fiscal year deadline approaches. The administration has already signaled this is an option they may pursue.

Just a few weeks ago, a single footnote in an OMB apportionment memo effectively froze up to $15 billion in NIH research grants, essentially overriding Congress. The memo functioned as a quiet directive to shut down the flow of funds to universities and labs nationwide, until public pressure forced a reversal.

Even when Congress does its job and approves funding, the White House has shown it’s willing to obstruct science spending behind the scenes, which is part of a broader, years-long strategy to defund public science and shift control away from independent experts.

The Bigger Strategy

Trump proposed slashing NIH funding every year he was in office. His 2017 budget for fiscal year 2018 called for a $5.8 billion cut (nearly 20% of the agency’s budget). In 2018, he proposed cutting it by roughly $2.5 billion for FY2019. In 2019, he proposed a $4.7 billion cut for FY2020. And in 2020, his FY2021 budget requested a cut of about $4 billion. None of those cuts made it through Congress. But the message and goal to defund public science, shrink the agencies that support it, and shift decision-making away from researchers and toward political appointees was consistent.

One of the clearest articulations of this broader strategy came in the lead-up to the 2024 election, with the release of Project 2025, which was a transition blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation and other Trump-aligned groups. Though it doesn’t explicitly name NIH, the plan outlines mechanisms to dismantle scientific independence by reclassifying thousands of civil servants (including grant reviewers, scientists, and policy experts) as at-will political appointees, reorganizing agencies to strip them of autonomy, and codifying executive control over scientific budgeting.

But why target an agency that funds lifesaving research and has bipartisan support? Because weakening public science is a prerequisite for controlling it.

NIH represents the kind of institution that anti-science movements have long worked to undermine. It’s led by experts, grounded in evidence, largely insulated from political pressure, and built to prioritize public health over profit or partisanship. It operates through peer review and public accountability. And in political systems where loyalty matters more than truth, that kind of independence becomes a threat.

This strategy maps directly onto what I’ve written before on the authoritarian war on science, a playbook we’ve seen in authoritarian governments throughout history.

The Damage Already Done

While the proposed 40% cut to NIH funding is what we’re facing right now, and would be devastating if enacted, the agency is also currently being defunded through quieter, less visible means.

Since taking office, the administration has used every tool at its disposal to quietly undermine NIH’s ability to function—often without the public noticing.

According to an August report by the Government Accountability Office, more than 1,800 research grants were illegally frozen by the Trump administration, totaling over $8 billion in funding. Some were never awarded, despite being approved. Others were abruptly canceled without explanation, including projects focused on HIV prevention, maternal health, mental health care, and rare diseases. In many cases, these decisions bypassed scientific review altogether.

At least $15 billion in previously approved NIH funds remains unspent, held up by bureaucratic delays or quietly shelved in apportionment memos.

And earlier this year, the NIH announced a cap on indirect cost support for research institutions, limiting reimbursement to just 15%, which was a dramatic reduction from negotiated rates that often range from 40 to 60%. These funds help cover the infrastructure required to conduct research like lab space, staff, and compliance.

In June, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s pattern of NIH grant terminations was illegal. The court found that the White House had discriminated against grantees on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation, ordering some of the funding to be restored. But the broader damage, including delayed research, shuttered labs, disrupted careers, and decreased morale, is already done.

All this to say that even without a formal budget cut, NIH is currently operating under extraordinary uncertainty. Researchers can’t plan, institutions can’t hire, lifesaving studies are being stalled midstream, and young scientists are being told, explicitly or not, that their careers are subject to political whims.

This is how science is dismantled in real time. Not all at once, but with enough quiet disruptions that the damage becomes permanent before anyone can stop it.

What You Can Do

It’s encouraging to see that science and scientific funding still have bipartisan support in the Senate. But there’s still a big fight ahead—and it’s going to require our voices.

If you care about cancer research, maternal health, rare disease treatments, or simply having a scientific system guided by evidence and not ideology, then this fight matters.

Here’s what you can do:

• Call your senators and representatives. Tell them NIH funding matters (see the call script below). The Capitol switchboard number is: (202) 224-3121.

• Pay attention and talk about it. Most people have no idea this is happening. Share content about cuts to science, start conversations, and push back against the idea that science funding is ideological or wasteful.

• Support science advocacy groups. Organizations like American Association for the Advancement of Science or Union of Concerned Scientists are tracking this closely and pushing for transparency and protection of public science.

Call Script:

Hi, my name is [Your name], and I’m a constituent from [Your city].

I’m calling to urge [Senator/Representative] to fully fund the NIH and oppose any cuts, delays, or political interference.

NIH funding supports lifesaving research and drives medical innovation. It also delivers strong economic returns. The recent NIH economic impact report found that every $1 invested in the NIH generates $2.56 in economic activity.

Please make sure NIH funding is protected. Thank you.