The questions driving medical research – how to prevent, treat, and ultimately cure disease – are deeply personal. They touch every family, every community. But a recent shift in federal funding policies is quietly reshaping the landscape of that research, and not in a way that inspires confidence. While headlines have focused on overall National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget numbers, the real story lies in a dramatic decline in new research grants, a contraction that threatens to stall progress across a spectrum of critical health areas. It’s not simply that less money is available; the way the money is being allocated is fundamentally altering the kinds of science that get done, and the potential breakthroughs we might miss.
The data released this week by the NIH reveals a stark reality. New grants for Alzheimer’s and aging research were effectively halved, plummeting from 369 in 2024 to just 177 in 2025. This reduction is particularly concerning given the rapidly aging US population and the escalating public health crisis surrounding dementia. Simultaneously, mental health research grants experienced a 47 percent decrease, and even cancer research – a traditionally high-priority area – saw a 23 percent reduction in new funding, despite rising cancer rates among younger adults. Across all disciplines, the NIH funded roughly 1,100 fewer new research projects in 2025 compared to the previous year, moving from approximately 5,000 to 3,900. These aren’t abstract numbers; they represent potentially life-altering research projects that will now remain unfunded.
The core of the problem isn’t necessarily a lack of overall funding, but a policy change implemented in July 2025 by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Previously, the NIH disbursed grant funding incrementally, year by year, as research progressed. This allowed for a steady stream of new projects to begin. The new policy requires the NIH to pay the entire cost of multi-year grants upfront. While intended to protect funding from future budget cuts, the effect has been to drastically limit the number of new grants the agency can award. As Michael Lauer, who previously oversaw NIH grant-making, succinctly put it, “Instead of funding five grants, you now only fund one, and that means four other grants that would’ve been funded don’t get funded.” Jeremy Berg, former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, estimates this single change alone eliminated roughly 1,000 new grants.
This funding squeeze is compounded by other factors. The Trump administration also terminated thousands of existing grants, with the resulting funds reverting to the US Treasury rather than being reinvested in research. Approximately $500 million was lost to the system this way, according to Berg. Furthermore, the number of grant applications actually increased by 12 percent in 2025, intensifying competition for a shrinking pool of resources. The administration’s stated goal of reducing the size of the NIH, coupled with policies aimed at increasing “accountability,” have collectively created a climate where medical innovation is being stifled. While the administration frames these changes as streamlining and improving efficiency, the consequences for scientific progress are undeniable.
See the original vox.com story for the full account.
The concern isn’t simply that less funding is available, but that the type of research being prioritized is shifting. Nobel laureate Philippe Aghion’s work demonstrates that excessive competition in research funding can discourage truly novel ideas. When the NIH can only fund the top 5 or 6 percent of proposals, the surviving projects tend to be conservative extensions of established research, rather than high-risk, high-reward explorations. Consider the recent discovery by researchers in the UK showing a 20 percent lower risk of dementia in people vaccinated against shingles. This finding, emerging from an observational study, highlights the potential for unexpected connections and the importance of exploratory research – the kind of work that is now increasingly difficult to fund. The story of Katalin Karikó, whose pioneering mRNA research was repeatedly rejected before leading to the COVID-19 vaccines, serves as a cautionary tale. The window for unconventional ideas was already narrow; now, it’s closing further.
The long-term consequences of these funding cuts extend beyond immediate research projects. Scientists may leave the field altogether, seeking opportunities in other countries or the private sector. As Joshua Weitz of the University of Maryland points out, “Researchers who leave the field or the country to work elsewhere are unlikely to return.” Early indicators suggest 2026 could be even more challenging, with the White House delaying the release of funds already approved by Congress and awarding significantly fewer grants than usual. The most difficult loss to quantify, Berg notes, is the research that will never even begin – the potential discoveries that will remain unknown, the “beautiful island” of knowledge that will remain undiscovered.
Looking ahead, the critical question is whether the NIH can restore its capacity to fund a diverse portfolio of research, including high-risk, high-reward projects. We should be watching for whether the agency can reverse the trend of terminated grants and prioritize reinvestment in new research initiatives. More importantly, we need to understand how these funding decisions will impact the pipeline of future scientists and the long-term health of the US research ecosystem. Will the current policies lead to a generation of lost potential, or can we course-correct and ensure that the pursuit of medical breakthroughs remains a national priority?
