Significant cuts to federal funding for health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have raised serious concerns about the future of cancer research and treatment in the United States. Research institutions are now facing layoffs and hiring freezes, which threatens the stability of oncology research programs and broader biomedical advancements.
Since January 2025, the current administration has implemented measures to reduce workforce and budget allocations for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In February, the NIH introduced a 15% cap on grants for indirect costs, affecting funding previously negotiated at rates between 25% and 70% for many universities. According to estimates from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, approximately $2.7 billion in research grants were cut from the NIH in the first three months of 2025. Moreover, the number of NIH grant rejections has more than doubled, with over 2,500 applications denied as of now.
The impact of these budget cuts has already led to substantial workforce reductions. On March 27, 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced termination notices for 10,000 employees, including 1,000 at the NIH. Although some of these notices were later identified as errors, additional layoffs in May affected 250 NIH employees, with around 50 staff at the NCI. These layoffs coincided with the release of the administration’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget on May 2, which proposed nearly a 40% reduction to NIH funding while consolidating the agency’s 27 institutes into just eight.
Experts are concerned that cuts will have a ripple effect on the healthcare system. Dr. Daniel Spratt, chairman and professor of radiation oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, noted that the effects of budget cuts could be felt beyond academic institutions, impacting the entire health system, particularly those that are less autonomous from universities.
Despite assurances from federal officials regarding the continuity of HHS operations, reports suggest otherwise. Several scientists at the NCI in Bethesda, Maryland, have reported delays in acquiring essential supplies, while others indicate that the institute is terminating contracts necessary for maintaining biological research specimens. An article by KKF Health News highlighted interviews with over 20 current and former NCI employees, revealing widespread concern over the future of research initiatives.
While some experts do not anticipate an immediate reduction in the oncology workforce, they predict that the nature and scope of research may change. “[The cuts] may have other ramifications, particularly related to research, the types of research questions being asked, and the prioritization of projects,” Dr. Spratt stated. As a result of the uncertainty, some NIH colleagues are shifting to roles in the private sector, which may lead to a different focus in research questions and outcomes.
Historically, the United States has been a leader in cancer research, bolstered by significant federal investments in biomedical science. With the current funding landscape in flux, experts worry about potential slowdowns in progress across cancer biology, translational research, and therapeutic development. The increasing costs associated with conducting trials in the U.S. further complicate matters, as high regulatory standards drive expenses.
Dr. Spratt emphasized the need for innovative approaches to maintain research efficacy despite funding cuts. “If we assume there is a clear reduction in federal funding for cancer research, there will need to be increases in foundation support, philanthropy, and industry partnerships,” he explained. The escalating costs of clinical trials necessitate that researchers find more cost-effective solutions without compromising safety.
The shift in funding dynamics may also impact equity-focused research. While some researchers have adapted their studies to focus on socioeconomic and environmental determinants of health disparities, others have found their work scrutinized or unsupported. Dr. Spratt noted that some projects previously centered on race-based disparities are now being reframed to encompass broader social determinants of health.
To address the challenges posed by funding cuts, experts advocate for a range of strategic solutions. These include reducing regulatory burdens to lower research costs, enhancing clinical trial efficiency, and reallocating funding towards projects with significant patient impact. Improved collaboration among academia, government, and industry will also be vital in creating new funding avenues.
Dr. Spratt noted, “The system for biomedical research in the U.S. has its strengths, but there are opportunities for improvement.” He emphasized the importance of ensuring that research efforts remain viable and focused on patient benefit rather than simply maintaining funding.
Despite the challenges ahead, some experts, including Dr. Spratt, remain optimistic about the stabilization of the federal funding landscape. However, given the scale of proposed cuts, adaptability will be crucial for the research community. “We need to think critically about how to ensure our programs remain sustainable and designed to translate from bench to bedside,” he concluded. “If you’re pursuing high-impact science that benefits patients, there are still many avenues for success.”
