By Kritika Agarwal
A series of new proposals and policy changes are creating fresh uncertainty for university researchers who rely on funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to conduct groundbreaking scientific and medical research:
Trump Administration Proposes Massive Cut to NIH Budget
The Washington Post reported earlier this month that the Trump administration is seeking to cut the budget of the National Institutes of Health by 40% – from $47 billion to $27 billion – and to consolidate the current 27 NIH institutes and centers into eight.
In a draft FY26 budget document, the administration is proposing to eliminate some institutes entirely, such as the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the National Institute of Nursing Research. The proposal would also move the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, created in 2011 to accelerate biomedical research and bring cures faster to patients, outside the NIH to a new office in the Department of Health and Human Services. More information about the White House’s proposal, which could still see changes before it is finalized in the president’s budget request, is available in Science.
AAU supports a funding increase of $4.22 billion for the NIH in FY26. Earlier this month, the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research (which includes AAU and other organizations “representing patients, scientists, health professionals, research and academic institutions, educators, and industry”) recommended at least $51.303 billion for the NIH in the next fiscal year. The group noted that “Patients across the country – from urban centers to rural communities – benefit from medical research supported by the NIH, which serves as the foundation for nearly every preventive intervention, diagnostic, treatment, and cure in practice today.”
NIH to Require All Grant Recipients to Certify That They Do Not Operate DEI Programs or Engage in Boycotts
On April 21, the NIH released a notice stating that it is modifying “the current terms and conditions for all NIH grants, cooperative agreements, and other transaction (OT) awards.”
Specifically, the notice stated that NIH grant recipients cannot “operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion], DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility], or discriminatory equity ideology” or engage in “a discriminatory prohibited boycott.” (The latter is presumed to refer to the boycott of Israel or Israeli companies.)
The change applies to all “new, renewal, supplement, or continuation awards” going forward. There remain many unanswered questions about how NIH officials will interpret these new terms and conditions.
NIH Halts Funding to Certain Universities
The NIH has reportedly frozen all grant funding to Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, and Northwestern University. According to Stat, an internal email instructed NIH staff “to not communicate with the universities about whether or why funds are frozen.” Stat reported that the funding freeze could also extend to other universities.
NSF Announces New Priorities, Begins Canceling Grants
On April 18, the National Science Foundation published a statement from its previous director, Sethuraman Panchanathan, about the agency’s changing priorities and an FAQ on grant terminations.
In his statement, Panchanathan wrote that NSF’s activities “must aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and should not “preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.” He continued: “Research projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities.”
The accompanying FAQ noted that “Awards that are not aligned with NSF’s priorities have been terminated, including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and misinformation/disinformation.” The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) posted on X on Friday that the NSF had canceled “402 wasteful DEI grants ($233M in savings).” The New York Times reported that an analysis of canceled grants found that many were for projects identified as “questionable” in a report issued by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) last year.
The NSF also appears to have stopped awarding any new grants. Nature reported on April 17 that DOGE officials have been “given access to grant-management systems” and that they “used that access to prevent grants from receiving funding that were already approved but awaiting finalization.” An NSF spokesperson told Nature, however, that the agency “continues to issue awards.”
NSF Director Resigns
On April 24, Sethuraman Panchanathan announced that he is stepping down as the NSF director. “I believe that I have done all I can to advance the mission of the agency and feel that it is time to pass the baton to new leadership,” he wrote in a letter to the NSF staff. According to Science, while Panchanathan “didn’t give a reason for his sudden departure, orders from the White House to accept a 55% cut to the agency’s $9 billion budget next year and fire half its 1700-person staff may have been the final straws in a series of directives Panchanathan felt he could no longer obey.”
Kritika Agarwal is senior editorial officer at AAU.