The National Institutes of Health has halted funding for hundreds of clinical studies, affecting more than 74,000 people enrolled in experiments across the country. A new report shows how deeply the cuts disrupted medical research, delaying treatments, stopping trials and creating uncertainty for patients who rely on new scientific progress.
A Major Setback Across the Research Landscape
Between the end of February and mid-August, funding stopped for 383 clinical studies examining treatments for cancer, heart disease and brain disease. Researchers said the cuts hit infectious disease trials especially hard, including work on the flu, pneumonia and COVID-19. These studies often guide the development of new therapies for illnesses that affect millions.
Patients Left Waiting or Without Care
The report found that the funding cuts altered patient experiences in many ways. Some participants joined trials that never began. Others faced delays as institutions looked for replacement funding. Some even lost access to medication or were left with an unmonitored device implant. Many may have taken part in studies only for their results to remain unpublished. Heather Pierce of the Association of American Medical Colleges said the disruption to the research system was “profound and substantial.”
Why These Trials Are Crucial
Study co-author Anupam B. Jena of Harvard Medical School noted that “the whole purpose of these clinical trials is to generate evidence on what works and doesn’t work in medicine.” Researchers counted 11,008 NIH-funded studies during the period examined, and about one in thirty lost funding. The interruption affects not only current patients but also future medical breakthroughs that depend on steady research.
Concerns About Public Trust
Some experts worry the sudden cancellations will make patients less willing to enroll in future studies. Jeremy Berg, former director of an NIH institute, said potential participants may question whether trials will stay funded. “Anybody else who’s ever approached about a clinical trial could easily feel, ‘Why should I be involved in this?’” he said. Trust is essential for successful research, and disruptions threaten that relationship.
Federal Response and Shifting Priorities
Andrew Nixon, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the NIH has been shifting its priorities and suggested that certain trials lost funding because they “prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people.” He added, “We strongly reject the intentionally misleading portrayal of our grant management process.”
The NIH has already cut billions in research spending under the Trump administration. A Supreme Court decision in August allowed additional reductions, especially in diversity and inclusion programs. Legal challenges continue over attempts to reduce indirect research costs.
Scientists Push Back Against the Cuts
Hundreds of NIH scientists signed a letter in June criticizing the policy changes and terminated grants. They wrote that the decisions “undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.” Their statement reflects growing concern that the cuts weaken both ongoing projects and long-term scientific progress.
The new report shows how NIH funding cuts reached far beyond administrative decisions. They disrupted research, affected patient care and slowed the search for new treatments. As legal and political debates continue, researchers and patients wait to see whether future funding will stabilize and support the work needed to improve public health.
