In the spring of 2025 there were predictions of an apocalypse in scientific research.
The White House and DOGE, Elon Musk‘s government cost-saving drive, were proposing cuts of nearly 40 percent to the annual budget of around $48 billion received by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, awarding grants to colleges and medical institutions in all 50 states.
Under the plans, the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute and National Eye Institute, were to be consolidated into eight.
Elsewhere, NASA was set to lose 24 percent of its $25 billion funding, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) 57 percent of its $9 billion.
The proposed cuts were part of President Donald Trump‘s wide-ranging actions to reshape the US government, slashing wasteful federal spending, and ending support for programs aimed at promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
President Trump also tore into academic institutions for failing to rein in antisemitism on campuses, administrative inertia, and a devotion to ‘woke’ shibboleths and political correctness.
It all sparked an outcry in the research community and fears of a ‘brain drain’ to the European Union.
However, fast forward one year and the picture is very different.
Waste and duplication have been slashed, DEI has been stripped from academic institutions, and antisemitism tackled.
And, on February 3, President Trump signed a bipartisan $1.2 trillion funding package that included a budget of $48.7 billion for the NIH in the 2026 fiscal year – a boost of roughly $400 million from 2025. There are still 27 institutes and centers.
After rooting out antisemitism, waste and wokeness in scientific research, President Donald Trump increased funding for finding cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s
The new NIH budget included an extra $128 million for cancer research and an additional $100 million for studies into Alzheimer’s disease.
NASA’s budget was trimmed by only 1.6 percent, and the NSF’s by only 3.4 percent.
Trump, it emerged, had used the presidency as a ‘bully pulpit’ – a term coined by one of his predecessors Theodore Roosevelt – to get what he wanted in just one year.
In doing so, there were echoes of negotiating tactics detailed in his 1987 book The Art of the Deal. Trump set out a ‘maximalist’ position – in this case threats of extreme cuts – to force research institutions to get their houses in order.
With the issues of DEI, waste and antisemitism contained, it was then time to give them the funding needed to set America on the road to finding cures, and to winning the long-term research race against China.
The US is gearing up for a scientific research race against China
Despite noisy prognostications from academic doom-mongers on X, and much of the media, there had also been quiet support for the reforms Trump sought from within the scientific community itself.
Many had watched with frustration as their ‘woke’ leaders led hallowed institutions down political rabbit holes like ‘gender ideology.’
Those dissenting internal voices complained of ‘mission drift’ in universities and self-censorship for academics as they felt compelled to go along with a left-wing agenda, leading to ‘conformist herd-driven science’ that failed to innovate.
‘In that environment, its constituents quickly learn that certain speech carries professional risk,’ Jason Locasale, a former professor at Duke University’s medical school, wrote on X. ‘Self-censorship becomes a rational strategy for career positioning.’
He added: ‘If we get this right, we can emerge with stronger labs, more durable funding, and institutions built on resilience rather than endless expansion.
‘Short-term discomfort doesn’t mean decline. It will be the beginning of rebuilding science on firmer ground. We’ve been hearing doomsday narratives about the collapse of NIH funding. Meanwhile, universities are proudly announcing hundreds of millions in new awards.’
This month, even the left-leaning New Yorker magazine conceded that the Trump administration’s actions ‘are not nearly as unpopular as universities think they should be.’
The William H. Natcher Building on the campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland
The war to root out DEI, waste, inertia and antisemitism in research institutions began on day one of Trump’s second term and may well come to be a central plank of his legacy.
On his first day back in office, he signed an executive order for all federally funded universities to terminate DEI programs that could be in violation of civil rights laws.
Then, on Valentine’s Day 2025, the administration started sending out letters to colleges and universities further demanding that such programs be ditched.
In its effort to crack down on both DEI and antisemitism on campuses, the Trump administration also began freezing federal research grants.
The first target was Columbia University, which had $400 million canceled for ‘continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.’
Brown University had $510 million blocked, Princeton $210 million and the University of Pennsylvania $175 million. Ultimately, $2.7 billion was cut to Harvard, resulting in a lengthy court battle.
A 3D rendering of T cells attacking a cancer cell. Trump has increased funds for finding a cure for cancer
In a pincer movement, Republicans in Congress held hearings, bringing in the heads of academic institutions.
Following the October 7, 2023 atrocity in which Hamas terrorists murdered over 1,200 Israelis, a wave of anti-Israel protests had swept the nation’s college campuses.
Widely criticized congressional testimony by the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard at the time contributed to their resignations.
In one particularly jarring incident in December 2023, Claudine Gay, then the president of Harvard, sparked fury by saying it depended on ‘context’ whether calls for the genocide of Jews violated the institution’s rules.
In the later 2025 hearings during the Trump administration, it became clear that many academic leaders seemed to have heard the message the president was sending, and were making the changes that he had asked for.
Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire CEO of Blackstone and prominent science and education philanthropist, was among those who counseled leaders of major universities to demonstrate to the White House and Congress their true commitment to serious research and a sober academic culture.
In their congressional hearings, Republicans also sought to focus on lesser-known schools, going beyond the Ivy League to make sure antisemitism was removed from all campuses.
Science research funding has been boosted in 2026
In one hearing in May, Robert Manuel, president of DePaul University, and Wendy Raymond, president of Haverford College, apologized for the shortcomings of their institutions.
Manuel was questioned over why a pro-Palestinian encampment had been allowed to take over a campus quad at DePaul for 17 days in 2024.
‘My question is, if there is another encampment, are you taking it down that next day?’ asked Republican congresswoman Mary Miller.
While university leaders in the past might have equivocated, Manuel answered simply and firmly: ‘Yes.’
In a subsequent hearing, Richard Groves, the interim president of Georgetown University, was also amenable to the administration’s goal.
‘Georgetown is not perfect, and as events evolve, we’ve had to clarify rules of student behavior,’ Groves admitted.
Meanwhile, opposition from within the NIH had crystallized in the form of a letter known as the ‘Bethesda Declaration.’
A total of 92 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter along with 250 anonymous colleagues.
It was named after the city in Maryland where the NIH is headquartered and addressed to Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s appointee as Director of the NIH.
The letter said that in six months 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion had been cut, and that ‘we dissent to administration policies.’
Bhattacharya responded by explaining that the aim was to separate politics from science and, once that was done, the NIH could thrive.
‘We’re working to remove ideological influence from science,’ he wrote on X.
‘NIH funding must be based on provable, testable hypotheses, not ideological narratives. Projects that don’t meet that bar are discontinued so we can focus on rigorous, impactful research.’
Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s appointee as Director of the NIH, said ideological influence must be removed from science
While there was a focus on removing ideology from science, Russell Vought, the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, was also very concerned with waste.
In a rare interview with CBS News, Vought outlined specifically what he meant.
‘I mean $2 million for injecting dogs with cocaine that the NIH spent money on, $75,000 for Harvard to study blowing lizards off of trees with leaf blowers. That’s the kind of waste we’ve seen at the NIH,’ he said.
‘We have an agency that needs dramatic overhaul. We’re going to have to go line by line to make sure the NIH is funded properly. We will release that funding when we are done with that review.’
The summer saw a key moment when Senator Katie Britt led a group of 14 Republican senators in a letter to Vought suggesting the time had come to release NIH funding that had been paused.
Signatories to the letter included Senate appropriations committee chair Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
They said Bhattacharya and Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr were now ‘well positioned to uphold gold standard research’ by ensuring that NIH awards were ‘grounded in transparency, scientific merit, and a clear alignment with national interests.’
‘We share your commitment to ensuring NIH funds are used responsibly and not diverted to ideological or unaccountable programs,’ they wrote.
‘Our shared goal is to restore public trust in the NIH precisely because its work is focused on results, accountability, and real-world impact.
‘Ultimately, this is about finding cures and seeing them through to fruition,’ the letter said.
Republican Senator Katie Britt has been instrumental in the process of restoring public trust in science
For President Trump, a 1968 Ivy League graduate of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, there was no greater example of how his wishes were ultimately followed than by that university.
In 2022, Penn had ignited controversy after a transgender swimmer on its women’s team, Lia Thomas, won an NCAA Division I national championship.
In early 2025, grants it had been awarded under Joe Biden were identified by a congressional committee as ‘woke’ and ‘questionable’ for promoting DEI and ‘neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.’
Penn, facing the prospect of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money, set about removing DEI from its academic structure, including its websites.
It also pledged to ‘adopt biology-based definitions for the words “male” and “female”.’
The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, giving the US the opportunity to find new cures for diseases
With institutions across the country having taken similar measures, there is now a sense of accomplishment at the White House.
A White House source told the Daily Mail: ‘The Trump administration’s efforts to slash taxpayer funding of waste, fraud, and abuse in research grant spending – including for ideological pet projects – are strengthening what’s driven America’s dominance in research and development.
‘Under President Trump, the United States remains the largest funder of scientific research and home to the largest public-private ecosystem for innovation in the world.’
By the time Valentine’s Day 2026 rolled around, rather than facing cuts, the NIH was hosting Melania Trump at its headquarters in Bethesda.
The First Lady made her first visit of the second term – she had been three times in her husband’s first term – to meet children and young adults receiving treatment through clinical trials for rare and serious diseases.
She joined them for holiday-themed craftwork and chatted about their lives.
One patient told the First Lady that he did not know how to address her and wondered whether ‘Your Highness’ was an option.
With a smile, she replied that he should call her ‘Melania.’
First Lady Melania Trump visits with children receiving medical treatment at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on February 11, 2026, in Bethesda, Maryland. She joined in Valentine’s Day craft projects at the Children’s Inn on the campus of the NIH. It was her fourth visit as First Lady
Meanwhile, a report released on March 11, 2026, concluded that there had been little disruption to the NIH’s economic impact during the confrontations between the White House and academic institutions in 2025.
The report was released by United for Medical Research (UMR), a coalition of research and health organizations that advocates for increasing NIH funding.
It found that NIH funding overall had been only $360 million less in 2025 than in 2024, a difference of less than 1 percent.
In 2025, the NIH generated $94 billion in new economic activity – $2.57 for every $1 invested – supporting 390,863 jobs in all 50 states, the report found.
‘Even amid funding disruptions last year, NIH research continued to deliver extraordinary value for patients and communities across the country,’ said UMR president Caitlin Leach. ‘The return on investment is undeniable.
‘Maintaining that return requires strong and stable NIH funding,’ she added. ‘At a time when global competitors are accelerating their investments in biomedical research, America cannot afford to fall behind.
‘NIH is the foundation of our nation’s biomedical innovation ecosystem driving discovery, strengthening local economies and delivering new treatments and cures to patients who are counting on progress.’
