Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which cancer research programs are most likely to be impacted by the 2025 budget cuts?
Executive summary
Federal budget actions in 2025 have led to large, rapid reductions in NIH/NCI funding and related programs that press experts warn will hit specific cancer research activities hard: Democratic staff analysis found about a 31% drop in cancer research grant funding in the first three months of 2025 [1] [2], and the White House’s FY2026 proposal sought a near‑37% cut to the NCI [1] [3]. Multiple organizations—academic centers, disease nonprofits and professional societies—identify clinical trials infrastructure, pediatric and blood‑cancer programs, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) and investigator support at universities as most likely to be disrupted [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. Clinical trials and trial infrastructure: the frontline casualty
Clinical trial networks require steady federal grant streams to fund trial design, patient enrollment, data cores and regulatory support; reporting from OncLive and ASCO leaders says cuts and NIH grant cancellations already are being felt across academic centers and trial infrastructure [4] [9]. The New York Times and ASCO summary analyses show hundreds of awards ended or delayed and $1.6 billion fewer in NIH grants year‑over‑year—effects that typically translate quickly into halted or slowed trials [10]. Policymakers and institutions warned that terminating these awards undermines trials that cannot be restarted easily [3] [10].
2. National Cancer Institute core research and discovery programs
The administration’s FY2026 budget proposal would reduce NCI funding sharply—nearly $2.7 billion or roughly 37% in some reports—which associations and investigators say threatens core NCI programs that fund basic biology, early‑stage translational work and large cooperative group studies [3] [1] [11]. AACR, AACI and other groups framed the cuts as putting the “future of cancer research” at risk by shrinking the central federal engine that seeds many university and hospital labs [12] [11].
3. Pediatric cancer research — concentrated, vulnerable programs
Pediatric cancer research was flagged by CureSearch and other advocates as especially vulnerable to the 2025 budget maneuvers because pediatric work depends heavily on stable federal and programmatic funding; even with some legislative wins like the Kids First reauthorization, advocates say other slashed provisions threaten accessibility and drug‑development pipelines for children [5]. PanCAN and other disease groups similarly warned that specialized programs (for example the PCARP within CDMRP) face steep percentage cuts that disproportionately affect rare or underfunded cancers [8].
4. Blood cancers and disease‑specific investigator programs
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) and hematology leaders reported immediate across‑the‑board NIH cuts that hit blood cancer research lines and equity/access studies; LLS explicitly warned that abrupt NIH reductions disrupt current and future blood‑cancer research supported by NIH [6]. Hematology center directors told The Guardian that key research has already been “devastatingly” interrupted [3].
5. Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) and DOD disease funds
The House CR and other appropriations moves included proposals to cut CDMRP by roughly 50–57%, which funds disease‑directed research such as prostate, bladder, kidney and pancreatic cancer programs; reporting points to specific programmatic losses (e.g., PCARP) that would be cut by more than half under some proposals [7] [8]. Advocacy groups note these are not marginal pots of money but the sole dedicated sources for certain cancers, meaning cuts have outsized scientific and patient consequences [8].
6. Institutional overhead and university labs — the indirect‑cost squeeze
NIH’s imposition of a 15% cap on indirect cost rates (replacing negotiated rates often between 25%–70%) plus workforce reductions and terminated contracts affects universities’ ability to maintain cores, animal facilities and staff that undergird lab work; OncLive and AACI describe this as a systemic hit that can force program shrinkage even if direct grant dollars remain [4] [11]. Independent analyses note that when indirect reimbursement falls, institutions must absorb more infrastructure costs or cut back research capacity [4] [10].
7. Competing perspectives and political pushback
Senate appropriations actions and some congressional riders sought to block or reverse cuts: by late July 2025 the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed modest NIH/NCI increases and language to block reductions in the number of NIH grants [10]. Advocacy organizations (AACR, AACI, ACS CAN) and researchers pressed Congress to reject the president’s proposals, framing cuts as catastrophic for patients and innovation [12] [11] [13]. At the same time, the administration and HHS have stated priorities to “advance cancer research,” though independent reporting documents deep programmatic reductions and layoffs [2] [4].
Limitations and takeaway: available sources document sharp, early 2025 declines in grant awards and explicit FY2026 proposals to cut the NCI and related programs, and they consistently identify clinical trials, pediatric and disease‑specific programs (including CDMRP), blood‑cancer research, and university infrastructure as most at risk [1] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Sources do not provide a complete list of every affected lab or grant—local impacts will vary by institution and by whether Congress ultimately changes the proposed budget [10] [11].