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 federal cancer research grants were reduced or canceled during the Trump administration and why?
Executive summary
Federal reporting shows the Trump administration (second term, 2025) ordered pauses, freezes, and policy changes that disrupted NIH and other federal grant programs — including a directive to cap indirect cost reimbursements at 15% and temporary pauses of grant-making — which led to cancelled, frozen, or delayed cancer-related awards estimated in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars by advocacy groups and media (e.g., withheld ~$1.5 billion during a two‑month pause; proposed 15% cap with an estimated $4 billion annual saving) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple court fights and state attorneys general actions temporarily restrained some moves, while congressional and advocacy reports catalogued numerous terminations and category-level dollar tallies (e.g., nearly $700 million in terminated NIH funding across several disease areas, including cancer, per a Senate minority report) [4].
1. What actions were taken that affected cancer grants — a concise timeline
In January–February 2025 the White House directed an across‑the‑board pause on federal grant, loan and other assistance programs and a communication freeze that delayed grant review meetings and award decisions; NIH stopped reviewing thousands of applications and paused grant-making, triggering immediate uncertainty for cancer grants and clinical trials [5] [1] [6]. Soon after, NIH/HHS announced a new policy to cap indirect (facilities & administrative) cost reimbursements at 15%, a move the administration said would save billions and which institutions warned would leave major gaps in cancer‑research infrastructure [7] [2].
2. Which specific grants were reduced, frozen or cancelled — what the coverage documents
Reporting and advocacy materials identify three main categories of impact rather than a neat list of every grant: (a) terminated or rescinded NIH awards and contracts to individual investigators and institutions — media and organizations document terminations and frozen awards affecting Columbia, Harvard and other centers and many individual grants [3] [8]; (b) halted renewals or withheld Cancer Center Support Grants at NCI — Senator Tammy Baldwin said nearly half of renewal dates early in 2025 were not awarded, citing about $47 million stopped to nine centers [9]; and (c) programmatic and congressionally directed research like parts of the Defense Department’s Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) faced proposed eliminations or major reductions for some cancer areas [10]. Aggregated totals vary: some outlets cite hundreds of millions to $1.5 billion frozen during the pause and a Sanders staff summary reported $2.7 billion in NIH reductions through March, with roughly $700 million across several disease categories including cancer flagged as terminated [3] [4] [11].
3. Why did the administration say it acted?
The White House framed actions as fiscal oversight, re‑prioritization and a crackdown on initiatives it described as ideological (for example, ending Diversity, Equity & Inclusion‑linked spending) and lowering indirect cost reimbursements to rein in “shared” institutional costs it characterized as excessive; officials estimated large savings (e.g., $4 billion annually from a 15% cap) and said agencies needed time to review programs in line with presidential priorities [7] [2] [5].
4. How do researchers, advocacy groups and courts interpret the motives and impacts?
Research institutions, patient groups and scientific societies describe the moves as disruptive or damaging: they warn of paused clinical trials, layoffs, and loss of institutional support that could slow or halt cancer science [12] [13]. Advocacy and media frames vary—some emphasize ideological targeting (e.g., claims funds cut for “woke” institutions), others stress fiscal retrenchment. Courts and state attorneys general intervened: New York’s AG obtained temporary relief blocking some cuts, and federal judges have issued mixed rulings on grant terminations, with at least one judge sharply critical of the administration’s conduct [14] [15].
5. What remains unclear or contested in available reporting
Available sources do not provide a single, definitive inventory of every cancelled NIH cancer grant by award number; reported dollar totals and affected programs differ across advocacy, congressional, media and legal documents [4] [3]. Some outlets describe reinstatements after court orders while others document additional terminations, leaving a shifting picture of which grants ultimately stayed cut versus frozen or restored [3] [11]. Several outlets note that Congress — not the executive branch — controls appropriations, complicating legal and policy boundaries [15].
6. A short read‑out on what to watch next
Watch court rulings and ongoing injunctions (state AG and federal actions), NCI/NIH public statements on award status, and congressional oversight reports that may produce a more auditable ledger of cancelled vs. restored awards; also track appropriation language that can forbid unilateral changes to indirect cost policy [7] [14] [4]. This evolving mix of litigation, administrative action, and Congressional response will determine whether the short‑term disruptions become long‑term reductions to cancer research capacity [14] [4].