What impact did funding changes under the Trump administration have on cancer clinical trials and researchers?
Executive summary
Funding changes under the Trump administration included freezes, cancellations and proposed formula changes that advisers and researchers say removed or delayed “hundreds of millions” in cancer-related grants, cut some Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs by large shares and would cap university overhead (indirect) rates at 15%—moves critics say could wipe out billions in support for labs and programs [1] [2] [3]. The immediate, documented impacts were grant-review cancellations and pauses that created frozen awards, hiring freezes and heightened competition for remaining NIH grants [4] [5] [6].
1. What the administration changed: policy moves, freezes and caps
The Trump team imposed a temporary freeze on some NIH grant processes and cancelled or delayed research-grant reviews, moved to cap indirect-cost reimbursement for NIH grants at 15%, and targeted Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) and other line items—actions described by critics as program eliminations or large cuts [4] [3] [2]. Reporting and watchdogs say the White House also redirected or consolidated some cancer programs into other portfolios without adding new funding for those programs [7].
2. Quantities reported: hundreds of millions, 31% allegations, and the 15% cap
Multiple outlets and officials quantify the pain. Investigations and congressional statements say “hundreds of millions” in cancer grants and contracts were cancelled or payments suspended [1]. A Senate-linked claim circulated that cancer research funding fell by 31% in early 2025, and the administration’s proposed 15% cap on indirect costs was estimated by the White House to save $4 billion a year—numbers that experts warn would hollow out institutional capacity [8] [9] [3].
3. Immediate effects on researchers and trials: freezes, “frozen” grants and layoffs
Journalists and researchers report that paused reviews and frozen awards hit individual scientists hardest: grants pay salaries, equipment and lab teams, so delays create gaps that can force layoffs, hiring freezes and interrupted studies. Volunteer trackers and institutions flagged “frozen” grants that weren’t formally terminated but inaccessible, and some universities and labs reported scaling back operations [5] [7] [10].
4. Clinical trials and patient-facing research: what reporting does and does not show
Available reporting indicates that NIH-funded clinical trials already underway were generally not reported as universally paused, but concerns existed that new trials, recruitment and follow-on studies faced disruption because of funding uncertainty and program eliminations—particularly for targeted CDMRP programs such as kidney and other cancer-specific efforts [11] [2] [7]. Sources do not claim all trials stopped; rather, they document delays to grant reviews and potential future cuts that could limit new trials [11].
5. Who lost most: institutions, disease areas and “political targets”
House Democrats and reporters say the cuts disproportionately affected certain institutions and disease-area programs; watchdogs and journalists singled out elite universities like Columbia and Harvard as among those hit hard, and advocates noted the CDMRP reductions were uneven—some cancer areas reportedly lost funding entirely [7] [3] [2]. Some outlets and officials argue selection of items to cut followed political priorities such as anti‑DEI stances, though that framing is contested by the administration [1] [11].
6. Longer-term system effects: fewer funded grants, heightened competition, and program shrinkage
Stat analyses and reporting show NIH planned to fund a far smaller share of applications—examples include the National Cancer Institute reducing expected funding rates from roughly 9% to about 4%—and a shift to funding up-front rather than spreading costs, which increases short-term pressure on budgets and institutions [6]. Commentators warn reduced overhead reimbursement and program eliminations will erode infrastructure—core facilities, community outreach and training—that support clinical trials and translational research [9] [3].
7. Competing viewpoints and legal/political pushback
The administration framed some actions as cost savings and program realignment; the White House cited fiscal goals like saving $4 billion by capping indirect costs [9]. Opponents—including congressional Democrats, university leaders and advocacy groups—called the moves unlawful or politically motivated and filed lawsuits and public denunciations, arguing they will “steal” promised funds and cripple lifesaving research [3] [12].
8. Limits of the current record and what remains unsettled
Available sources document freezes, cancellations, proposed caps and reported funding losses, but they do not demonstrate a universal stoppage of all NIH-funded clinical trials; breastcancer.org, for example, reported the temporary grant freeze had been rescinded though some funds remained effectively frozen [11]. The long-term numeric toll—total dollars permanently lost to cancer research versus temporarily delayed—remains the subject of ongoing reporting and legal action [1] [12].
Bottom line: reporting from major outlets, congressional offices and advocacy groups shows concrete actions—grant-review cancellations, “frozen” awards, CDMRP cuts and a proposal to cap overhead—that immediately disrupted investigators and heightened the risk to ongoing and future cancer clinical trials and institutional capacity [4] [2] [3]. Available sources do not offer a single uncontested tally of total dollars permanently eliminated; that accounting is still evolving amid lawsuits and further reporting [1] [12].